New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against Mavis Discount Tire alleging that the auto store and service has been engaged in discriminatory hiring practices against women for at least 2 years. The tri-state auto parts store and service provider did not hire a single female between 2008 and 2010.

Mavis Discount Tire is based in Millwood, New York, and also does business as Mavis Tire Supply Corporation and Mavis Tire NY. The company sells tires, automotive parts and services and has about a 110 locations throughout the northeast.

The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that since 2008, Mavis only employed one woman out of about 800 employees. The various positions at the Mavis store and service centers included tire installer, mechanics, assistant managers, managers, as well as other related positions. Furthermore, out of 1,300 hires for these positions between 2008 and 2010, not one woman was hired.

The suit also charges Mavis with failing to maintain applications on file, which is a separate violation. The EEOC also claims that its review of applications that were available showed that Mavis denied offering positions to women with more experience and better credentials and hired less qualified men.

The lawsuit seeks recover back and future pay for all the women applicants who were harmed as well as job that they were denied. Anna M. Pohl, a trial attorney in the EEOC's New York District Office, stated that "Women have been working in traditionally all-male fields like automotive services and sales for quite a while, but Mavis seems to be stuck in the past."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual because of their race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or genetic information regarding any aspect of employment. It applies to employers who have 15 or more employees, as well as to state and local governments. The Act prohibits discrimination based on sex against employees as well as job applicants with regard to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition or privilege of employment. It also makes it illegal to based employment decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or how an individual will perform because of their sex. For example, it is illegal to not consider a woman for the position of a mechanic because of a generalization that "women can't change tires."

Women have come a long way from the days when they were completely barred from certain professions, but unfortunately, sex discrimination is still a huge problem. The facts in Mavis are absolutely shameful. Not only did the company discriminate in hiring women, it basically engaged in stereotyping all women as incapable of performing any automotive work.

Our attorneys have represented many women who have suffered from gender discrimination at the workplace. If you or someone you know has been discriminated against because of your sex, call our Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to evaluate your options to help you protect your workplace rights.

Continue reading "Mavis Discount Tire Allegedly Engages in Sex Discrimination by Stereotyping Female Applicants" »

The New York Police Department ("NYPD") is under scrutiny for allegedly discriminating against African American detectives. The New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") recently filed a complaint on behalf of African American detectives in the NYPD's Intelligence Division with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that the NYPD racially discriminates in it hiring and promotional practices.

The complaint alleges that the Intelligence Division uses a "secretive and standardless promotions policy" which promotes white officers before more qualified African American officers. The complaint states that "the NYPD has chosen to cloak promotions in secrecy and give the all-white high level supervisors who run the Intelligence Division unfettered discretion to handpick white detectives for promotions over more qualified African American detectives." The complaint also alleges the existence of a "secret list" containing mostly white officers who are to be promoted.

Denying the allegations, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne stated that "There's no 'secret' list. There's a formal review process that measures job performance, years in rank, etc. in which minorities department-wide have fared better than at any other time, in recognition of their meritorious performance."

According the NYCLU, African Americans make up 18% of all NYPD officers but only 6% of the officers in the Intelligence Division. Of the 600 people in the Intelligence Division, only 35 are African Americans. The NYCLU's complaint also claims that while most African Americans hold the position of third grade detective, which is one rank above a regular police officer, not one African American holds a rank above sergeant. Even out of the 161 sergeants, only 8 are African American. This difference in ranking amounts to a $30,000 difference in pay between a third grade detective and a higher first grade detective. This also means a $15,000 per year difference in the amount of pension received.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because of race or color with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or any other term, condition or privilege of employment. For example, if your employment policy, which applies to everyone, has a negative impact on a particular race or color and is not related to the job or the operation of the business, it may be illegal. It also prohibits making employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions regarding abilities or traits of certain racial groups. For example, you can not exclude a qualified individual from a job promotion just because you have heard that all people of that individual's race/color cheat on their spouses.

In a city as diverse as New York, it is a shame that New York's Finest may be involved in discriminating against African Americans. The numbers alone raise the question of whether discrimination exists. We will be tracking this case to see what the EEOC comes up with.

