New York Employment Lawyer Blog

In a New York Times editorial, on February 22, 2010, the discussion centered on the upcoming case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Increasingly, strong and meritorious employment discrimination claims are being dismissed on technicalities. For instance, not filing with the EEOC, in some jurisdictions, within 300 days. The issue in the case at hand involves firefighters challenge of the decision to divide them into groups of "qualified" and "not qualified" for the purposes of a promotion exam. However, on appeal, the firefighters lost for failure to file within the 300 day window.

Hopefully, the Court can correct this decision. Yet, the Court is not the only means. Previously, in a similar situation, Congress intervened and passed legislation, the Lily Ledbetter Act, which legislatively corrected a prior decision by The Supreme Court.

A 22 year old former employee of Babies R Us is suing the company, alleging that it failed to accommodate her severe peanut allergy. Though she was originally hired to work in the furniture department, store management subsequently ordered her to work at the cash registers, where candy containing peanuts is sold.

Management ignored her concerns, and threatened to terminate her if she did not work the cash register. When a customer who was checking out began eating a candy containing peanuts, the employee was immediately sent to the emergency room in severe anaphylactic shock. Her reaction to peanuts is so severe, she states, “I’m not able to smell it, and if I do, I could die.” Her attorney states that her allergy is so severe that it falls under the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The original article containing this story can be found here

In a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against females who applied for entry level warehouse positions at its Kentucky distribution center. Hiring officials supposedly told applicants that positions would not be offered to females and that the company mainly hired males between the ages of 18-25. The EEOC now reports that Wal-Mart has agreed to a settlement of $11.7 million for these claims.

In addition to the large monetary settlement, Wal-Mart has agreed to hire females at the Kentucky distribution center, post a notice of non-discrimination at its facilities, train its hiring officials to use validated questions for interviewing warehouse applicants, and file compliance reports with the EEOC. In commenting on the case, acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru stated, “Let this major settlement serve as a warning: Employers must stop engaging in these outdated and sexist practices, or they will face severe legal consequences.”

The New York office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has made its determination that a major airline's actions of allowing some employees to take "light duty" assignments and not permitting pregnant employees to do the same is discriminatory as a result of gender.

The plaintiff in the case raised violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC found that by having a pregnant employee who is capable of working with some limitations and not allowing them to do so, is treating them differently than those who are not pregnant - which is discriminatory.

In the employment setting, pregnant women are often the most vulnerable to discrimination and ultimate termination as many employers view them as less than capable to do their job and have concerns that they will be away from the workplace while giving birth.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a civil suit under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act on behalf of a homosexual teenager, alleging that a northern New York school district, discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation. Title IX provides that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

The victim claims he suffered “relentless harassment” and threats of violence because of his sexual orientation, yet school officials did nothing to protect him. The Department of Justice testified on the teen’s behalf, and argued that the Civil Rights Act affords protection against sexual discrimination in gender identity cases, thus affording protection to homosexuals. The ACLU was pleased with the DoJ’s testimony, stating it was a “significant development” in the case.

The New York Post is reporting that a former waitress at a New York area gentleman’s club filed a lawsuit claiming she was fired because she complained about sexual harassment by both male and female supervisors.

The former Penthouse Executive Club cocktail waitress alleges that a female general manager touched her on her legs and thighs in a sexual manner. The plaintiff also alleges that the manager offered to engage in sexual relations with her in front of customers for a fee.

The EEOC has filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against an upscale steakhouse in New York City. It is alleged that male management groped and made sexual comments to other male employees. After the victims of the harassment complained about the unwelcome sexual behavior, management retaliated by assigning the complainants “less desirable” work. Subsequently, the victims were terminated.

In commenting on the case, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. stated, “EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or women.” The case has been filed in the U.S. District in the Southern District of New York. The EEOC's press release can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09.cfm.

A former hotel clerk who claims she was fired because she was not pretty enough is bring suit against a major hotel chain. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is allowing the woman to sue Heartland Inns of America, who she claims fired her due to her “tomboy” appearance.

The former employee received positive reviews and two raises while employed by the hotel, but was criticized for wearing loose fitting clothes and not wearing make up. After she was fired, the hotel began videotaping potential front desk employees so officials could see how they looked before hiring them. The court stated that companies cannot make employment decisions based on sex stereotypes, and that to fire an employee for failing to wear makeup and dresses would be sexual discrimination.

The New York City Fire Department is being threatened with the imposition of hiring quotas as a remedy for the intentional race and national origin discrimination in their hiring. A Federal Judge in Brooklyn found that two written exams were not job related which had an adverse impact against numerous African-American and Hispanic candidates.

Among the remedial measures to be put in place are immediate emergency hiring of qualified minority candidates and revisions of the exams.

A major supermarket chain in the New York area is being charged with discrimination against its female employees. In the case, which is now pending in Federal Court, claims that women were placed in lower-growth positions, such as cashiers, whereas men were given roles such as stock, which had a much better possibility of further advancement with the company.

Gender discrimination manifests itself in many different ways. For instance, this case is an example of a "glass ceiling" which is a point that women cannot advance beyond in the workplace. Additionally, sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination are types of gender discrimination, as well.

The early part of 2010 has brought some major movement in the fight against discrimination in the workplace. Recently, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced a significant, $19 Million dollar settlement against a national restaurant chain in its claims of gender discrimination. The settlement is for $19 million dollars and the restaurant must comply with several mandates of equal opportunity set forth by the EEOC.

The basis of the claim was that women were denied equal opportunities to advance, were impeded by a "glass celiling," were barred from promotion to managerial positions, and were prevented from receiving favorable job assignments.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released its 2009 report of discrimination and retaliation claims filed in 2009. Overall it appears the total number of charges filed dropped slightly, but there was an increase in retaliation claims filed. Race and gender discrimination both still remain the protected category most commonly named in the charges filed. Disability claims also increased as well this year.

The statistics are available at:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm