New York Employment Law Updates

United States Supreme Court Clarifies Proof of Age Discrimination Under the ADEA That Could Have Impact in New York and Elsewhere

Published on: April 21, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Under both State and Federal law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees due to age. Specifically, the Age Discrimination of Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects employees over the age of 40 from discrimination in the workplace. Recently, the United States Supreme Court clarified the parameters for federal employees to pursue or recover under an age-discrimination claim under the ADEA. If you are a federal employee who was subject to age discrimination in the workplace, it is prudent to meet with a skillful New York employment discrimination attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the federal government as a pharmacist practicing disease state management, which was an advanced scope designation. In 2010, the defendant began an initiative to promote pharmacists who practiced disease state management. In 2013, however, the plaintiff’s advanced scope designation was taken away, and while she received a new position, her holiday pay was reduced. She was also denied additional training and passed over for promotions. She subsequently filed a discrimination lawsuit alleging, in part, discrimination based on age.

It is reported that the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed. The plaintiff then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court agreed to hear the case to decide the discrete issue of whether the ADEA’s federal-sector provision requires a plaintiff to prove that his or her age was the “but for” cause of the defendant’s allegedly discriminatory actions.

New York Court Discusses Equitable Tolling of Deadline for Discrimination Claims

Published on: April 14, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Although sexual orientation is not explicitly listed as a class protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), people who suffer discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation can pursue claims against their employers for violating Title VII. As with any discrimination claim, however, it is essential for a plaintiff seeking damages for discrimination based on sexual orientation to comply with statutory deadlines, otherwise he or she may run the risk of waiving the right to recover damages. In a recent case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York discussed when a failure to file an employment discrimination lawsuit within the proscribed time period may be excused. If you suffered discrimination at work due to your sexual orientation, it is advisable to contact a seasoned New York employment discrimination attorney to discuss your case.

Factual History

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who self-identifies as a gay man, worked for the defendant as a social worker. He alleged that he was subject to discrimination and retaliation and was ultimately terminated due to his sexual orientation. As such, he filed discrimination charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after which he received a right to sue letter, which stated he had 90 days to file a lawsuit. After receipt of the letter, he attempted to find an attorney for a few weeks but did not secure representation. He then began suffering anxiety and depression over his inability to retain an attorney, which rendered him unable to focus on the task.

It is reported that prior to the end of the 90-day period, the defendant was stabbed by his roommate. He was hospitalized for two weeks after the stabbing, and the 90-day period ran during his hospitalization. He ultimately engaged an attorney and filed his lawsuit 21 days after the 90-day period ran. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P.12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint was untimely.

New York Court Discusses Elements of a Hostile Work Environment Claim

Published on: April 3, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

There are myriad behaviors that fall under the umbrella of gender discrimination. For example, a person’s employment may suffer due to his or her gender by way of a demotion or denial of a promotion. In other instances, derogatory comments or threatening behavior based on a person’s gender may create a hostile work environment. Although in some cases, a person may be subject to gender discrimination and may experience a hostile work environment, individual acts of discrimination do not necessarily equate to a hostile work environment, as demonstrated in a recent case decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. If you suffered discrimination in the workplace due to your gender, it is wise to speak with an experienced New York employment discrimination attorney regarding your potential claims.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant for 34 years. At one point, she held the position of a supervisor of customer services, but her position was modified due to the fact that there were not enough employees to warrant a supervisor. She was advised, however, that if the position were reinstated, she would be restored to that position. Subsequently, in 2015 the plaintiff applied for the position of supervisor of customer services. No interviews were conducted for the position, which was given to a man who never applied for the position. The man then left the position, and the plaintiff once again applied for the position.

It is reported that the plaintiff’s supervisor gave the position to someone outside of the protected class a second time, after which the plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After the plaintiff filed the EEOC complaint, she allegedly experienced a hostile work environment. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging claims of discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claims.

New York Court Explains Elements of a Retaliation Claim

Published on: March 26, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

There are numerous classes that are protected from discrimination under both state and federal law. Moreover, in addition to prohibiting discrimination, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for reporting discriminatory behavior. Similar to other employment discrimination claims, though, a plaintiff alleging retaliation must meet a high standard to prove the employer’s acts were the result of retaliation and not another non-discriminatory purpose. Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York explained the elements of a retaliation claim, in a case in which the plaintiff alleged disability and gender discrimination claims. If you experienced workplace discrimination or retaliation for reporting discrimination, it is advisable to speak with a New York employment discrimination attorney regarding your potential claims.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a part-time teaching assistant. She suffered from Hashimoto’s disease and advised her employer that she had the disease on numerous occasions. She testified the disease often causes muscle pain, exhaustion, and back and neck pain. The plaintiff reported to her supervisor that she felt uncomfortable with two of the students she was assigned to work with, due to the fact that one of them sent her notes of a sexual nature and because they both made inappropriate comments towards her. She was advised to avoid being around them and to limit her interactions with them.

Reportedly, the plaintiff was ultimately advised that the students’ behavior was addressed with the students and that she would be re-assigned to a new classroom. She became upset and resisted the transfer, suggesting she was not actually uncomfortable with their interactions. She became extremely upset and was advised not to return to the classroom, but did regardless. Later that day, her supervisor stated he was concerned that she was not maintaining appropriate boundaries and was undermining the social workers and failing to manage her classroom. The decision was made to terminate her employment, after which she provided the defendant with a note stating she was taking medical leave. She was terminated one day later. She filed a lawsuit alleging several claims against the defendant, including retaliation. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the defendant’s motion.

New York Court Discusses Failure to Make a Reasonable Accommodation Claim

Published on: March 16, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

People with disabilities are afforded many protections under the law, including the right to reasonable accommodation. Whether a plaintiff made a request for a reasonable accommodation and whether his or her request was rightfully denied is generally a question of fact. Recently, the United States District Court of the Northern District of New York discussed what a plaintiff must allege to set forth a viable failure to make a reasonable accommodation claim under New York law. If you have a disability and suffered discrimination in the workplace due to your disability, it is prudent to consult a skillful New York disability discrimination attorney to discuss what claims you may be able to pursue.

Facts Regarding the Alleged Discrimination

It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for the defendant as a mental health therapy aide. She has a learning disability that makes it difficult for her to write, comprehend, and learn new tasks. She asserted that she began to experience discrimination based on her disability, in that a nurse began to harass her due to the method in which she was completing an assignment, despite the fact that the nurse knew about her disability.

The plaintiff further alleged that the nurse ignored her request for an accommodation and began shaming the plaintiff as a result of the disability. The plaintiff reported the hostile work environment to her supervisor, who refused to intervene. The plaintiff ultimately filed a lawsuit alleging claims of disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that the plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to support a claim of failure to make a reasonable accommodation.

Court Explains Elements of a New York Overtime Wage Violation Claim

Published on: March 6, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Under state and federal law, certain employees are entitled to overtime pay. Thus, if an employer fails to pay an employee wages he or she is owed, the employee may not only be able to recover past wages but may be awarded additional damages as well. In a recent ruling, a federal district court analyzed what a plaintiff alleging her employer denied her overtime wages must prove to set forth a successful claim. If you work in New York and you believe your employer unjustly denied you wages you are owed, you should speak with a trusted New York wage and hour attorney to discuss your potential claims.

Facts Regarding the Plaintiff’s Employment

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant company as a billing assistant. When the plaintiff was hired, she received a pay notice that listed her hourly rate. The area of the notice that listed the overtime rate was blank, however. The defendant employer calculated each employee’s weekly hours via records created by a timekeeping machine. The plaintiff was involved in a dispute with her supervisor and was ultimately fired. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant asserting numerous claims, including the allegations that the defendant did not pay her overtime wages. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment with regards to the plaintiff’s wage and overtime claim.

Proving Wage and Hour Violations

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees are entitled to at least one and a half times their regular wage for hours worked over forty hours per week. Further, New York incorporates the FLSA’s standards into its overtime compensation scheme. Thus, in many cases, the courts will analyze allegations regarding unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and New York law jointly.

