COVID-19 Updates and Legal Services

Articles Posted in Race Discrimination

People subjected to discrimination in the workplace are often able to recover significant damages. They must abide by the procedural requirements for pursuing employment discrimination claims; however, otherwise, they run the risk of waiving the right to recover compensation. For example, they must file their complaints within the time indicated by the applicable laws. Recently, a New York court addressed the issue of timeliness of Title VII discrimination claims in a ruling in which it ultimately found some of the plaintiff’s race discrimination claims were untimely. If you were treated unfairly due to your race, you might be owed compensation, and it is smart to meet with a skillful New York employment discrimination lawyer as soon as possible.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations

It is reported that the plaintiff, who is African American, has worked for the defendant police department since 1992. In 2015, the defendant sergeant began supervising the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that starting in July 2015, the defendants created an environment where the plaintiff was treated differently than other employees because of his race. He experienced numerous instances of race-based disparate treatment over the next year until the defendant was replaced by another supervisor. The plaintiff ultimately filed an employment discrimination claim against the defendants alleging, in part, race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. The defendants moved to dismiss some of the plaintiff’s Title VII claims on the grounds they were time-barred.

Timeliness of Title VII Claims

Pursuant to Title VII, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees with regard to the privileges, conditions, or terms of employment because of the employees’ race or any other protected characteristic. People who wish to pursue claims under Title VII must first exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the law. In other words, they must file discrimination charges with the EEOC within three hundred days of the date the alleged unlawful employment act occurred. Continue reading

In employment discrimination cases, the primary issues are whether the defendant is liable, and if so, what damages are owed. Generally, defendants do not concede liability and will dispute what compensation, if any, is recoverable, and the issues will be presented to a jury. Even if a jury awards the plaintiff damages, though, a defendant may argue that the verdict was unjust and may seek a new trial. In a recent New York opinion arising out of a racial discrimination case, the court explained the grounds for modifying an award for emotional distress damages. If you were discriminated against in the workplace due to your race, you could be owed compensation, and it is advisable to meet with a New York employment discrimination attorney regarding your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Claims and Damages

It is reported that the plaintiff filed claims of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII against the defendant, his employer. The matter proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $1.5 million dollars in compensatory damages. The court judgment against the defendant in an amount in excess of $2 million dollars, which represented the compensatory damages owed to the plaintiff as well as equitable relief in the form of back pay, attorneys’ fees, costs, and lost pension income. The defendant then filed a motion requesting a new trial or a remittitur, arguing in part that the damages awarded to the plaintiff for emotional distress were excessive.

Modifying a Damages Award in an Employment Discrimination Case

The court explained that a remitter is a statement on behalf of the court that the damages awarded by the jury were shocking and essentially requires a plaintiff to choose between a new trial and a reduction of an excessive verdict. The court explained that while it is the jury’s domain to calculate damages, there is an upper limit as to what is reasonable. Additionally, a jury cannot discard analysis due to sympathy for a plaintiff and treat harm as grounds for a windfall. Continue reading

It is an unfortunate fact that many people are subject to discriminatory comments in the workplace due to their race or national origin. While discrimination based on a protected class, such as race or national origin, is unlawful, discriminatory comments in and of themselves may not be actionable, if they are not made by a person with authority to impact the victim’s employment. This was discussed in a recent case ruled on by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiff alleged he was subject to employment discrimination based on his race. If you are subjected to discriminatory comments or actions in the workplace, it is sensible to meet with a skillful New York race discrimination attorney to discuss whether you may be able to pursue claims against your employer.

Factual Background

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was from Puerto Rico, worked as a newspaper feeder for the defendant company. His co-workers routinely made derogatory comments regarding his race. Following a dispute with a co-worker, he was terminated. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging numerous claims, including a claim of race and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging in part that the plaintiff had not set forth sufficient facts to sustain his Title VII claim.

Race Discrimination Under Title VII

Title VII provides that employers are prohibited from discriminating against any person with respect to the terms, conditions, compensation, or privileges of employment because of the person’s race, national origin, and other protected classes. In order to plead a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that he or she was a member of a protected class and that he or she was qualified for the job in question. The plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an adverse employment action and that there is at least minimal evidence that would allow for the inference that the employer was motivated by discriminatory intent in taking the adverse employment action against the plaintiff.

Continue reading

Contact Information