New York Employment Law Updates

New York Court Explains Vicarious Liability for a Hostile Work Environment

Published on: December 11, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Discriminatory remarks and actions in the workplace can make a job unbearable and often form the basis of a hostile work environment claim. In many instances, one person or a limited group of people will partake in the discriminatory behavior, and they will be deemed liable while the company as a whole will not be responsible for the harm suffered. In some cases, though, a company may be found vicariously liable for its employees’ wrongful acts, as discussed in a recent New York opinion arising out of a hostile work environment lawsuit. If you were the victim of pervasive discrimination in the workplace, it is prudent to consult a dedicated New York hostile discrimination attorney to assess your options for seeking damages.

Factual Background

Allegedly, the plaintiff identifies as gender non-conforming and gay. He worked for the defendant glass company as a purchaser. In 2015, the defendant supervisor was placed in charge of the plaintiff. She immediately began treating the plaintiff differently than the other workers, frequently making comments about his sexuality and gender. Although there was no company procedure for dealing with discrimination, he reported the defendant supervisor’s behavior to the company owner, who stated he would speak to the defendant supervisor.

It is reported that the defendant supervisor was issued a warning; nevertheless, the discrimination continued. The handbook in effect at that time contained an anti-discrimination policy and a system of progressive discipline, but the defendant company did not adhere to the procedure. The plaintiff again complained to the company owner, and shortly thereafter, he was terminated. He filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging, in part, that the defendant company was vicariously liable for the hostile work environment created by the defendant supervisor. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment.

New York Court Discusses Evidence Needed to Prove Disparate Treatment at Work

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

People from a variety of ethnic backgrounds work in New York. While garnering the experiences and knowledge from a diverse group of people is one of the greatest advantages of working in an urban environment, racial discrimination is, unfortunately, a problem in many workplaces. While victims of employment discrimination can seek redress via the courts, they must produce sufficient evidence of discriminatory acts to recover damages. Recently, a New York court discussed the evidence a plaintiff needs to prove disparate treatment in a case alleging racial discrimination. If you were subject to discriminatory acts at work, you might be owed compensation, and it is in your best interest to speak with a seasoned New York employment discrimination attorney to discuss your possible claims.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff worked at the defendant university as a history professor. The plaintiff, who was of Indian descent, faced extensive obstacles in obtaining tenure and was repeatedly denied distinguished professor status. He filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging numerous claims of discrimination in violation of state and federal law, including a claim that he was subject to disparate treatment due to the defendant’s failure to renew his salary supplement. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. After reviewing the plaintiff’s complaint, the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Evidence Needed to Prove Disparate Treatment

In part, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s disparate treatment was implausible under Title VII. The plaintiff did not counter the defendant’s argument, and therefore, the court deemed the claim abandoned. The court stated, however, that even if it was not abandoned, it lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Court Explains Discovery Permitted in Employment Discrimination Cases in New York

Published on: November 17, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

In employment discrimination cases in New York, a plaintiff will often allege that an employer treated the plaintiff differently than other employees in similar situations or positions. In such instances, evidence of such unequal treatment is critical to proving an employer’s liability. Employers may be reluctant to share certain documents and records, however, and may argue that they are either irrelevant or privileged. A plaintiff’s right to obtain materials necessary to the prosecution of a case were discussed in an opinion recently delivered by a New York court, in which an employer objected to the employee’s discovery requests seeking employment records. If you are the victim of discrimination in the workplace, it is advisable to meet with a trusted New York employment harassment attorney to assess what evidence you may need to prove liability.

The Plaintiff’s Allegations and Discovery Requests

Reportedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a safety manager on a project involving the renovation of a train station. The plaintiff was terminated approximately two months after she was hired. The defendant cited habitual lateness and other issues pertaining to the plaintiff’s performance as the reason she was terminated. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that her supervisor sexually harassed her throughout the course of her employment, and her rejection of his advances was the actual reason for her termination.

Allegedly, during the course of litigation, the plaintiff sent the defendant discovery requests, seeking documents regarding other employees who had engaged in or been terminated for engaging in the same conduct that the defendant alleged led to the plaintiff’s firing. The defendant opposed the requests, and the plaintiff filed a motion to compel. The court granted the motion in part, only ordering the defendant to produce information regarding other employees who were terminated for the same reason as the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.

