Princeton Employment Law Attorneys Blog

Woman wins appeal in disability discrimination lawsuit

2012-05-17T18:25:35Z

The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents employers in New Jersey and around the country from discriminating against persons with disabilities. This covers not only instances of wrongful termination, but also discrimination in the hiring process. One woman who was refused employment because of her disability has found vindication through the legal system after the trial court and appellate court ruled in her favor in her discrimination lawsuit.

A few years ago, the woman applied for a stock clerk job at Service Temps, Inc. Although she was deaf, she made it clear to the person reviewing her application that she had previously held the same position at another company and that her deafness would not prevent her from successfully performing the job. Despite this, the hiring manager informed her that the company would not hire her because she was deaf.

]]> The woman brought the company's conduct to the attention of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed an employment discrimination lawsuit on her behalf. At trial, the company attempted to argue that the manager's actions clearly went against stated company rules prohibiting discrimination. But the court still ascribed that conduct to the company because the manager was acting "within the scope of his employment" when he made the discriminatory hiring decision.

The company then took the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Late last month, however, a panel of judges affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the woman. That lower court enjoined the company from further discrimination based on disability. It also required the company to pay the woman in excess of $100,000 to compensate her for emotional injury and wages that she lost by not being hired. In addition, the award included punitive damages against the company.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Court of Appeals Upholds Verdict for EEOC against Service Temps / Smith Personnel Solutions," May 10, 2012.

Victim of religious discrimination receives $5 million verdict

2012-05-08T16:45:35Z

We have the freedom to belong to a particular religion and the ability to change our religious affiliation if we so desire. Federal and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws are intended to protect a person's private choice from being the subject of hostile or unfair action in the workplace. Unfortunately, the law's deterrent effect is not always enough to prevent workplace discrimination, but the remedies provided for by the law can offer victims a sense of justice.

A jury recently awarded $5 million to a former employee of Southwestern Bell/AT&T, who had filed a lawsuit claiming that she was the victim of repeated religious discrimination. The woman had been working in the company's fiber optics department for over half a decade and had received public recognition for her good job performance. But other workers' attitudes towards her changed dramatically when she converted to Islam during her employment there.

]]> From that point on, she was the target of nearly daily discrimination by fellow employees. The woman wore a hijab, which is a head covering used to express modesty. But according to court documents, co-workers derided her as a "towelhead." She found excerpts from the Bible placed on her desk, and other employees asked if she was planning on destroying the building.

When internal complaints failed to achieve results, she brought the conduct to the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which began to look into the matter. When other workers discovered that she had involved the EEOC, some expressed their displeasure to her. In one instance, her superior tore her hijab from her head during a meeting.

She asked AT&T to move her or her superior to another department, but the company took no action. The toll of repeated religious discrimination kept her from coming into work, until AT&T fired her. AT&T has announced its intent to appeal the verdict.

Source: Chicago Tribune, "Muslim woman gets huge award in workplace discrimination case," Mara Rose Williams, May 5, 2012.

New Jersey transgender employees now protected under federal law

2012-05-02T19:45:33Z

Workplace discrimination based on an employee's sex has been prohibited for decades by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But over the years, there has been some doubt regarding whether a person's gender identity is similarly protected under federal law. Some courts have sided with plaintiffs and taken the position that the law proscribes discrimination based upon an employee's gender, but in some locations transgender employees have not been able to bring their workplace discrimination claims.

Last week, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission entered the fray and ruled unanimously that discrimination based on gender is a type of sex discrimination and therefore precluded under the law. According to the agency, "The term 'gender' encompasses not just a person's biological sex but also the cultural and social aspects associated with masculinity and femininity."

]]> The EEOC's ruling stemmed from a complaint lodged by an applicant rejected for employment by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That person was a man when she began the application process, but she later discussed with the hiring contractor her plans to switch genders. She claimed that she lost the job because of that revelation.

A number of states have already made gender discrimination illegal. But for a time, EEOC offices in some states would not pursue workplace discrimination claims brought by transgender employees because they were not sure that the law supported such claims. The agency's ruling now provides clear guidance to those offices, though the agency was careful to note that it had elucidated current law instead of creating a "new cause of action."

Source: Associated Press, "Commission: Transgender people protected under federal job discrimination laws," Sam Hananel, April 24, 2012.