Our Attorneys have counseled many individuals on their rights at the workplace. If you feel you have been discriminated against at your workplace with respect to any aspect of employment including benefits or compensation, call our Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you determine the strength of your claim and figure out your best options.

Continue reading "African American Detectives File EEOC Complaint Against the New York Police Department for Race Discrimination" »

In a recent settlement with the EEOC, PepsiCo Inc.'s biggest bottling unit, Pepsi Beverages ("Pepsi") has agreed to pay $3.13 million and offer jobs and training to resolve allegations that it engaged in nationwide hiring discrimination against African Americans. This investigation and settlement comes as a result of the EEOC's crackdown on corporate policies that discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.

The government's investigation found that Pepsi's policy on conducting criminal background checks discriminated against over 300 African Americans in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Pepsi's policy adversely affected African American applicants when it used a criminal background check which disproportionately excluded African Americans form being hired. The former policy did not hire any job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution even if they had never been convicted of any offense.

The same policy also excluded from employment any applicants who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974 makes it illegal to use arrest and conviction records to discriminate in hiring when it is not relevant to the job.

While being investigated by the EEOC, Pepsi changed its criminal background check policy to avoid discrimination. Dave DeCecco, Pepsi's spokesperson, has stated that Pepsi's new policy aims to take a more "individualized approach" and will consider the applicant's history with respect to the job being applied for.

Along with monetary compensation, Pepsi will also give job opportunities to persons who were denied employment under the former criminal background check policy and still want a job and are qualified. Pepsi will also have to provide the EEOC with reports on its hiring practices under its new policy as well as have its hiring personnel and managers undergo Title VII training.

Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC's Minneapolis Area Office stated that when "employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or contemplation of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position. Such exclusions can create an adverse impact on race in violation of Title VII."

It is a shame that a company as large and well-known as Pepsi was engaging in such a discriminatory practice. Although the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination on Pepsi's behalf, Pepsi's policy was still discriminatory and adversely impacted over 300 African Americans. It was basically trying and convicting applicants who in fact had never been convicted of any offense and excluding them from consideration for employment.

Even if you think your corporate employment policies are not discriminatory, you need to evaluate them and make sure they don't have a discriminatory impact on any minorities. Make sure you have a well thought out, reasonable criminal background check policy related to the job for which you are hiring. For example, it may be reasonable not to hire an individual with a recent history of violent crimes for the position of a door-to-door salesman. However, it may not be reasonable to deny employment to a qualified individual for the position of receptionist because she was arrested for disorderly conduct 15 years ago and never convicted.

Our attorneys have helped many companies evaluate their hiring polices to ensure that they are not discriminatory. Our attorneys have also conducted hundreds of seminars and training sessions for managers and supervisors on how to avoid and deal with discrimination at the workplace. Call our Discrimination Agreement Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you avoid any potential litigation.

Continue reading "Make Sure Your Company's Criminal Background Check Policy Doesn't Discriminate Against African Americans" »

The EEOC recently announced a lawsuit it filed a lawsuit against Grand Central Partnership, Inc. ("GCP") for violating a prior consent decree by committing new acts of discrimination. The new charges allege that GCP fired a black Rastafarian security officer in retaliation for his complaining of discrimination and threats of violence. The earlier consent decree was entered into in 2009 and promised to provide Rastafarian security officers accommodation for their religious practices.

GCP is a non-profit developer in New York City that manages the Grand Central Business Improvement District, which is one of the largest business improvement districts in the world.

In 2009, the EEOC and GCP settled a lawsuit over how GCP treated its Rastafarian and Caribbean security officers. The parties agreed in a consent decree that GCP would accommodate the Rastafarian security officer's religious practices and not retaliate against them for participating in the lawsuit. GCP is still subject to court supervision as part of that settlement.

More recently, in 2010, and as part of the new lawsuit, a non-Caribbean security officer threatened to shoot and kill a group of Rastafarian security officers. After a white security supervisor made light of the situation, a Rastafarian security officer objected to his conduct and called him a racist for referring to a group of Rastafarians with the "N" word. After he complained and called the EEOC, he was fired by the GCP three months later.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also makes it illegal to retaliate against an individual for engaging in "protected activity" such as filing a discrimination charge, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. In this case, the Rastafarian officer reported the threats and complained to the EEOC, which is protected activity. Thereafter, he was fired for having complained.

