The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

Internships are often a good way for college students and others to gain experience in a field, such as film or journalism, in the hopes of getting a full-time job after graduation. Some of these internships include a salary, stipend, or course credit, but many interns essentially work for free. While some students might be willing to make such a sacrifice in order to gain experience or contacts, unpaid internships might violate state or federal labor laws. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws provide guidelines to help identify when employers must pay interns at least minimum wage, and multiple pending lawsuits are seeking to enforce interns' right to compensation for their work.

The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., has a very broad definition of "employ," describing it as "to suffer or permit to work." 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). It allows exceptions for individuals volunteering for charitable groups and other nonprofit organizations, but generally nearly anyone working for a for-profit company may be considered "employed." The U.S. Department of Labor has developed a set of guidelines for determining whether an internship falls under the FLSA's coverage regarding overtime compensation and minimum wage. An internship program that meets these six criteria is not subject to FLSA requirements:
1. The internship resembles a training program in an educational institution;
2. The purpose of the internship is to benefit the intern;
3. The employer does not benefit directly from the intern's experience;
4. The intern works under existing employees and does not displace them;
5. The employer makes no promise or representation of a job after the internship; and
6. Both the employer and the intern understand and agree that the intern will not receive compensation for the internship.

Continue reading "Unpaid Intern Lawsuits Seek to Enforce Wage and Hour Laws" »

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) issued an anti-bias message alert that warned sergeants and lieutenants about harassment or discrimination against red-haired officers. The story, reported in the New York Post, has met with mostly bemused responses from people who do not feel that redheads are a particularly disadvantaged group in the United States right now. It raises the question of exactly where hair color falls within the law of employment discrimination. To the extent that hair color is seen as an indication of race, ethnicity, or national origin, it could give rise to a claim for unlawful employment discrimination. The U.S. Supreme has never addressed the question directly, but lower courts have considered the role of hair color and other physical attributes.

According to the New York Post, no lawsuits against the city have alleged employment discrimination based on red hair. Officers quoted in the Post's story say they have "endured years of ridicule," but none seemed to think that it rose to the level of actionable discrimination or harassment. From a legal standpoint, however, red hair could be a protected category if an employment practice had a significantly disparate impact on redheads. The Post article also quoted red-haired British model Lily Cole, who suggested that bias against redheads may be a bigger problem in the United Kingdom.

Continue reading "NYPD Takes a Stand on Hair Color Discrimination, but What Does the Law Say?" »

A former fashion model has filed suit against a major designer for alleged misappropriation of his likeness, claiming that it reused photographs taken of him more than a decade ago without his consent. Hamideh v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.L., et al, No. BC502164, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co., Mar. 4, 2013). In addition to the intellectual property claims, the plaintiff is asserting a claim related to breach of contract, seeking restitution for commercial benefits the defendant allegedly received from the use of his pictures. The case resembles situations faced by employees who contribute intellectual property to an employer, and who may continue to have rights to that intellectual property even after their employment ends.

According to the plaintiff's complaint, Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), an Italian company known for high-end fashion, hired the plaintiff in 2002 for an advertising campaign. He was the featured male model of the campaign, appearing alongside world-famous female model Giselle Bundchen. D&G's rights to the plaintiff's likeness allegedly expired at the end of 2003. The plaintiff alleges that, in May 2012, D&G published photos of him taken for the campaign in 2002 without his permission. He claims that D&G did so "for the purpose of advertising [its] products and promoting [its] brand." Hamideh, complaint at 4.

Continue reading "Fashion Models Sue Former Employer for Likeness Rights, Unjust Enrichment" »

The New Jersey Legislature passed a bill in March 2013 that, if signed by the Governor, will be one of the strongest laws in the country protecting employees against online snooping by employers. Some employers have taken to requesting passwords or other access to social media accounts like Facebook from their employees, or as part of the job application process. At least five other states already have laws prohibiting employers from requiring employees to provide their passwords to their social media accounts. More than half of all U.S. states are reportedly considering such legislation.