New York Court Discusses Elements of a Title VII Discrimination Claim

Published on: February 19, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

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.

New York Court Discusses Collateral Estoppel in Discrimination Cases

Published on: February 6, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

There is a saying in civil litigation that you only get one bite of the apple. In other words, you cannot attempt to re-litigate a claim merely because you received an unfavorable result. This tenet does not only apply to tort claims, but it also applies to employment discrimination claims, as discussed in a recent gender discrimination case decided by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. If you believe you suffered discrimination in the workplace due to your sex or gender, it is advisable to meet with a trusted New York sex discrimination attorney to discuss whether you may be able to assert a claim for damages.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed an employment discrimination claim against the defendant employer, alleging she faced disparate treatment due to her gender and race in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that the plaintiff could not re-litigate issues that were previously decided in a federal lawsuit arising out of the same alleged harm. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and plaintiff appealed.

Collateral Estoppel in the Realm of Employment Discrimination Cases

In affirming the trial court opinion, the appellate court stated that the trial court correctly ruled that collateral estoppel applied to any factual issues in the present action that were the same as the factual issues resolved by the federal court in dismissing plaintiff’s federal employment discrimination claims.

Court Discusses Hostile Work Environment Claims Under New York Law

Published on: February 4, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Under the laws of the State and New York City, people are protected from discrimination based on their religion. Thus, if a person is discriminated against in the workplace due to his or her religious identity, and it creates a hostile work environment, the person’s employer may be held liable. The mere identification as a member of a certain religion is insufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim, however. Rather, a plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment on the basis of religious discrimination must show that the alleged discriminatory conduct rose to a certain level for the conduct to be actionable.

Recently, a New York appellate court discussed a plaintiff’s burden of proof in a hostile work environment case under both the New York State (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), in a case in which the plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of his religion. If you believe you were the victim of a hostile work environment, it is wise to speak with a trusted New York hostile work environment attorney to discuss whether you may have a viable claim against your employer.

Factual Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff, who is Jewish, was employed as a firefighter by the defendant city. He filed a complaint with the equal employment office of the defendant, alleging discrimination on the basis of his religion, but the office determined his complaints to be unsubstantiated. He then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging employment discrimination and hostile work environment claims on the basis of his religion in violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Specifically, he alleged that one of his co-workers made an anti-Semitic comment and that after he complained about the comment, he was subject to several instances of retaliation, which created a hostile work environment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The plaintiff then appealed.

New York Court Discusses Disparate Treatment Under Title VII

Published on: January 27, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Numerous laws protect New York employees from discrimination in the workplace due to their race or color. Employment discrimination can take many forms, including disparate treatment. In a recent case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York discussed what actions may constitute adverse treatment in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he was discriminated against based on his national origin, race, and color. If your employer took adverse action against you at work because of your race or color, you should speak with a seasoned capable New York employment discrimination attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff worked for the defendant city as a corrections officer. He sustained a shoulder injury while at work, after which he underwent shoulder surgery. He subsequently sought extended sick leave, which required him to obtain approval from the Health Management Division of the department of corrections. Thus, a physician was assigned to his case. The physician made fun of the plaintiff’s accent, made derogatory comments about the plaintiff’s color and race, and initially refused to perform an examination. He ultimately deemed the plaintiff able to work with a medically monitored restriction. The plaintiff complained to his supervisor and asked to be assigned a new doctor, but his request was denied.

It is reported that at subsequent appointments, the physician continued to be demeaning and told the plaintiff to go back to his own country. Additionally, as the physician would not designate the plaintiff as unable to work, the plaintiff was forced to take unauthorized sick days, after which he was disciplined, placed on probation, and forced to forfeit sick days. The plaintiff ultimately filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the defendant, alleging multiple claims of discrimination under Title VII, including disparate treatment. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging, in part, that the plaintiff had not properly alleged facts indicating an adverse action.