The Regional Attorney of the EEOC's New York District Office, Elizabeth Grossman, stated that the "EEOC is particularly concerned when it obtains a consent decree to stop violations of the law and the employer turns around and ignores the settlement by reverting to the illegal behavior." Michael Ranis, a trial attorney at the same office added that "Retaliation against an employee who objects to threats of violence against his co-religionists and then objects to racism will not be tolerated. EEOC's lawsuit should make it clear that an employee may not blame the victim when it loses control of its managers and employees."

It is a shame that GCP personnel continued to engage in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct even after being sued by the EEOC and agreeing to change its conduct. Clearly these employees needed more than a consent decree to learn how not to engage in discriminatory behavior. Unfortunately, such conduct is prevalent and becomes a liability costing thousands for many businesses. Our experienced Discrimination Attorneys have conducted many training sessions and seminars on discrimination at the workplace which have made a real difference in how employees conduct themselves to prevent litigation. Call our Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help provide training and seminars to prevent potential litigation from financially destroying your business.

Continue reading "New York Discrimination and Retaliation Update: Make Sure Your Employees Don't Retaliate Against Complaints of Religious Discrimination" »

The U.S. EEOC recently settled a lawsuit for $125,000 which alleged national origin harassment against Simon Property Group, Inc. ("Simon") at its Forum Shops at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. The suit charged with allowing Hispanic janitors who worked for the company to be verbally attacked on a daily basis because of their national origin.

Simon is the nation's largest real estate company which owns and manages shopping malls throughout the country. It is an S&P 500 company that has either ownership or property interest in 392 properties throughout North America, Europe and Asia and generates annual retail sales of over $60 billion in the U.S.

The lawsuit charged that the housekeeping shift leader, who was white, harassed a group of Hispanic janitors beginning in 2005 which then continued on daily basis. He subjected them to verbal abuse and slurs. Although a dozen Hispanic janitors complained with a written petition the same year the harassment began, they felt nothing was being done to stop the discriminatory behavior. The harassment continued for another year until the supervisor was terminated, which was for different reasons.

The EEOC charged that the alleged conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties settled with a two year consent decree which provides monetary relief for least five of the victims who were harassed. The decree also calls for Simon to retain a consultant to monitor and track complaints in Nevada, provide anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training for staff, and report its compliance efforts to the EEOC.

Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office, stated that "National origin discrimination issues are on the rise and we are committed to vigorously enforcing federal laws to ensure workplaces free of harassment and discrimination." The acting director at the EEOC's Las Vegas Local Office stated that "We encourage workers to report harassment as they did here in this case" and "equally encourage employers to take proactive steps to stop harassment and to take swift action when it does occur."

It is illegal to discriminate against an employee because of their national origin with respect to any aspect of employment including hiring, firing, promotion, benefits, or terms or conditions. This means that an employer cannot discriminate against a worker because of their birthplace, ancestry, culture, and linguistic characteristic related to a specific ethnic group, or accent. For example, you cannot refuse to promote a competent, qualified worker just because his ancestors are from Iraq or because a worker has an Indian accent which does not materially interfere with job performance. Title VII also prohibits conduct that creates a hostile environment such as using ethnic slurs.

It is outrageous that the workers were subjected to national origin harassment for two years and that even after they complained, nothing was done. Whether you are a small company employing 15 or more employees or as big as Simon Properties, it is imperative to promptly investigate any complaints of national origin discrimination. If your business does not have an employment discrimination policy, call our Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645. Our attorneys have held many anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training seminars and set up policy and procedures to effectively handle any complaints of discrimination.

Continue reading "Six Figure Settlement of National Origin Harassment Complaint by Hispanic Employees at Simon Properties Group" »

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit alleging religion discrimination with Dresser Rand, a manufacturer of custom turbines, compressors and other industrial products. Dresser Rand also has contracts with the U.S. government and the Navy. The consent decree provides for Dresser Rand to pay $110,000 as well amend its equal employment opportunity policy, which includes holding anti-discrimination training and putting up notices regarding discrimination laws.