New York Court Discusses Grounds for Sealing a Sexual Harassment Case

Published on: November 10, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Many employment discrimination cases involve delicate issues that require the disclosure of highly sensitive and sometimes offensive information. Despite this, the courts tend to favor that cases remain open. That is, a court will generally allow the pleadings in a case to remain accessible to the public in most instances, and a party that seeks to have a case sealed faces a high burden. The grounds for sealing a case were analyzed in a recent opinion set forth by a New York court in a sexual harassment case. If you were the victim of harassment in the workplace, you may be able to seek damages and should speak to a skillful New York sexual harassment attorney promptly to discuss your rights.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant employer and supervisor, setting forth claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment under both federal and state law. The case was resolved expeditiously, in that a settlement was reached before the defendants made an appearance in the case. Thus, the case information mostly consisted of the docket sheet and the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff nonetheless filed a motion to seal the case. The defendants consented to the motion, but the court ultimately denied the plaintiff’s request regardless.

Grounds for Sealing a Sexual Harassment Case

The court explained that the press and the public have a qualified right under the First Amendment to access certain judicial documents, including complaints and docket sheets. Although judicial documents may be sealed if such protections are demanded by higher values, such restriction require specific findings, on the record, that such closures are necessary to preserve higher values and that the closure is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. As such, sealing an entire case file is a last resort.

New York Court Discusses Constructive Discharge in Employment Cases

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

In any employment discrimination case in New York, the plaintiff must not only demonstrate that the employer engaged in discriminatory practices but also that such behavior adversely impacted the plaintiff’s employment. Many acts may constitute an adverse action, including actual and constructive termination. Recently, a New York court discussed what constitutes constructive discharge in a case in which the plaintiff alleged he had to stop working because of sexual harassment. If you needed to stop working because of harassment in the workplace, you should meet with a seasoned New York sexual harassment attorney to assess whether you may be able to pursue a claim for damages.

The Alleged Harassment

Reportedly, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a car inspector from 2006 through 2017. He was diagnosed with numerous psychiatric disorders, for which he took medication. He began experiencing taunts from his coworkers in 2009 when they learned their supervisor preferred the plaintiff to other workers. In 2016, a coworker made a sexual comment to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff reported. Later that year, the same coworker placed a note expressing sexual thoughts inside of the plaintiff’s pocket, which the plaintiff reported as well.

Allegedly, the plaintiff’s coworkers then began teasing him about his mental health issues. Plaintiff submitted a complaint and then took a vacation. After he returned from vacation, he quit. He ultimately filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that he was subjected to a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and discrimination because of his mental illness. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

New York Court Grants Summary Judgment for Plaintiff in Wage Violation Case

Published on: October 20, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Under both state and federal law, employers have to pay employees the minimum wage defined by statute and must pay eligible employees overtime, and employers that fail to do so may be held civilly liable. While many wage and hour claims must be resolved via trial, in cases in which an employer’s violations are clear, an employee may be able to obtain summary judgment on the question of liability. This was illustrated in a recent New York case in which the court found that the employer was liable for wage violations as a matter of law, and therefore a trial on the issue was not necessary. If you believe your employer failed to pay you appropriate wages in violation of wage laws, you should meet with a dedicated New York wage and hour attorney to discuss your rights.

The Plaintiff’s Employment History

It is alleged that from August 2003 through August 2018, the plaintiff worked as a sales-clerk for the defendant corporation which sold wholesale beauty products. The plaintiff did not have administrative or executive duties. He did not receive a notice from the defendant regarding his pay when he started and never completed any paperwork. He was paid a set amount every two weeks, regardless of how many hours he worked. He received his pay in cash and in a paycheck, but his paystubs did not reflect the cash amounts. Throughout the course of his employment, he worked fifty-seven hours each week. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging the defendant’s practices violated the New York Labor Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. After discovery ended, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Proving an Employer Failed to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime Compensation

Under the New York Labor Law, every employer that has ten or fewer employees must pay each of its employees the minimum wage set forth by the statute for each hour worked in New York City. In assessing whether an employer committed a minimum wage violation, a court will consider the average hourly wage of the employee, which is calculated by dividing the total pay an employee received in a workweek by the total number of hours worked during that week.

New York Court Discusses Contradictory Testimony in Discrimination Cases

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

It is clear that under New York law, a plaintiff alleging gender-based discrimination must set forth evidence sufficient to prove such claims. In many instances, the evidence will be purely circumstantial and may include the plaintiff’s own testimony. As discussed in a recent gender discrimination case, while a plaintiff’s testimony may be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff who previously denied an essential fact cannot simply provide new contradictory testimony in an effort to avoid dismissal. If you were the victim of discrimination in the workplace, it is in your best interest to speak to a trusted New York employment discrimination attorney to determine what you must prove to recover compensation.

The Plaintiff’s Claims

It is reported that the plaintiff worked for the defendant human rights commission. At some point, she interviewed with the chair of the commission for the position of executive director. She was passed over for the position and faced other adverse effects at work, after which she filed a lawsuit against the defendant alleging numerous gender-based discrimination claims. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The plaintiff appealed, arguing in part, that the court erred in dismissing her claim that she was denied a promotion based on her gender.