Bill would ease standard for workers in age discrimination suits

2012-04-27T16:15:58Z

Federal laws prohibit employers in New Jersey and around the country from discriminating against their employees on the basis of certain enumerated categories, such as religion, gender and age. But age discrimination cases are somewhat different from other cases because of a 2009 Supreme Court ruling in a case called Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. By a 5-4 margin, the Court declared that employees who bring an age discrimination claim must show that their age was the "determinative factor" in their employer's discriminatory conduct.

The Court's standard marked a departure from that typically used in discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In other workplace discrimination lawsuits, an employee is not required to show that their gender, race or similarly protected category was the determinative factor leading to the discriminatory action. Instead, they need only meet the lower burden of showing that it was merely one factor.

]]> The ruling made age discrimination cases harder for employees to prove. Some members of Congress, however, were dissatisfied with the result in Gross and have introduced legislation that would overturn the case. They argue that the Court should have viewed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which proscribes age discrimination, like Title VII.

The bill is called the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, and would return the standard used in ADEA claims to that observed in other discrimination cases. According to the language of the bill, the Court's decision in Gross not only ran contrary to Congressional intent, but also "circumvented well-established precedents."

Although members of both parties have endorsed the bill, many do not believe it will become law. Congress attempted a similar measure soon after the Gross decision, but that bill failed to pass.

Source: Business Insurance, "Measure seeks to overturn age discrimination ruling," Judy Greenwald, April 22, 2012.

EEOC settles sexual harassment suit against fast food restaurant

2012-04-19T14:20:59Z

Nearly everybody in New Jersey has probably eaten at a Burger King restaurant at one time or another. Some young teenagers have earned their first paycheck working for the company. A first job can be a source of pride and accomplishment, but for one 17-year-old girl who began working at a Burger King restaurant, her first job was filled only with humiliation and sexual harassment.

According to a recently settled lawsuit against Kaizen Restaurants, Inc., the franchisee that ran the restaurant, the girl's manager subjected her to a hostile work environment by making constant unwelcome sexual advances. Specific examples included asking that she engage in sexual intercourse with him and pursuing her into the restaurant's parking lot when she went on break.

]]> This pattern of behavior went on for two years. When she reported the manager to his superiors, the company did nothing. Fearing for her own well-being, the female employee resigned from the job.

She then brought the manager's and the company's conduct to the attention of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf. Under the terms of the settlement, the restaurant franchisee must train employees and supervisors on avoiding sexual harassment and enact a new policy for dealing with complaints. In addition, Kaizen Restaurants must pay the victim $150,000.

Although sexual harassment can be intimidating, victims should know that state and federal laws are squarely on their side. In particular, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. One EEOC attorney warned employers that they "will be held liable for the mistreatment of their employees by their managers."

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Burger King Franchisee Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit," April 17, 2012.

EEOC sees its largest number of workplace discrimination claims

2012-04-14T13:50:30Z

The loss of jobs during the most recent economic recession in New Jersey and around the nation has coincided with a sharp spike in employment discrimination cases seen by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Some see a causal link between the two, arguing that when it comes time to terminate workers, employers may favor certain groups while discriminating against others. According to EEOC data, the agency handled 20 percent more complaints in 2011 than it did just 4 years earlier.

In one case, a woman who worked for an airline was dismissed because she was too slow getting around the company's office. She was arthritic and, with the help of the EEOC, sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The company agreed to settle the case for $20,000.

]]> Another typical case involved a man who was offended when his supervisor used a racial epithet when talking about a minority employee. He brought the discriminatory language to the attention of management, who then engaged in retaliatory behavior by firing the man. He brought his wrongful termination claim to the EEOC, which filed a lawsuit against the company. The company settled the suit, paying $190,000 to the man and minority employees, who, the EEOC asserted, were passed over for promotions.

The federal government created the EEOC nearly 50 years ago under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nearly 100,000 complaints the agency received in 2011 was the highest number ever, and some assert that the EEOC is not equipped to address them all quickly. While the EEOC can benefit victims of discrimination, some people argue that a private attorney may provide a better result.

Source: Detroit Free Press, "Bias cases hit record numbers at EEOC," David Ashenfelter, April 9, 2012.

Company with New Jersey branches settles discrimination lawsuit

2012-04-06T21:55:27Z

Throughout its history, our country has espoused the values of religious liberty, and those values are securely fixed in our Constitution. Centuries later, the government further protected a person's religious liberty through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under that law, employers are proscribed from discriminating or retaliating against employees because of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the law is not always observed in practice.

Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it had settled a lawsuit on behalf of an employee who stated that he had been the victim of workplace discrimination. The man, who worked for AutoZone, was a member of the Sikh religion. According to the tenets of the religion, a Sikh must wear a particular bracelet and a turban.

]]> The lawsuit claimed that the company denied him the ability to wear those items while at work. When he complained, the store retaliated and fired him, the suit alleged, because of his religion. In addition, the man operated in a hostile work environment. He was frequently subjected to demeaning and derogatory insults from his coworkers and even customers, who made sarcastic remarks suggesting he was a terrorist. His superiors did not prevent or stop others from engaging in this behavior.

Under the terms of the settlement, the man will receive $75,000. AutoZone must also enact new standards that outlaw discrimination against employees because of their religion. The standards must be applied across all of the business's operations nationwide. In addition, the company must inform the EEOC of the steps it takes to address future complaints of discrimination from employees.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "AutoZone to Pay $75,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit," Mar. 30, 2012.

New age discrimination rule promulgated by EEOC

2012-03-31T14:57:46Z

In our last post we discussed the difficulty that many workers in New Jersey and elsewhere are having in securing permanent employment. As companies cut workforces during the recession, many older employees who had worked in the same job or industry for years were laid off. News stories frequently cite the hardship that older workers can have in regaining employment, especially at the level they formerly enjoyed, in the current market.

While this hardship does not necessarily mean that employers are engaging in age discrimination, older workers who believe they are being discriminated against are protected by federal law. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA. That law protects employees over 40 years old from discrimination based on their age. This week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added a new rule under the ADEA which is meant to create brighter lines in age discrimination cases.

]]> The rule is called the Final Regulation on Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other than Age, or RFOA. It has undergone various stages of analysis and revision over the past few years. Specifically, the rule provides that an employer's action violates the ADEA if its effect is disproportionately detrimental to older workers. But there is an exception. An employer will not be in violation of the law if it can show its action is "based on a reasonable factor other than age." This exception is meant to give employers some leeway in how they choose to operate their businesses.

Many employers come under the rule's scope. These include public employers at the state and local level, unions and private businesses who employ at least 20 people. The new rule also takes into account recent Supreme Court jurisprudence relevant to employment law.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Issues Final Rule on 'Reasonable Factors Other than Age' Under the ADEA," Mar. 29, 2012.

New Jersey law addresses hiring discrimination against jobless

2012-03-23T15:57:16Z

The recession of four years ago hit many people hard. The state of the economy and its potential recovery is a never ending discussion in newspapers and on television shows. The economy is also a ubiquitous concern for the millions the recession left unemployed, a number of whom still encounter difficulty in finding permanent work. According to recent data, 5.4 million people across the country have been unemployed for at least half a year.

Many job applicants, however, report being the victim of employment discrimination because they have been out of work for so long. In some job postings companies state that applicants must not be unemployed. This can place unemployed persons in a potentially repetitious cycle. If a person needs a job to be considered for employment, those without jobs will never be hired because they, by definition, are not working.

]]> The law protects certain classes, such as race and gender, from workplace discrimination. Unemployed persons are not protected as a class, however. Nevertheless, a number of states, including New Jersey, have addressed the plight of jobless persons through anti-discrimination legislation. Our state passed a law last year that proscribed discriminating against unemployed persons in job postings. Other states are currently passing and debating similar laws.

Proponents of the legislation say that too many employers disregard an unemployed applicant's resume, especially if the gap of unemployment is long, because prolonged unemployment may indicate that something is amiss with the applicant. But proponents deny that assertion, arguing that many long-term unemployed persons were fine and capable workers who were staggered by a rapid economic downturn and a tepid recovery.

Unemployment status is just one reason why an employer might unfairly discriminate against a job applicant. Federal and state laws can protect the rights of those who believe they have been the victim of discrimination in the hiring process.

Source: The Baltimore Sun, "Md. legislation targets employer bias against unemployed," Eileen Ambrose, Mar. 18, 2012.

Painter wins settlement in retaliation lawsuit against employer

2012-03-14T21:48:33Z

Employees of any company in New Jersey and around the country should be able to work in an environment free from discrimination. Unfortunately, other employees' prejudices can make their way into the workplace. These can include offensive jokes, derogatory terms and racial slurs. Employees should not have to worry about being fired if they report such misconduct to management.