The lawsuit alleged that Harry Davis, an employee at Dresser Rand's location in Painted Post, New York, was not accommodated for his religious beliefs. Davis, a Jehovah's Witness and a skilled machine tool operator worked at Dresser Rand for over 20 years. As a Jehovah Witness, his religious belief was that he did not work on any part of product that could be used as weapon of war. For many years, he refused to work on projects that involved orders from any of the Armed Services. Accordingly, these projects were reassigned to other machine operators. Davis' supervisors were aware of his beliefs and provided him with reasonable accommodation over the years.

In 2002, Davis was asked to work on a part which was going to be used on a United States naval submarine. Just like he did in the past, Davis refused to work on it. However, this time he was cited for insubordination and then fired after he refused to accept an alternate assignment in the shipping department.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged Rand with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on religion. Title VII makes it illegal to discriminate based on religion with respect to any aspect of employment. This includes hiring, firing, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, pay, and any other term of employment.

Once an employee points out that he has a religious belief or practice that conflicts with his working terms or conditions, an employer must reasonably accommodate the employee's religious beliefs unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the employer's business operations. In other words, the employer must accommodate the worker unless it would cause an undue hardship. An undue hardship could be something that is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases efficiency, or interferes with the rights of other employees. For example, if an employee's religious beliefs prevent him from working Friday nights and as long as switching schedules with another employee doe not cause undue hardship, the employer must try to accommodate the religious belief. When the employer does make accommodations, the employee must then accept it. For example, if the employer accommodated the worker by giving him the Saturday night shift, he or she then cannot refuse because they don't want to work on a Saturday night.

Religious claims, regarding reasonable accommodation and discrimination, have been rising in the post 9 11 era. If you feel your religious beliefs and practices are not being reasonably accommodated at your place of employment, call our Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help evaluate your claim. Our attorneys have helped many people obtain reasonable accommodations while retaining their jobs.

Continue reading "Failure to Accommodate Employee's Religious Beliefs Leads to $110,000 Settlement" »

The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit that charged one of the country's largest retailers, Sears Roebuck & Co with race, age, sex discrimination and retaliation against Mary Johnson, an African-American female employee. The settlement provides for Sears to pay $100,000 as well as take action to prevent and handle future instances of discrimination.

The EEOC filed suit in September 2010, alleging that Johnson was passed over for a promotion to supervisor several times beginning in 2007 while less experienced, younger, white males were promoted. Johnson worked in loss prevention at several Sears stores in Oklahoma City from 1982 until she was terminated in March of 2010. The EEOC also alleged that Sears retaliated against Johnson for filing an EEOC discrimination charge and participating in the EEOC's investigation by worsening her working conditions.

In a consent decree with the EEOC, Sears has agreed to pay Johnson $100,000 and take specific action to prevent future discrimination. It will have to post anti-discrimination notices to all employees, hand out its anti-discrimination policy and provide training on the subject to its employees. Barbara Seely, the regional attorney at the EEOC's St. Louis District Office, stated "Corporate America must be more vigilant in guarding against discrimination and retaliation or risk action and exposure by the EEOC."

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against employees who are at least 40 years old. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion and national origin. Both acts cover discriminatory practices in all aspect of employment including but not limited to hiring, firing, compensation, recruitment, training, pay, retirement plans, disability leave, terms and conditions of employment as well as health care benefits. Under both laws, it is also illegal to retaliate against an individual for filing a discrimination charge or participating in an investigation.

The EEOC reported that in 2010, 36% of all discrimination claims filed also alleged some type of retaliation by the employer. Retaliation at the workplace is when you take adverse action against an employee for engaging in "protected activity." Protected activity includes but is not limited to filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC or a state or local agency, filing a discrimination complaint with the employer, or supporting a co-worker's complaint.

Although discrimination based on age, sex, and race are illegal at the workplace, it is a major problem in both small and large companies. If one of your employees complains or files an EEOC charge alleging discrimination, make sure he or she is not retaliated against. In this day and age, take every complaint seriously and promptly investigate the matter. It is essential to have an employee handbook with your company's policy and complaint mechanism for discrimination. Make sure every employee has a copy and signs a statement that they have read it and understood it. It is not enough just to have a company policy. It is also crucial to train your managers and supervisors on how to follow and carry out your company's policy on discrimination. Our Discrimination Attorneys have prepared policies and handbooks for many companies as well as conducted training seminars to teach supervisors and managers on how to deal with discrimination. If your company doesn't have a discrimination policy or handbook call our Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you avoid and minimize the potential cost of employment discrimination.

Continue reading "Six Figure Settlement of Age, Sex, and Race Discrimination Complaint by African American Female Employee at Sears" »

Telecom giant AT&T just settled an age discrimination lawsuit. The Company was charged with discriminating against over 50,000 retired AT&T workers who had retired under several retirement and severance programs because it refused to rehire them. The settlement provides for a three year consent decree and now enables former employees to apply for re-employment.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees and job applicants over 40 years of age because of their age regarding any term or condition of employment including hiring, firing, layoff, promotion, compensation, benefit, and training. The federal law also makes it illegal to retaliate against an individual for complaining about age discrimination or for filing charges, testifying or participating in such a investigation, proceeding or litigation. Our attorneys have represented many clients who were victims of age discrimination and suffered from loss of work and job opportunities. If you believe you have been discriminated against because of your age, our lawyers can help protect your rights in the workplace.

The EEOC had filed the age discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and its subsidiaries in 2009 alleging that it had discriminated against a class of retired workers by not allowing them to be reemployed just because they retired under early retirement plans. The government agency had charged that this resulted in violating the anti-discrimination laws because a disproportionate number of older workers ended up not having the same
opportunity to apply for re-employment.

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of John Yates, who was 57 years old at the time, and other retired workers. The class of workers all participated in retirement plans such as the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program, the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program and were denied reemployment.

According to the three year settlement decree, the Company will have to stop any prohibitions it has against rehiring workers who retired under such retirement programs. The decree also requires the telecommunication organization to update its databases so that former workers are not "blocked" from being rehired and certify every year in writing that it is following the terms of the decree. The decree states that it will "not maintain any policy prohibiting the rehiring of employees who [resigned] under the relevant retirement programs" and there will be no retaliation against anyone involved in the litigation. Anna M. Pohl, a trial attorney at the EEOC's New York district office, stated that "many former employees who took an early retirement package years ago still need work, and will now have an equal opportunity to apply for new jobs [with their former employer]."

The Company's discriminatory policy had the effect of putting over 50,000 workers out on the street relying on their savings and unemployment insurance to get by. Age discrimination not only affects older individuals but it can also consequentially impact our society and economy. Many companies lay off their older senior people and hire younger workers who they pay less. Many older workers have trouble finding similar jobs and end up taking jobs with substantially less pay and lower positions. With longer life spans, increased health care costs, and depleted savings, most people cannot afford to retire. When a qualified unemployed person is discriminated based on his or her age, he or she then relies on unemployment insurance and government assistance which then affects our economy.

If you have been negatively impacted because of your age, our experienced Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 can help you.

Continue reading "AT&T's Policies Violated Age Discrimination Laws For Failure to Rehire Retirees" »

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. ("Cracker Barrel") recently joined the list of companies who are part of the EEOC's National Universal Agreement to Mediate (NUAM) program to resolve employment discrimination claims. Rather than the EEOC engaging in a lengthy, formal investigation and litigation, the agreement would allow the EEOC and Cracker Barrel to informally resolve any workplace discrimination claims through Alternative Dispute Resolution. If you're interested in learning how a Universal Agreement to Mediate ("UAM") can benefit your company, our attorneys can help you figure out if entering into a UAM is the right decision for you. Our attorneys have helped many companies enter into this type of agreement.

There are over 200 national and regional private sector employers, including several Fortune 500 companies who have a similar arrangement with the EEOC. Some of the companies include: Ford Motor Company, Frito-Lay, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Intel Corporation, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Quest Diagnostics, Inc, and Tyson Foods, Inc.

This type of nationwide mediation agreement benefits everyone. Nicholas Inzeo, Director of the EEOC's Office of Field Programs has stated that "NUAMs are a nonadversarial and efficient way for companies to handle discrimination charge using the EEOC as a partner and adviser. EEOC mediation encourages a positive environment, and the company saves time and money."

According to the terms of the NUAM, if anybody files an eligible discrimination charge with the EEOC naming Cracker Barrel as an employer or respondent, the matter would be referred to the EEOC's mediation unit. As part of the NUAM, Cracker Barrel will name a corporate representative to handle any inquiries related to potential employment discrimination charges to help the EEOC with quick and efficient scheduling of mediation.

If your company is considering entering into a UAM with the EEOC, there are benefits to consider. Some of these include the following:

• a UAM shows that you are willing to mediate;

• the time involved in contacting an employer to see if they will mediate is shortened;

• a UAM expedites the flow of information between the EEOC and the employer;

• having a UAM expedites mediation scheduling; and

• allows both the EEOC and the employers to opt out of mediation on a case by cases basis if one of the parties thinks that the claim is not appropriate.

Certain types of claims are not eligible for mediation. These include class and systemic charges, claims filed under the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, or claims filed solely under the Equal Pay Act. The EEOC also has the discretion to opt out of mediation in cases where it serves the public interest to investigate the claim.

The EEOC is pushing its mediation program in order to improve it own efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with workplace discrimination claims. Currently, the EEOC has 233 national and regional Universal Agreements to Mediate with private sector employers. The EEOC's district offices have entered into 1,743 mediation agreements with local level employers. Through its NUAM, the EEOC has mediated over 136,000 charges of employment discrimination since the program begin in April 1999. About 70% of these charges have been successfully resolved.

If you are interested in learning more about the NUAM program, call our Mediation Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you evaluate whether this program can help your company deal better and more cost effectively with employment discrimination claims.

Continue reading "EEOC Mediation Program: Alternative Way to Resolve Employment Discrimination Claims" »

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, a federal district court judge in Brooklyn, ruled this week that an independent monitor must be hired to watch and ensure that the New York Fire Department becomes more diverse in its hiring practices in order to remedy 40 years of employment discrimination that has been taking place against black and Hispanic firefighters. This decision came after 4 years of litigation in which the city and the Fire Department were accused of race discrimination in their hiring practices.

The Vulcan Society, a black fraternal FDNY organization, complained about 10 years ago that the Fire Department gave applicants an exam that was full of SAT like questions which did not test for firefighting skills. Although potential hirees also had to take a physical test, this exam played the biggest part in whether or not a candidate was hired. The lawsuit also charged the FDNY with the existence of an "old boy network" where the FDNY favored hiring friends, relatives, and neighbors over minority applicants who did not have any connections. Thereafter, the Justice Department took over the case.

The Judge's decision accuses Mayor Bloomberg of willfully ignoring the FDNY's racial imbalance. The Fire Department has remained 97 percent white for decades although the city's population is about 25 percent black. In his ruling, the Judge accused the City of "blame-shifting" and "accountability-avoidance" and also wrote that the "city still doesn't get it." The Judge wrote that instead of investigating the city's track record of hiring Black and Hispanic firefighters, the city "dug in and fought back." According to the Judge's ruling, a court appointed monitor will be appointed for at least 10 years to assess recruitment, testing and hiring of new firefighters.

Mayor Bloomberg has responded that his administration has done more than any of his predecessors to make the FDNY more diverse. He has stated that the FDNY has recently had a very successful diverse recruitment campaign which resulted in 61,000 applicants, of which half were minorities. Bloomberg also stated that the "judge was not elected to run the city, and you can rest assured that we'll be in court for a long time."

The judge basically ruled that the city and Mayor Bloomberg were not capable of ending the discriminatory hiring practices at the FDNY. The court's decision amounts to major judicial intervention and oversight of this country's largest fire department. This is an extremely important decision because it shows that courts will intervene and run your city or business if it believes that you can't correct discriminatory practices on your own.

If you or someone you care about has suffered from any type of discrimination at the workplace, including race, gender, pregnancy, age, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, or religion, call our experienced Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to discuss your possible case.

Continue reading "Federal Lawsuit by Vulcan Society Finds Employment Discrimination is Ongoing Concern at FDNY" »

Tyson Fresh Meats ("Tyson"), a subsidiary of Tyson Meats, and a federal contractor entered into a settlement this week with the U.S. Labor Department for allegations that it engaged in sex discrimination. Pursuant to the consent decree, Tyson has agreed to pay $2.25 in back wages, interest and benefits to over 1,650 female job applicants who it denied employment to at four of its facilities. According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP"), this is one of its largest settlements in its history. Our firm has helped many companies place employment policies and procedures to help prevent discriminatory practices and thus avoid major lawsuits which could financially cripple your business.

During the Labor Department's compliance reviews with Tyson, the OFCCP found that Tyson had violated Executive Order 11246 which makes it illegal for federal contractors to discriminate based on sex. According to the settlement, Tyson will pay out the $2.25 million to the female job applicants it rejected. Tyson will also offer jobs to at least 220 of these women as positions open up at its facilities. Tyson has also agreed to extensive self monitoring and corrective measures to make sure that it does not engage in any illegal employment practices.

Tyson has stated that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring these women. Ken Kimbro, chief human resources officer for Tyson Meats, stated that "this was really about documentation, not discrimination" and that the "charges were strictly based on a statistical analysis of job applications at the plant, not on complaints by any applicants."

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has stated that "companies that profit from federal contracts must not discriminate in employment decisions." Tyson received federal contracts totaling over $200 million in each of the past 3 years and was also given another $8 million contract for its beef and pork products at stores in Guam. Not just Executive Order 11246, but he OFCCP's legal authority under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistant Act of 1974 also provide that if you are a contractor or sub-contractor doing business with the government, you must not engage in employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.

This historical settlement sends out a clear message to all companies that if you do business with the government, do no engage in any type of discriminatory practices and have documentation to back up your defense. Whether Tyson engaged in discriminatory practices or not, it learned the expensive way that it should have maintained documentation regarding its employment practices. When doing business with the government, make sure you maintain and retain proper documentation regarding all facets of employment from hiring to firing. If you are in business with the government, you can be audited any time.

Our attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala have helped many companies who have contracts with the government put policies and procedures in place to ensure that they have proper documentation to support their employment decisions. If you have any government contracts, call our Employment Discrimination Attorneys at (800) 893-9645 to help make sure your company has policies and procedures to support its employment practices.

Continue reading "Tyson Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit with US Labor Department and Agrees to Stop Illegal Employment Practices" »

New Jersey recently passed a bill that makes it illegal for employers to specify in their job listings that unemployed persons will not be considered for hiring. New Jersey's legislative ban on blatant and open discrimination against the unemployed, whether in print or online, is the first of its kind in the US but probably not the last. If you violate the bill, you face a penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

The New Jersey Statute, N.J.S.A. 34:8B-1 makes it illegal for an employer or an employer's agent to "publish, in print or on the Internet" any job postings that provide that the job qualifications include current employment, that unemployed applicants will not be considered, or that only employed job applicants will considered for the position. The New Jersey law becomes effective June 1, 2011. The statute does not require an employer to consider hiring an unemployed job applicant.

New Jersey Representative Celeste Riley, who sponsored the bill, said she became aware of employers discriminating against the unemployed when she saw an online job ad that stated that jobless candidates should not apply. Riley's own district has one of the highest rates of unemployment in New Jersey. Riley has stated that although you "can't control people's behaviors," New Jersey can at least send a message to employers that this practice is unacceptable.

In February of this year, the EEOC held hearings to investigate and determine whether this type of discrimination against unemployed persons seeking jobs is unlawful under federal discrimination laws. Helen Norton, Associate Professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, has found that employers as well as staffing agencies have advertised jobs ranging from electric engineers to restaurant and grocery managers to mortgage underwriters, all seeking only currently employed individuals. Fatima Gross Graves, Vice President of Education and Employment of the National Women's Law Center, has stated that discrimination against the jobless "may well act as a counterweight" against the governments' effort in fighting unemployment. Gross Graves also testified that this type of discrimination disproportionately affects women, especially older women in non-traditional occupations.

The EEOC hearing also found that this type of discrimination can have a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minorities. Algernon Austin, Director of the Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy of the Economic Policy Institute, testified that African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans have higher unemployment rates. The rate is also higher for college educated Asian workers. Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, Dr. William Spriggs, testified that according to employment statistics, African Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented among the unemployed. He also testified that older applicants and persons with disabilities are also more likely to be affected if employers place job status restrictions in hiring.

Many people today are unemployed, not because of poor work performance, but because the economy suffered, restructuring, layoffs, or because they took time off to take care of kids. Many people who have been unemployed for a long period of time simply have not found another job, not because they didn't try, but because they just can't find another job. It is an outrage that blatantly discriminatory job ads against the unemployed are being seen across the country. This is being referred to as "you have to have a job to get a job." About 4.4 million people, or 40% of the country's unemployed, have been without a job for over a year. For every job opening, there are on average 5 job applicants. Unfortunately, people who have been unemployed for a long period of time have a much more difficult time finding another job.

If this vicious cycle of discriminating against the jobless continues to grow, it could potentially undermine all the recovery efforts the government has made in the past few years. This type of discrimination can also have a disparate impact on women, minorities, and persons with disabilities who have a disproportionately higher rate of unemployment. For example, where such a restrictive job ad rules out a high number of women from even applying for the job, it is a violation of of both Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Basically, it is a way for employers to circumvent all the civil rights progress that many in this county have fought long and hard to attain.

Georgia Congressmen Hank Johnson recently introduced the Fair Employment Act of 2011 which is a bill still in committee. If passed, it would make it illegal for employers to discriminate or lower compensation because of a person's employment status.

If you or someone you care about has suffered from any type of discrimination at the workplace, including race, gender, pregnancy, age, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, or religion, call our experienced Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to discuss your possible case.

Disclaimer: 

Thank you for visiting our Blog. This blog provides general information and thoughts about various employment law issues primarily in the New York Tri-State area and occasionally in other areas. You are welcome to read the posts. However, do not construe any content on this blog as legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. Again, we provide the content only for informational purposes. You should not make decisions based information on our blog since the application of the law depends on the facts and each situation may be different. In addition, the law in most jurisdictions is different and changes constantly and we make no representations that any information on our blog has been updated. The Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an experienced employment law attorney in your state or jurisdiction.

Source:

EEOC Meeting of February 16, 2011

FAQ: Every year at our office holiday party, there are several people who become intoxicated and behave inappropriately. As an employer, can I be held liable if one of my employees sexually harasses another employee or becomes intoxicated at the office holiday party and then gets into an automobile accident and injures an innocent party?

This is a great question this time of the year when employers are holding office holiday parties. As you plan your office holiday party, you probably have the best of intentions for the party. This is your way of showing your employees your appreciation and a way for your staff to unwind and socialize. However, the potential for liability is enormous between sexual harassment claims and the dangers of drunk driving. If one of your employees sexually harasses another employee at your holiday party, it is still a work related incident. Similarly, any discriminatory conduct or unwelcome racial jokes or obscenities at the holiday party can also be used against you in a discrimination lawsuit.

You could face great potential liability if you are serving alcohol and one of your employees drives home intoxicated and injures a third party. Although the potential for employer liability varies from state to state, all employers should be aware of the following case.

An Illinois Appellate Court recently found that Korean Airlines could be vicariously liable for its employee's negligent and intoxicated conduct which lead to a deadly car accident after a dinner party. The Court held that employer liability "can arise from acts, omissions or, in the case of respondeat superior, the employer-employee relations, so long as the employee's negligence is within the scope of employment." Accordingly, Korean Airlines could be held liable if it can be shown that the employee was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Accordingly, if you make employees come to your holiday party as part of their employment or if you have the party during working hours, you could be potentially liable for your employee's acts caused by intoxication.

Continue reading "Employer Liability FAQ on Holiday Office Party " »

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" »