New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The "boys club" of Wall Street has struck again! Financial giant Citigroup Inc. joins a long list of financial services companies being charged with gender discrimination. Five former directors and analysts of the New York based bank and one current employee recently filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Citigroup alleging that they were paid less than their counter-part male colleagues. The women are seeking class-action certification on behalf of women at job levels from analyst to managing director and a court order ending the discrimination.

The lawsuit alleges that Citigroup has always had a "boys club" environment resulting in middle and senior management positions being held by men. Its Senior Leadership Committee is made up of 39 men and 5 women while its Executive Committee is made up of 19 men and not a single woman. Some of the claims include "systemic and pervasive discrimination and retaliation" regarding decisions involving compensation, promotion and termination.

One of the plaintiffs also alleges gender based inappropriate and offensive comments as well as being paid less than her male counter-parts. The lawsuit alleges that Citigroup has a "glass ceiling adversely affecting female employees, especially those female employees who become pregnant, take a maternity leave, or have childcare obligations, at Citigroup in all facets of employment." The lawsuit states that at least 50 women have complained of such discriminatory practices as well as retaliation since March 2007.

The lawsuit accuses Citigroup of using government bailout money while laying off female employees during the November 2008 layoffs and saving the jobs of less qualified men. The lawsuit alleges "recessionary discrimination" because Citigroup fired thousands of female employees and kept the less qualified men. The lawsuit claims this bias occurred because Citigroup allowed its supervisors and managers discretion to decide which employees to fire, rather than having them base their decisions on performance.

Citigroup has responded that it "has a long-standing commitment to equal employment practices and to provide a professional and respectful workplace free of unlawful discrimination." Citigroup has denied the allegations as being "either totally inaccurate or selectively incomplete" and not supporting the "claims of gender discrimination."

Continue reading "New York Gender Discrimination Update: Citigroup Sued for Gender Discrimination" »

Q: I recently applied for a job at a well known clothing store. After the store manager offered me the position, I informed him that due to my religious beliefs, I could not work on Saturdays. He then told me that was unacceptable and took the job offer back. Is this religious discrimination and if so, what can I do?

Our Religion Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala have helped hundreds attain justice for being discriminated against as well as obtain reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs.

Your question brings to mind a recent case that the EEOC recently brought against Tri-County Lexus, a car dealership, for refusing to hire a Sikh man, Gurpreet S. Khera, for a sales job because he wouldn't shave his beard because of his religious beliefs. Sikh religion requires him to wear a beard, have long hair and a turban. Khera had prior sales experience and impressed Tri-County's recruiter who had him attend a multi-day training at the dealership. Khera was told at the end of the training that he would have to shave off his beard if he wanted the job because the dealership had a grooming policy against facial hair. Khera was rejected for the job because he refused to shave off his beard for religious reasons.

The EEOC has stated that where "a reasonable accommodation can be made, the law prevents an employer from requiring an employee to choose between being hired and following his or her religious practices." The EEOC added that allowing "Mr. Khera to wear his beard because of religious belief would not have been a burden on the dealership."

It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of their religious beliefs. Your employer cannot discriminate against you regarding any aspect of employment, including but not limited to hiring, firing, promotions, layoffs, training, compensation, or job placement. Furthermore, your employer must reasonably accommodate your religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would cause undue hardship. This means that your employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments so that you can practice your religion. Examples of this include flexible scheduling, job reassignments and voluntary shift swaps.

This accommodation also extends to religious clothing and grooming practices. For example, your employer cannot discriminate against you if you are Jewish and you wear a yarmulke on your head, if you are Sikh and you wear a beard and turbin, or if you are a female Muslim who wears a headscarf. Your employer can refuse to accommodate you if doing so is costly, interferes with workplace safety, is not efficient, or infringes on other workers' rights.

Continue reading "Religious Discrimination in New York and New Jersey Q&A" »

Q: I am a pharmaceutical drug representative who recently underwent chemotherapy. After returning to work, my employer took away many of my important clients and refused to accommodate my disability caused by my health condition. What can I do?

This is a great question this month because October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month which celebrates and takes note of the contributions made by workers with disabilities. Our experienced Disability Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva and Sanchala are great believers in the idea that individuals who can work, be productive and contribute to our economy should be accommodated. At any point in time, the healthiest individual can be affected by a life altering disability.

Our Disability Discrimination Attorneys have been following a lawsuit that the EEOC recently filed against one the nations largest garment manufacturers, American Apparel, Inc. American Apparel employs over 5,000 people in the U.S., another 5,000 globally and operates over 285 retail stores. The EEOC has alleged that American Apparel fired a disabled garment worker while he was on medical leave for cancer treatment. The worker properly submitted documentation requesting medical leave for chemotherapy, which American Apparel granted. However, after the worker returned to work, the company told him they had no position available for him and terminated his employment.

The EEOC has charged American Apparel with not even examining any options for accommodating the worker and denying his request for reasonable accommodation. The EEOC has alleged that American Apparel illegally fired him because of his disability, in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")

The EEOC has stated that "Workers with disabilities cannot be cast off at the first sign of a disability related issue." On behalf of the worker, the EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to prevent such future discrimination.

Continue reading "Disability Discrimination at the Workplace FAQ and your Legal Rights" »

Q: I am a 55 year old female who has been a long term employee with an excellent record. Recently, I was laid off and replaced by a young, less inexperienced female. I believe my company fired me because of my age because they have recently replaced several older workers with young people. What can I do?

Our Age Discrimination Employment Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala have been closely monitoring age discrimination lawsuits which have been rapidly rising over the past decade. Many employers are under the misguided notion that they can decrease their costs by replacing their older, experienced work force with young, cheap labor. Employers think that health care and ERISA related pension costs are higher for an older work force which is not always true.

The EEOC recently brought a lawsuit concerning age and sex discrimination against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ("Port Authority"). The EEOC has alleged that the Port Authority fired 2 underpaid female attorneys, 55 and 57 years old, because of their age and replaced them with younger, less experienced attorneys. The complaint also alleges that the Port Authority does not pay its female attorneys in non-supervisory jobs the same as it pays its males having similar experience. The EEOC seeks to stop the Port Authority from discriminating based on age and pay, seeks back wages, and reinstatement of jobs.

The Port Authority is a bi-state agency which runs several of the largest transportation hubs in the Northeast area. A Port Authority representative has said "We're bringing in younger attorneys" and "We're going to remake this agency with young, fresh faces."

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") prohibits age discrimination in employment. The EEOC has stated that the "ADEA prohibits the misguided notion that an employer can invigorate its work force by firing older workers and replacing them with younger workers." If your employer is covered under the ADEA, he or she cannot discriminate against you with respect to any condition or privilege of employment, including but not limited to hiring, promoting, firing, layoff, compensation, benefits, training, or job assignment. The ADEA also makes it illegal for your employer to retaliate against you if file an age discrimination claim or participate in a claim.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination in New York & New Jersey Q&A" »

Q: I am a female investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Although I have been generating more revenue than my male colleagues and doing a better job than most of them, they are getting more pay, receive better bonuses and are promoted. What can I do?

Our Sex Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva and Sanchala have been following gender discrimination lawsuits on Wall Street for many years going to back to the outrageous days of Boom Boom Room at Smith Barney and well before. Like you, many women working on Wall Street have been victims of gender discrimination. In fact, just recently, three former female employees filed a complaint against Goldman Sachs ("Goldman") alleging gender discrimination. The women are seeking class status on behalf of all former and current female managing directors, vice presidents, and associates over the past 6 years.

The complaint alleges that Goldman pays its female employees less at all levels compared to males with the same positions and similar job duties. It also alleges discrimination in promotions, business opportunities, as well as uneven distribution of benefits favoring male employees. The female employees have also alleged that Goldman gives its managers discretion to assign responsibilities, accounts and supervise associates. Since a great majority of the managers are males, this ends up disproportionately benefiting the males.

Plaintiff, H. Christine Chen-Oster, who became a vice-president, was bringing in more revenue than her male colleague but he was paid 50% more than her. To add insult to injury, another male colleague groped her after an outing at a New York City topless bar. After she complained of the incident, she was further penalized while he was promoted. Plaintiff, Shanna Ortich, who has a combined a JD/MBA from Columbia University, has alleged that she was assigned clerical work and a senior analyst asked her to set up his blackberry and to answer calls from his wife.

Goldman is one of the largest global investment banking, securities and investment management firms. In 2009, its revenue totaled $45 billion. A Goldman representative has responded that the lawsuit is without merit and that "People are critical to our business, and we make extraordinary efforts to recruit, develop and retain outstanding women professionals." However, according to Goldman's own data, only 29% of its vice-president's are females, 17% are managing directors, and only 14% are partners.

Continue reading "Sex Discrimination on Wall Street and in New York Q&A" »