Of course, employer retaliation still does occur, despite its illegality. In 1964, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act, and Title VII of that Act prohibits employer retaliation. One employee whose rights under that law were violated recently received a settlement in his wrongful termination lawsuit that accused his former employer of retaliation.

]]> The man worked for a painting company. According to the lawsuit, his immediate supervisor used a highly offensive racial slur that the man found appalling. He then brought the supervisor's racial discrimination to the attention of the company. The man finished out that painting season with the company, but when the following year came around, the company retaliated by not hiring him again.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit on his behalf in 2011, and a settlement agreement was announced last week. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $65,000 to the employee. In addition, the company will have to manage future complaints of discrimination using a completely redesigned protocol. To address behavior like that of the supervisor, the company must also train management staff to avoid discrimination.

Dale Price, one of the lead attorneys for the EEOC, stated, "The right of an employee to object to discriminatory conduct without fear of being punished by his employer is fundamental to ensuring equal employment opportunity."

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Atsalis Brothers Painting Company to Pay $65,000 to Settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit," Mar. 9, 2012.

Pregnant woman awarded settlement in sex discrimination lawsuit

2012-03-08T14:47:16Z

Women in New Jersey and around the country can have successful, fulfilling careers and be excellent mothers. Employers should facilitate a female employee's transition into motherhood so that she is not forced to make the decision between career aspirations and parenting responsibilities. In fact, federal law protects pregnant women from discrimination based on their pregnancy.

But a medical company violated the law when it engaged in sex discrimination against one of its female employees. The pregnant woman, who worked as the company's bookkeeper, was subjected to repeated derisive and derogatory comments about her pregnancy. The company's owner implied that the woman was using doctor's visits as a pretext to miss work.

]]> The owner also demanded that she take no more than a couple of days off for maternity leave. The woman gave birth by Caesarian section, which involves the major surgical procedure of cutting open the abdominal wall and uterus. In addition, while the woman was convalescing in the hospital, she received a letter from her employer, stating that she had been fired, and that she no longer had health insurance.

The EEOC brought a lawsuit on her behalf. After the company refused to hire a lawyer, the court entered a default judgment against it. This past week the judge ordered the company to pay the woman $148,000, which includes $50,000 in punitive damages. The judge noted that the company's actions were "inherently humiliating" and caused her "substantial emotional distress."

An attorney for the EEOC said that the woman's case is regrettably not unique. Women routinely encounter discrimination based on pregnancy even in today's workforce. The attorney stated: "Pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination. It is flatly prohibited by law."

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "HCS Medical Staffing Ordered to Pay $148,000 for Pregnancy Discrimination by Owner," Mar. 2, 2012.

Man with epilepsy wins in disability discrimination suit

2012-03-01T21:32:14Z

Job applicants in New Jersey have a right to expect that employers will objectively view their qualifications without regard to certain personal characteristics, such as gender, race or disability. Regrettably, employers do engage in discriminatory practices by refusing to hire applicants based on factors other than their ability to do the job well. Federal and state laws have been instituted to address such injustices.

A recent settlement in a disability discrimination lawsuit provided vindication for a man with epilepsy. The man was applying for a maintenance position at Tyson Foods, but was not chosen for the job. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the suit on his behalf, arguing that Tyson Foods' decision not to hire him contravened the Americans with Disabilities Act.

]]> The man was not applying to work at Tyson for the first time; in fact, the company had employed him twice before during the prior 12 years. But since he last worked for the company, Tyson created a new protocol to examine the medical condition of applicants. The company stated that the man failed the portion of the examination that was used to determine if an applicant's epilepsy would pose a safety hazard to the workplace.

But the company's doctor never performed a test on the man. Instead, he concluded that the man was unfit for the job based solely on old studies of the disease. Furthermore, Tyson had a number of employees with epilepsy at that time.

The terms of the settlement modify Tyson's medical protocol for applicants. If a person is deemed unqualified by Tyson's medical examination, the applicant can request an additional medical examination. A third and final examination is available to those turned down by the second examination. The man in this case also received $35,000, which represents his damages and back pay.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Tyson Foods Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit," Feb. 23, 2012.

New Jersey court orders fee-shift in wrongful termination suit

2012-02-18T16:59:18Z

Standing up and reporting wrongdoing in the workplace can be a cause of anxiety for some employees. They may worry that they will become the target of harassment or even lose their job for whistleblowing. But federal and New Jersey state laws are in place to protect workers from employer retaliation. And a recent New Jersey court case may provide an additional deterrent to prevent employers from wrongfully terminating employees.

