New York Employment Lawyer Blog

A Bronx fish company, M. Slavin & Sons, are not getting off the hook for the racial discrimination and sexual harassment that ran rampant in its company for years. Minority employees, who first brought suit in federal court approximately one year ago, and M.Slavin & Sons, have agreed to a settlement of $900,000 to be paid out to 31 employees.

M. Slavin & Sons has not admitted any fault, but accusations by the minority employees include an allegation that a supervisor at the company would poke male employees in the buttocks with fish hooks. As part of the settlement, the company will revamp its procedure for investigating racial and sexual harassment and establish an anti-discrimination training program for all of its employees. M. Slavin & Sons has only recently emerged from bankruptcy but, fortunately, the Federal Bankruptcy Judge overseeing the case approved the $900,000 payout. This is a victory for victims of workplace discrimination everywhere.

Schwartz and Perry is a New York City law firm specializing in claims of workplace discrimination, including racial and sexual harassment. Should one become the unfortunate victim of workplace discrimination, Schwartz and Perry is there to help rectify these awful situations.

The article can be found on the Daily News website.

Virginia Lim, a Filipino housekeeper, has filed a discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan claiming that she was not hired her because of her national origin. Lim was one of two workers who first filed discrimination complaints with the city’s Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

According to Lim’s complaint, in April, her employment agent, Adrian Smith, informed her of a vacancy as a housekeeper for the billionaire couple. The complaint states that since Lim had worked as a housekeeper for nine years, she knew that she was qualified for the position.

After interviewing with the couple’s butler, the complaint alleges that the butler responded via email that “he had received instructions not to hire [Lim] because of her national origin.” The email went on to say, “No Philippines, Thanks.”

Smith was in shock after receiving such a wildly inappropriate response and replied, “Am I talking to the same [person]??” The complaint says that the butler then emailed back: “Sorry, new directions . . . No Philippine since today.”

These illegal hiring practices also made news in May when another housekeeper named Esther Winkley also claimed that the couple refused to hire her because of her Filipino-background.

Ms. Lim has filed suit seeking “some level of resolution for the injustice that has been done” and for the emotional distress that it has caused. Ms. Lim’s lawyer says that the EEOC has granted permission to pursue the case in federal court. The allegations are serious because they contend that the federal laws against discrimination in addition to state and city laws were violated by this discriminatory conduct.

Regardless of where the lawsuit is brought, federal, state and city laws make it illegal for employers discriminate against an individual based on, among other things, race and national origin.

The full Daily News article can be found here.

The Waldorf-Astoria is being sued by Samir Abdel-Mesih, 53, for age and race discrimination in Queens Supreme Court, in New York. Mesih started as a waiter in 1987 and was promoted to banquet captain in 2002. According to the complaint, The Waldorf bosses are “getting rid of the old guys” in exchange for younger, white captains.

Last year, the percentage of Mesih’s tips was cut in half despite the number of guests he was assigned nearly quadrupling. Nine captains ranging in age from 50-91 lost their jobs. Thus, Mesih’s lawyer expects that other captains who have been let go will be joining the law suit.

Younger white managers were hired to do the same job as captains like Mesih. Mesih is suing for lost wages and emotional distress, though he is still employed by the Waldorf.

This entire article is available at NYDailyNews.com.

This week, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling on an employment discrimination case and castigated New York City on its hiring practices within its fire department. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued an opinion criticizing city officials who continue to shut out black and Hispanic candidates for jobs and promotions. The judge plans on monitoring the fire department’s process of recruitment, hiring, promotions and more.

Judge Garaufis was most critical of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failure to act on the fire department’s hiring problems, noting that he had been alerted by numerous reports including: a report from the city’s Equal Employment Practices Commission; a letter from then-Public Advocate Mark Green, who specifically warned Bloomberg and the fire commissioner of “segregation”; and numerous complaints from members of Congress, members of New York City Council, and citizens.

The problem is not new to the New York City Fire Department. In 1973, a judge mandated hiring quotas to increase the number of minority fire fighters, but in the court's opinion this week, by 2001 the city had half as many black firefighters as it did in 1965. Today about a quarter of the city residents are black and about 97 percent of the firefighters are white.

The original news article can be found here.

A Bronx landlord is being sued by the Justice Department for race discrimination, a civil rights violation in New York. Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara filed the civil rights violation lawsuit against the landlord, management company and superintendent for allegedly discriminating against African-Americans.

According to the complaint, Loventhal Silver Riverdale LLC, Goodman Management Co. and superintendent Jesus Velasco had “engaged in conduct constituting illegal discrimination” since at least April 2009. The complaint also alleges the building of violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

The federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal for a landlord to refuse an apartment or house rental application based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. In addition, New York civil rights laws make it illegal to refuse to rent to person based on characteristics such as marital status and sexual orientation.

