New York Employment Lawyer Blog

Over the past several months, we have discussed several significant issues in the field of employment discrimination. We have touched upon everything from evidence in discrimination cases to recent verdicts and decisions to emerging trends and ideas in the field.

But, perhaps, the most significant item that had been discussed were the recent statistics regarding claims filed by employees in the workplace. This means that employees are further realizing and becoming aware of the rights they have against discrimination in all its forms. This is particularly gratifying.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Employment Law , Evidence , Gender discrimination , Pregnancy Discrimination , Racial Discrimination , Retaliation , Sexual Harassment , Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bookmark:

A state Judge in Brooklyn has re-confirmed the broad goals of the New York City Human Rights Law. In Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, 18 Misc.3d 1131(A) (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2008), the plaintiff was a transgender woman, who had been born anatomically male, but lived her life with a female identity and lived each day as a woman. She complained that she had been discriminated against by a Transit Authority employee, who had harassed her and made “transgender-phobic epithets” to her for a period of approximately 10 minutes.

The court denied the Transit Authority’s motion to dismiss the case, reaffirming that “[t]he Human Rights Law affords protection to transgender people in New York City.” The Court noted that “[t]he New York City Human Rights Law was intended to be more protective than the state and federal counterpart,” and that “[t]he legislative history contemplates that the Law be independently construed with the aim of making it the most progressive in the nation.”

In its decision regarding the New York City Human Rights Law, the court relied on the case of Selmanovic v. NYSE Group, a case in which, we are proud to say, our office participated. We remain committed to fighting to ensure that the New York City Human Rights Law remains one of the most stringent and protective human rights laws in the country.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Gender discrimination , Sexual Harassment , Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bookmark:

On March 6, 2008, an article appeared in the New York Times, reflecting the increase in complaints of discrimination in the workplace. The article went on to state that, “federal job discrimination complaints by workers against private employers rose by 9% last year, the biggest annual increase since the early 1990s.” According to the statistics, this was the most filed since 2002.

Based on the article, one might reasonably conclude that job discrimination has intensified. Another reasonable conclusion might also be that more individuals who suffer discrimination in the workplace have been able to observe, from their experiences, that those who complain of discrimination do not suffer the results of reporting discrimination to the same extent they did previously. They have had an opportunity to witness friends and colleagues in the workplace who have reported discrimination but somehow did not suffer the results of discrimination for reporting what they recognized was a violation of their human rights.

There is a reasonable likelihood to believe that it is not necessarily the increase in discriminatory conduct that caused the number of individuals who report discrimination to be greater than before. Instead it will be that they have learned that reporting discrimination does not necessarily produce retaliation. The strong retaliation laws that our lawmakers have enacted throughout our country have, in large part, effectively protected those who report discrimination from the retaliatory conduct they feared in the past. This is certainly a hopeful result.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Employment Law , Gender discrimination , Racial Discrimination , Retaliation , Sexual Harassment , Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bookmark:

On Thursday, March 6, 2008, the attorneys of Schwartz & Perry were honored to serve, once again, as judges in the New York Law School Moot Court Association’s Wagner Moot Court Competition. The competition featured law students from all over the country arguing an issue dealing with employment law.

The issue, this year, involved two issues in employment law: (1) whether the federal law of Title VII protects persons who identify themselves as “transgender” and (2) whether a company should be liable for employment decisions that are made by persons without a discriminatory bias, but who are influenced by persons who hold, but do not reveal, a discriminatory bias, also known as the “cat’s paw” theory of liability. Both of these issues are hotly contested in the federal courts throughout the country, and resulted in a fascinating oral argument.

Needless to say, given our own experience in this field, the attorneys of Schwartz & Perry present a formidable panel for these law students. We were happily impressed with the performance of all the students who participated, as they were concise, thorough and extremely well prepared for the competition. As Mr. Schwartz noted to the students, “It is always a pleasure to see how much we practicing attorneys can learn from law students.”

We look forward to seeing these young students grow as the field of employment law continues to evolve.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Gender discrimination , Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bookmark:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the proposed federal legislation which passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 7, 2007, would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation. The bill signifies progress for gays and lesbians in the workforce that was years in the making.

However, the bill, H.R. 3685, does not offer protection to transgender employees. Language in an older version of the bill that offered protections based on gender identity was removed by Democratic lawmakers in order to make sure the bill would be passed. As a result, some activists and legislators have taken the position that the effect of forsaking the “T” of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) group in the passage of the ENDA bill is an unacceptable compromise that only divides the LGBT community, by leaving one of its groups behind. Indeed, five of the New York’s Representatives in the House who did not support the bill’s passage did not do so because of its failure to include the language addressing protections based on gender identity.

In comparison, New York City law is more progressive than federal law in the manner in which it protects employees. For the past several years, the city has offered protections to transgender employees since the New York City Council amended the city's Human Rights Law in 2002. As such, New York City historically has had the distinction of having one of the nation’s most comprehensive set of human rights laws to protect employees against discrimination. The New York City Human Rights Law, in addition to offering protection for transgender employees, is unlike federal law in that it enables victims of employment discrimination to seek compensatory and punitive damages without being subject to a cap.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Bookmark: