New York Employment Lawyer Blog

A New Jersey District Court Judge this week denied Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals' ("Bayer") request to stop eight women from being considered for a class action. The complaint alleges violations under the Equal Pay Act and charges of discrimination in pay and promotions.

The women's class action lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages in the amount of $100 million or more for all female employees similarly situated. The group of women holds positions which include that of Associate Director, Deputy Director, and Director in the Women's Healthcare and Oncology Division. If you feel you have been discriminated against regarding any aspect of employment because of your sex, call our attorneys to determine the strength of your discrimination claims.

The women's complaint was filed in March, 2011 and originally brought by 6 women on behalf of themselves and a class of female employees under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and New Jersey law. The complaint charged Bayer with a pattern and practice of discrimination in pay, promotions, and the treatment of pregnant women and mothers. The complaint set forth that Bayer has published and handed out articles that implied that men were better suited to be managers than women and described women as prone to "mood swings," "indecision," and "backstabbing." It also stated that "women with power are loose cannons who often feel threatened by colleagues." The complaint also alleged that senior managers made negative remarks about childcare responsibilities and passed over for promotions women who used maternity leave.

Before bringing this lawsuit, the women filed internal complaints which went unaddressed. After filing their complaint, Bayer's managers told them that they should "know better" and that the "company won't do anything about their complaints." Bayer's human resources department told the women that their complaints of gender discrimination should be handled by themselves and not the company.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in pay based on sex and the Equal Pay Act provides that men and women in the same workplace should be paid the same for doing the same work. Although the jobs do not need to be identical, they must be substantially equal. Both Acts cover every aspect of pay including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, as well as benefits and compensation. If you are earning less and doing the same work as a male employee in your company, your boss may not lower his wages to equalize your pay.

It is a shame that a multinational pharmaceutical giant such as Bayer refused to provide equal treatment to its female employees. Even in this day and age, sex discrimination blatantly exists. If you are earning less than your male counterpart or being passed up for promotions because of your sex or because you took your federally protected right to maternity leave, call our Gender Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you recover your workplace rights.

Continue reading "Employment Discrimination Update: Bayer Fails to Bar Class Action by Lawsuit Alleging Sex Bias" »

The Department of Labor ("DOL") announced this week that it has reached a $3 million settlement with federal contractors FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and FedEx SmartPost Inc. (collectively referred to as "FedEx") over allegations that they discriminated against job applicants at two dozen facilities in 15 states. Under the terms of the agreement, FedEx will also implement changes to correct any discriminatory hiring practices and give job offers to those who were rejected as positions become available.

The settlement covers a total of 21,635 rejected job applicants who will receive back wages and interest and as well as job offers to 1,703 individuals as they become available. Of the affected workers, 61 percent are female, 52 percent are African American, 14 percent are Hispanic, 2 percent are Asian, and 1 percent are Native American. If you have suffered from discrimination with respect to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, pay, benefits, or compensation, our attorneys can help you determine if you have a claim. Our attorneys have helped many individuals recover their workplace rights.

The DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which monitors the employment practices of the country's 200,000 federal contractors, first found evidence that FedEx was discriminating on the basis of sex, race, and national origin in its hiring practices seven years ago. During scheduled reviews, the compliance office found that compared to similarly situated white applicants, there was discrimination against African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans. The review also showed discrimination against women who were automatically ruled out for jobs requiring heavy lifting.

The Director of the compliance office, Patricia A. Shiu, stated that audits revealed evidence of bias even where job applicants didn't complain or realize that they had been discriminated against. The evidence consisted of a computer statistical analysis as well as interviews with job applicants and FedEx officials. Shiu stated that "Being a federal contractor is a privilege and means you absolutely, positively cannot discriminate, not when you are profiting from taxpayer dollars."

In addition to the monetary settlement, FedEx has also agreed to correct any discriminatory hiring practices, train its employees, and implement self-monitoring measures to make sure that all hiring practices are legally compliant. It has also agreed to hire an outside consultant to conduct an extensive review of the company's hiring practices and make recommendations to change and improve their practices, as well as train its supervisors and employees.

If you are a covered employer with government contracts, make sure you are in full compliance with all federal regulations. FedEx did not admit to any wrongdoing in this case and did not feel that it engaged in any discriminatory practices. However, the statistical numbers showed a different story. Whether or not FedEx was engaged in discriminatory hiring practices, it still incurred the cost of settling and now having to make expensive changes throughout the company.

Our attorneys have helped many businesses make sure that all their employment practices are in accord with state and federal laws. Our attorneys have also conducted training seminars to help companies prevent unnecessary litigation. If you have contracts with the government, call our Employment Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to discuss how we can help you make sure your company is in full compliance with all state and federal laws.

Continue reading "Employer Discrimination Update: Contracts With The Government Can Cost You Millions If Your Hiring Practices Violate Federal Laws" »

A federal judge in Houston recently ruled that it was not sex discrimination where a woman was fired because she asked for a place to pump her breast milk. The Judge's ruling stated that "lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." Other district courts in the country have also issued similar rulings. However, this issue has not been ruled on by any higher level appeals courts.

The woman who was fired over this issue, Donnicia Venters, worked for Houston Funding as an account representative for about 3 years and had even earned a promotion. Venters took maternity leave in December 2008 and gave birth to her now 3 year old daughter. According to cell phone records and her former supervisors' statements, Venters kept in close touch with her employer during her 10 week maternity leave. While she was on leave, she told her direct supervisor at least twice, that she wanted to pump milk while on her break, and asked him to get permission from their boss, Vice President Harry Cagle.

Venters' supervisor, Fleming, stated in an affidavit that when he told Cagle about Venters request, he responded "No. Maybe she needs to stay home longer." Ventors stated that when she told Cagle she wanted to pump breast milk in a back room during breaks, his "demeanor changed. He paused for a few seconds and said, 'I'm sorry. We've laid you off."

Houston Funding argued during the lawsuit that it fired Venters because she did not keep in contact with the company and didn't come back to work as scheduled. The EEOC argued that Venters spoke to her supervisor at least once a week during her maternity leave and that Houston Funding's allegation that she was fired for "job abandonment" was a "pretext for unlawful discrimination."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against employees because of their sex, including pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.

President Obama's health care law talks about breast feeding and requires employers to give mothers a break to nurse. However, if a woman asks to pump breast milk, it does not specifically protect her from getting fired. The laws intent was to get nursing mothers back to work and allow them to continue nursing for its health benefits. The law gives you break time to nurse, but it does not protect you from getting fired when you take that break to pump breast milk.

According to several federal district court rulings, lactation discrimination is not illegal. Obama's health care law is quite useless if it provides you with a break to pump breast milk but doesn't protect you from getting fired for doing so. The EEOC has not yet decided whether it will appeal the Court's decision. Clearly, the health care law on this issue needs to be amended or the courts need to interpret the law using common sense. If its illegal to discriminate based on pregnancy, then discrimination based on lactation should follow. Lactation is a "related medical condition" to pregnancy.

Although lactation discrimination is not currently prohibited, discrimination based on pregnancy is illegal. If you or anyone you know has suffered from discrimination based on pregnancy or a related issue, call our Discrimination Attorneys at Villanueva & Sanchala at (800) 893-9645 to help you protect your workplace rights.

Continue reading "Court Rules Request to Pump Breast Milk at Place of Employment Not Pregnancy or Sex Discrimination" »

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 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" »

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

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" »