As reported by CBS New York, four teams of testers visited the building, posing as would-be-renters. In all cases the African-Americans were allegedly discouraged and whites were helped. For example, as reported by the New York Daily News, Velasco refused to give a black tester a rental application on April 8, 2009, but a short while later provided a white tester an application, according to the application.

More information is available at CBS New York.

McKinsey & Co. is faced with a religious discrimination lawsuit that may be the first of its kind. In the lawsuit, recently filed in Manhattan federal court, a former employee of the company claims he was subjected to ridicule and taunts from co-workers after he began wearing a yarmulke at work. The man claims he complained to the Human Resources Department of the company but was told to “wait it out.” He claims he eventually went to the police after his boss’s ex-boyfriend allegedly threatened him for complaining about the treatment he was receiving. He was fired two days later.

But in an interesting twist, the twenty-nine year old man, Ciro Roselli, is not Jewish. Rather he practices “theosophy,” a spiritual philosophy which holds “there is no higher religion than truth.” Roselli explained to the New York Post “that he began exploring theosophy in 2007, shortly before he was hired by McKinsey as an executive assistant.” He continued, “it is all about finding the truth in religions . . . I’m still learning all the different facets.” It is this exploration into religion that allegedly lead to his wearing the religious head covering in the office, and the subsequent harassment he endured.

Roselli was allegedly subjected to a wide range of derogatory and humiliating comments from his co-workers and supervisors such as accusations he wasn’t “a real Jew,” being told to “Take that yarmulke off! You’re creeping me out,” and “you can’t be Jewish if you’re Italian.” One co-worker allegedly commented, “I guess I won’t be asking you for a loan”- seemingly “a reference to the stereotype that Jewish people are ‘cheap.’” Roselli also claims that his boss likened him to Madonna, allegedly drawing a parallel between the two’s “sudden embrace of Judaism,” even going so far as to send him an email with the subject line “Madge Roselli.” The popstar is known for having the nickname “Madge.” The former employee is now suing the company for discrimination and retaliation after his termination in April 2011.

When an employer decides that relocating their company is a good business decision, employees are faced with the ultimatum - move with the company or loose your job. On it’s face, relocation does not seem discriminatory, but as employers cut back on relocation assistance it makes it extremely difficult for some groups of people to move with the company. Older employees and employees who do not make a lot of money are often the most adversely effected by relocations.

An employer has no legal obligation to pay for an employee’s relocation expenses. Employers can choose to pay for relocating employees with key skill sets, but choose not to provide any assistance to other employees and this is not considered discriminatory. Employees may have to endure the entire cost of relocating, which could mean short selling their homes and increasing their debts in order to keep their jobs.

Even though entire groups or departments may be relocated to another office, the employees who are most able to make the transition tend to be younger, financially stable people. Older employees who have spent their lives raising families in a particular area are less inclined to relocate because of the strong ties they have to their community. Familial connections or a spouses’ job may make relocating very difficult for many older individuals.

Employees may be also hesitant to move to a new place, especially if there is a dramatic difference in the cost of living. If an employer is not offering relocation assistance, the shock of pricing differences can seem staggering. This makes it extremely difficult for older employees who are saving for retirement to bear the costs of relocation. Employees approaching retirement have to make sure they are financially prepared for the future and often cannot budget in such a drastic change in their living situation. Even though employment relocation may disproportionately effect older employees, as long as the relocation did not specifically target older people, relocation may be considered a legitimate business decision and the courts may be reluctant to intervene in those circumstances.

MSNBC recently had a feature on this topic, as well as additional information.

According to a recent New York Times article, the number of employment discrimination lawsuits filed by New York City employees has been increasing. In comparing the first two terms of the Bloomberg administration with the first two terms of the Giuliani administration, the article states that employment discrimination cases against New York City have increased by 12 percent.

Additionally, the article states that New York City has opted to settle many of its employment discrimination cases rather than defend them in court. The article states that from 2002 to 2009, the city paid over $69 million to settle over 400 employment discrimination cases.

According to the article, “in one six-week period from late 2008 to early 2009, the city paid $300,000 to settle a claim from a male police officer who alleged that his female supervisor had sexually harassed him; $225,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim from a secretary at the Department for the Aging; and a total of $316,500 in seven settlements for grievances stemming from demotions or alleging racial bias and age discrimination.”

The article states that according to Michael A. Cardozo, New York City’s Corporation Counsel, the recent increase in employment discrimination claims could be a result of our “ailing economy, as well as a growing willingness among workers to speak out and seek legal redress.”