The bill, A2878, was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on May 10, 2012, and first passed the Assembly on June 25. The New Jersey Senate passed an amended version of the bill, by a vote of 28-0, in October. The Assembly then passed the amended bill, with seventy-five voting in favor and two voting against, on March 21, 2013. The final bill applies to all employers in the state except for state and local law enforcement agencies. Earlier drafts also governed educational institutions.

Employers, the bill states, may not "require or request" any passwords or other form of access to an employee's or job applicant's personal social media or email accounts. It further prohibits employers from requiring employees or job applicants to disclose whether or not they have personal accounts on social media sites. An earlier version of the bill would have barred employers from even asking if an employee or applicant has such an account. Employers may not require a person to waive any of the protections of this bill as a condition of hiring, and they may not retaliate against an employee for exercising any rights guaranteed by the bill.

Continue reading "New Jersey Legislature Passes Bill Protecting Employees' Social Media Accounts from Employer Scrutiny" »

A college professor is suing the college where she teaches for gender and race discrimination, alleging that the administration prevented her from advancing on the tenure track at the same rate as her colleagues. Wang v. Macalester College, No. 62-CV-12-9750 (Minn. Civ. Ct. - Ramsey Co., Dec. 21, 2012). She further claims that, after denying her requests for promotion, the college retaliated against her for speaking out about it.

Wang Ping, the plaintiff, is a professor of English at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. A native of China, she began working at Macalester in 1999 after getting a doctorate from New York University. She became an assistant professor in the English department in 2001. According to her complaint, she requested promotion to associate professor in 2003, but was denied. She finally made associate professor in 2005. A committee denied her request for promotion to full professor in 2009, allegedly stating that her academic record "did not meet the high standard for promotion to full professor." After she reported the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Wang alleges, the college retaliated against her by "refusing to facilitate her projects." She received a promotion to full professor in 2012.

Continue reading "Professor Sues College for Gender and Race Discrimination, Saying It Promoted Less-Qualified Professors Ahead of Her" »

A federal court ruled in favor of a former employee in a key portion of the former employer's request for a preliminary injunction. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Cahill, No. 12-cv-346, order affirming magistrate's report (D. Okla., Feb. 12, 2013). The decision is one of the first to address employees' use of social media versus their contractual obligations to a former employer. The employer alleged that social media activity by the former employee, such as posts to his Facebook page, breached a non-solicitation agreement. The court disagreed, finding that his activities on Facebook and Twitter were not expressly targeted to employees of the former employer, and as such did not violate the specific terms of his non-solicitation agreement.

The defendant, Todd Cahill, worked for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (PPLSI) in San Diego from 2004 until August 2012. PPLSI sells legal service plans, using a multi-level marketing model that allows sales associates to recruit additional sales associates to work "downline" from them. A sales associate receives commissions for their own sales and those of downline associates. Cahill began as a sales associate, and received a promotion to regional manager in 2008. He signed an "Associate Agreement" when he began working for PPLSI, which included a clause prohibiting him from "proselytiz[ing], recruit[ing], or solicit[ing]" other associates while employed by PPLSI and for two years after termination or departure. Cahill, magistrate's report at 3 (Jan. 22, 2013).

Continue reading "Non-Solicitation Agreement Not Violated by Former Employee's Facebook Posts, Court Rules" »

A restaurant has agreed to pay $20,000 to a former employee, along with other relief, to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). EEOC v. Reed Pierce's, No. 3:10-cv-00541, consent decree (S.D. Miss., Feb. 5, 2013). The lawsuit alleged that the restaurant unlawfully terminated the employee because she was pregnant. The restaurant continues to deny the EEOC's allegations, but agreed via a consent decree to pay damages, allow injunctive relief, modify its employment policies, and mandate training for its employees.

The complainant worked for Reed Pierce's, a restaurant in Byram, Mississippi, as a waitress. According to the amended complaint filed by the EEOC, the complainant notified supervisors that she was pregnant in November 2008. She reportedly had an allergic reaction to prenatal vitamins in February 2009, and asked to leave work as a result. The employer had allegedly granted similar requests by non-pregnant employees to leave work because of illness, but it denied her request. She made a similar request to take off from work for a doctor's appointment in March 2009, but was denied. The employer had allegedly granted requests to leave work for medical appointments for other employees. The complainant received notice of her termination from the employer on March 7, 2009, allegedly because "her pregnancy was interfering with her ability to do her job." Reed Pierce's, am. complaint at 3-4 (Oct. 18, 2010). She maintains that she was still able to perform her job duties, but received disparate treatment from her employer because of her pregnancy.

Continue reading "Restaurant Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit with EEOC" »

An employer did not violate New York state or city human rights laws by firing an employee because of her height, according to a Supreme Court judge in Queens County. The court ruled in Peterson v. City of New York, et al, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51472(U) (Sup. Ct., Queens Co., Aug. 7, 2012), that the plaintiff's height was not a "genetic characteristic" protected by state law, as she presented no evidence of a genetic condition creating a risk of future illness or disability. It further found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under New York City's civil rights law, which does not include protections for genetic conditions.

The plaintiff was employed by the New York City Parks Department from June 2010 until February 2011. Her job involved cleaning bathrooms and taking out trash at the Lost Battalion Hall in Queens. Of the five people employed at Lost Battalion Hall, the plaintiff claimed she was the shortest. Her supervisor allegedly told her that she was "too short" to do her job and that "there was something medically wrong with her." Slip op. at *1. She alleges that the supervisor required her to see a doctor, and that he was verbally abusive towards her. The plaintiff claims that she rejected a different job offer from the supervisor on February 9, 2011, after which he fired her. She filed suit against the city and the supervisor, alleging violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Continue reading "New York City Court Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Height Discrimination, Holding that Adult Height is Not a Protected Genetic Characteristic" »

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees to take unpaid leave for medical conditions or to care for a family member. It also prohibits retaliation by employers for taking leave. A federal court recently dismissed a claim for violation of FMLA rights based on evidence that the plaintiff made false statements to her employer regarding her condition during her leave. Lineberry v. Detroit Medical Center, et al, No. 11-13752, slip op. (E.D. Mich., Feb. 5, 2013). The court held that the employer's termination of the plaintiff was justified based on the plaintiff's conduct, which violated the employer's policy and was not consistent with her stated reasons for needing FMLA leave. Before bringing a case for FMLA violations, or any other employment law claim, employment attorneys should carefully review the case that the employer could make against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Carol Lineberry, worked as a registered nurse at Detroit Medical Center (DMC), receiving positive performance reviews. She suffered an injury while moving stretchers on January 27, 2011. A doctor employed by DMC recommended that she not return to work. DMC approved her for FMLA from January 27 to April 27, 2011, and paid her $3,636.57 for short-term disability benefits for the period from March 5 to April 16.

The plaintiff had already planned and paid for a vacation to Mexico before her injury. The doctor approved the vacation, scheduled for February 26 to March 2, saying that the trip would not impede her recovery. During and shortly after her vacation, co-workers reported seeing pictures posted to the plaintiff's Facebook page of her laying on the beach and riding in a boat, as well as pictures of her holding her grandchildren. She also allegedly described various activities on Facebook that seemed inconsistent with her injured state.