The man who lost his job in the case was employed by the state of New Jersey in the Division of Consumer Affairs Office of Consumer Protection. He had been there 16 years and held the position of executive director. He reported a fellow employee for violating workplace practices. That fellow employee had political connections, and the man was fired in 2007.

]]> In 2011, a jury found that his job loss was the result of discrimination. He was reinstated to the Division of Consumer Affairs, although in a different position. His salary, however, was the same as the one he earned before being fired. He was also awarded $260,000 in damages.

In the most recent development in the case, last week a Superior Court judge ordered the state, which lost the lawsuit, to pay the man's legal fees, totaling $1.29 million. The judge cited a newly decided case from the New Jersey Supreme Court that gives detailed instructions on how to rule in cases where the winning party requests that the losing party pay its legal bills.

Such cases are called "statutory shifting cases," and the state Legislature has adopted laws determining under what circumstances one legal party can shift its fees onto another. The judge noted the importance of the laws in cases such as the present one because, in their absence, "fundamental rights may be left unprotected, especially for those without resources to pay for adequate representation."

The man who won the case was quoted as saying, "To anyone who may find themselves in my position, they can know that it is worth the fight."

Source: New Jersey Star-Ledger, "Newark judge orders state to pay whistle-blower's legal fees," Alexi Friedman, Feb. 11, 2012.

Former Hoboken official sues for wrongful termination

2012-02-08T12:00:20Z

It's not unusual for an employer to require ongoing training for employees on various topics throughout the year. Often these training sessions involve how to more effectively work with colleagues, safe work environments or appropriate communications in the office. However, what happens if a mandated training session time directly conflicts with important issues that your position is required to troubleshoot? What if missing the required training ends in you losing your job?

An ex-city official is trying to make a point to his former employer, the city of Hoboken, New Jersey. He has recently filed a wrongful termination lawsuit that names the city business administrator, the city mayor and several other city officials as defendants. If successful, the man who was once the construction code official for Hoboken, may have his job reinstated.

]]> Filed late last year, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of firing the former code official, who worked for the city for 39 years, because he failed to attend sexual harassment training that was mandated by the city in January of last year. According to the suit, the man was unable to attend because due to his position with the city, it was required that he focus his attention on an issue with permits for the state during the specified training times.

The plaintiff says that he asked if there were other sessions that he could attend but was told that the others were reserved for members of the police force only.

According to the lawsuit, the man is looking for punitive damages, compensatory damages, benefits, reinstatement of his former job and seniority rights. In addition, he is looking to have all attorney fees and legal costs accounted for by the city.

A comment on the pending litigation was not made by the mayor's office.

This is not the first time that the former city construction code official has been in the news. Reportedly, he was taken off a project at the Maxwell Place development in 2007 because he allegedly had a purchasing contract for a unit once the development was finished. Other city officials also took him off a project at Pier C park.

Source: The Jersey Journal, "Former Hoboken construction official files lawsuit against city," Stephanie Musat, Jan. 21, 2012

Young mother says her employee rights were violated due to wrongful termination

2012-02-03T22:33:44Z

A young mother says her rights as an employee were violated after she was wrongly terminated by her employer for going on leave for her pregnancy. Certain workers have employee rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the federal law provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off for parents with arriving newborns and provides the same amount of time to allow family members to take care of certain loved ones. In addition, the Family and Medical Leave Act protects the jobs of employees while on leave.

A 31-year-old senior program manager with a marketing company claims her former employer asked her to resign instead of allowing her to go on leave for her pregnancy. The company informed the mother-to-be that she was not entitled to leave under the FMLA because she had only worked for the company for four months instead of the requisite one year.

According to one pregnant worker advocate, many pregnant employees who ask for accommodations at work are asked to resign. The 31-year-old mother-to-be left a previous job for a position at the company, and when she informed two human resource executives of her pregnancy they told her she would have to resign because she had not been with the company for 12 months. One of the executives explained that whether she was a sick person or a pregnant woman who had not been with the company for a year she would be treated the same.

]]> A senior advisor from the Center for WorkLife Law commented on the case and said that while the executive's statement of the company's leave policy may be true, the company must carry out the policy equally among sick workers and pregnant workers in order for it to be legal.

The young mother has filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and her state's human rights commission.

Source: abcnews.go.com, "Connecticut woman told that maternity leave viewed as resignation," Susanna Kim, Feb. 3, 2012