The article further notes that New York City’s Equal Employment Practices Commission, which monitors and evaluates the employment practices of city agencies, has lost about half of its auditors, and may be another reason employment discrimination claims against New York City are rising.

Although employment discrimination claims in New York City have increased, the article states that many workplaces have actually eliminated discrimination by enacting special training programs aimed at promoting equal opportunities. The article points out that many workplaces implemented these programs as a result of the nation’s change to its employment discrimination laws in the early 1990’s, which made it easier for workers to bring employment discrimination actions based on race, age, gender, and other protected reasons.

This New York Times article contains additional information as well as the full report.

Employment discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and trans-gender employees under federal laws are of great consequence as legislation awaits Congressional action. According to a recent study performed by the Center for American Progress, 73 percent of Americans support protecting the LGBT community from workplace discrimination. This figure, which includes 81 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans, reflects a growing acceptance of LGBT members of the workforce by the general public. However, the study also found that 90 percent of Americans incorrectly believe that a federal law is already in place protecting those employees from workplace discrimination.

This misconception may explain the absence of any sustained public support for bills that would protect LGBT employees in the workplace. One such bill, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), has been introduced in both houses of the United States Congress. This bill, if passed by Congress and signed by the President would afford LGBT Americans the same federal protections given to women, minority group members, veterans, seniors, and the disabled. However, despite ENDA’s potentially key role in achieving workplace equality, public support for the bill by Congressional leadership pales in comparison to public support by leadership on Capitol Hill for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. As such, the issue is, by and large, left out of the conversation by the mainstream national media and, consequently, not in the forefront of voter's minds.

To ignore the lack of federal protection for LGBT Americans in the workplace would be to ignore a gaping hole in the United States’ human rights policy. It would be tantamount to ignoring the fundamental human rights of citizens that face among the highest percentage of workplace discrimination in the country. Indeed, according to The Willliams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have experienced some form of discrimination or harassment at the workplace. Additionally, as many as 17 percent of gay and transgender workers report being passed over for a job or fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The data also indicates that as many as 28 percent of LGBT workers have received a negative performance evaluation or were passed over for a promotion because of their sexual orientation.

At present, twenty-one states (including New York) presently outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, until ENDA or similar legislation is passed, federal law offers no protection to gay and transgender workers. This opens the door for states to ignore the rights of those employees or, as Tennessee has recently done, take affirmative steps to ensure that local or municipal laws protecting gay and transgender workers are per se illegal.

The public has long held that discrimination has no place in the American workplace. Data shows that this view extends to discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation. However, until legislation like ENDA receives the notoriety that other issues effecting the gay and transgender community receive, the economic security, human rights, and dignity of millions of gay and transgender Americans will be at risk.

A decorated FDNY employee is suing New York City and the FDNY for wrongful termination after allegedly threatening to kill his employer. Glenn Krasner asserts that he has been unlawfully terminated because he exhibited symptoms of his medical disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, which he claims induced his sudden outburst.

According to the City, Krasner’s alleged threat to kill his boss was not an isolated incident. According to a New York City Administrative Judge who approved his termination, Krasner also allegedly made references to a mass shooting at Virginia Tech University in relation to FDNY administrative offices. Krasner states that he is remorseful and that he wishes he never said such statements and that he meant for them be a joke.

This case raises the question of how much weight should be placed on a person acting out due to a medical condition. This matter has significant implications on cases involving both actual and perceived disability.

A recently-aired segment of ABC’s “What Would You Do” confronted the issue and reality of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The program placed actors, posing as a manager and a pregnant employee, in a New York area diner to gauge how patrons would react to the manager treating his pregnant employee badly, belittling, harassing and humiliating her as she attempted to do her job while visibly pregnant.

Some of the things said by the manager to the pregnant employee were:

“This pregnancy is taking a toll on you and you can't get the job done!”
“This baby is causing all sorts of problems”
“You got to keep it going, we are running a business over here.”
“Step it up or I will send you home.”

In response to this reprehensible conduct, many patrons spoke out in defense of the pregnant employee, even reprimanding the manager for treating her badly. Some of the patrons even noted that the manager/actor’s conduct was not only disrespectful and wrong, but that it was also something that was against the law.

Pregnancy discrimination is something that is generally protected by human rights laws and is, therefore, an unlawful employment practice.

In our second trial in less than one month, Schwartz & Perry obtained another verdict in favor of our clients. In this matter, which was brought in Supreme Court, New York County, our office represented several former employees in an action involving their former employer. We are pleased to share this news with our readers.

Our practice focuses on all aspects of employment law, including employment discrimination and retaliation. More information is available at our website, www.schwartzandperry.com.