The Impact of Contradictory Testimony in Employment Discrimination Cases

Upon review, the court assumed that for purposes of its analysis that the plaintiff had set forth a prima facie case of employment discrimination based on her failure to receive a promotion, and that the defendant had set forth a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for denying the motion. The court found, however, that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence that would support the inference that the defendant’s reasons for promoting another employee over the plaintiff were mere pretext.

New York Court Explains Class Certification in Cases Alleging Wage and Hour Violations

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

In many instances, an employer that fails to abide by the law with regard to employee wages will not only shortchange one employee but will engage in a practice of underpaying staff members. Thus, in many cases, aggrieved employees may be able to file a class-action lawsuit against the employer, seeking damages for wage and hour violations. Simply because an employer failed to pay appropriate wages to more than one employee does not mean a basis exists to pursue a class action case, though. Rather, as discussed in a recent New York case, the plaintiff must prove certain elements before a court will grant class certification. If you were not paid the wages you are owed from your employer, you should speak to an assertive New York wage and hour violation attorney to determine whether you and other employees may be owed compensation.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the named plaintiffs were employed as food runners and as a sommelier with the defendant restaurant. They frequently worked in excess of forty hours per week and worked a spread of ten or more hours, for which they were not paid a spread of hours premium, and were required to perform non-tipped side work despite the fact that a tip credit was taken from their wages. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs then filed a motion to certify the class.

Certification of a Class in a Wage and Hour Violation Case

The court explained that class certification in federal cases is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Specifically, FRCP 25(a) requires that the party seeking certification demonstrate typicality, commonality, numerosity, and adequacy of representation. A plaintiff seeking class certification must also meet one of the requirements of FRCP 25(b) as well. In the subject case, the plaintiffs sought certification pursuant to FRCP 25(b)(3), which required them to show that question of fact or law common to all of the class members predominates over issues that affect individual members.

New York Court Discusses Elements of Disability Discrimination Claims

Published on: September 22, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

People living with disabilities have the right to enjoy gainful employment, free from discrimination based on their illnesses or conditions. Thus, if an employer treats an employee adversely because of the employee’s disability, it may constitute grounds for an employment discrimination lawsuit. Merely because an employer terminates an employee suffering from a disability does not mean that discrimination has occurred, however, as demonstrated in a recent New York case in which the court discussed the elements of a disability discrimination claim. If you have a disability and you believe your employer is engaging in discriminatory practices because of your disability, it is advisable to confer with a knowledgeable New York employment discrimination attorney to discuss whether you may be owed damages.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who has multiple sclerosis, was employed by the defendant as a managing agent for a cooperative. Plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) against the defendant in 2012, complaining of numerous employment actions against her on the basis of her disability and gender. She was then advised she had ninety days to file an employment discrimination lawsuit but did not.

Allegedly, following an audit in which certain employees were reclassified from exempt to non-exempt, the plaintiff was responsible for the overpayment to such employees in an amount in excess of ninety thousand dollars. She was subsequently fired. She then filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of her disability and gender. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted.

New York Court Explains Continuing Violations in Employment Claims

Published on: September 15, 2020 | by Gerstman Schwartz LLP

Employment discrimination claims, like most other claims, are subject to a statute of limitations. In other words, they must be filed within the time prescribed under the law, or a person risks waiving the right to recover damages. There are some exceptions that will allow a plaintiff to file a lawsuit outside of the strict time constraints, though, such as in cases involving continuing violations. Recently, a New York court discussed what behavior may constitute a continuing violation in an employment discrimination case, thereby allowing a plaintiff to pursue claims at a later date. If you were subject to discrimination in the workplace, you may be owed damages, and it is important to seek the counsel of a trusted New York employment discrimination attorney promptly to avoid losing the right to pursue compensation.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed as a correctional officer for the defendant city. He alleges that during his employment, he was targeted and singled out because of his race, and ultimately terminated. As such, he filed a lawsuit against the defendant city and several of its employees, asserting claims of discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII and the New York State and City Human Rights laws, as well as claims of a hostile work environment and wrongful termination. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing in part that some of the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff objected to the motions, arguing that the harm alleged constituted continuing violations.

Claims of Continuing Employment Discrimination

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged retaliation and discrimination in violation of Title VII. Pursuant to the existing law, such claims must be filed within three hundred days of the alleged unlawful behavior. An exception exists, however, for acts that constitute a continuing violation. In other words, for claims arising out of behavior that was part of a continued practice and policy of engaging in discriminatory behavior, which may be present in cases involving discriminatory mechanisms or specific practices.