Continue reading "FMLA Claim Dismissed Based on Plaintiff's Vacation During Leave" »

A nurse at a hospital in Flint, Michigan is suing her employer for alleged racial discrimination and civil rights violations. Battle v. Board of Hospital Managers of Hurley Medical Center, et al, No. 13-99763, complaint and jury demand (Mich. Cir. - Genesee Co., Jan. 21, 2013). She claims that the hospital reassigned an infant under her care to a different nurse after the infant's father demanded a nurse who was not African American. The lawsuit, which names the hospital and a supervisor as defendants, asserts causes of action for equal protection violations, violations of state anti-discrimination law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to her complaint, the plaintiff, Tonya Battle, began working at Hurley Medical Center in June 1988 as a registered nurse (RN) in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). She alleges that she was caring for an infant in the NICU on October 31, 2012, when the infant's father asked to speak to her supervisor. The charge nurse then spoke to the father, and Battle allegedly heard him tell the charge nurse that "he did not want any African Americans taking care of his baby." Complaint at 3. Battle also alleges that the man pulled up his sleeve to display a tattoo that she believed was a swastika. The charge nurse relayed the father's request to the nurse manager, Mary Osika, who allegedly told the charge nurse to reassign the infant.

Continue reading "Nurse Sues Hospital for Allegedly Reassigning Her Because of Her Race" »

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in January 2013 that it settled a claim of citizenship and national origin discrimination against Houston Community College (HCC), in lieu of filing suit. The DOJ's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) investigated a complaint of hiring discrimination, in the form of requests for specific documentation from non-citizens not requested of U.S. citizens. The OSC concluded that the practice violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or lawful immigration status. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, HCC will pay a civil penalty, adopt a new process of verifying employment eligibility, and create a fund to compensate prior victims for lost wages.

According to the settlement agreement between the DOJ and HCC, the OSC received a complaint on March 12, 2012 alleging national origin discrimination and other violations of the INA's anti-discrimination provisions. The OSC's investigation concluded that HCC had engaged in a practice, for a period of at least two years, that required non-citizens to produce documents during the hiring process demonstrating work authorization. Job applicants that HCC believed to be United States citizens were not required to produce such documentation during the hiring process. Proof of employment eligibility is normally required after hiring, when the employer must complete Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification document. Although it found HCC's practices to be discriminatory, it did not find that the complainant was a victim of discrimination.

Continue reading "Department of Justice Settles Immigration-Related Employment Discrimination Claims Against College" »

A supervisor's sexual advances drove a New York police officer to take his own life, according to a lawsuit filed by the officer's widow. The lawsuit names the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the supervisor as defendants, and alleges that an ongoing pattern of sexual harassment violated the officer's civil rights.

Officer Matthew Schindler arrived at the 115th Precinct in Queens in March 2011, according to DNAinfo New York. He was assigned as a highway safety officer and reported to Sergeant Christine Hirtzel, also spelled in court documents and some media reports as "Hertzel." Hirtzel reportedly had direct control over Schindler's work schedule and duty assignments. She demanded that Schindler engage in sexual relations with her, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims that Hirtzel made preferable shift assignments and other features of employment contingent on continued sexual contact, and that she threatened that Schindler "would suffer tangible detriment" if he refused her demands.

The continued demands allegedly caused Schindler to become depressed. On February 13, 2012, Schindler confronted Hirtzel, according to the complaint, to tell her to stop. He told her at that time that "he would kill himself over the 'guilt,'" according to the New York Post. She allegedly refused to end the relationship, and she allowed Schindler to leave the station. Hirtzel then contacted a precinct captain, who reportedly tried to call Schindler to "rectify his hostile work environment," and out of concern that he was suicidal. At around 4:30 p.m., Schindler committed suicide with his service weapon.

DNAinfo reported that Hirtzel told NYPD investigators that the affair was consensual. She claimed that he became distraught on February 13 after she tried to break off the relationship. He "stormed off," she alleged, and then she contacted the precinct captain to admit the affair. The captain then called Schindler, according to Hirtzel's report.

Continue reading "NYPD Officer's Widow Sues Supervisor, Saying Sexual Harassment Drove Him to Suicide" »

A former employee of a Secaucus, New Jersey furniture store chain has alleging that management discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and retaliated against her for complaining of a manager's discriminatory conduct. Perez v. Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00327, complaint (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2013). The lawsuit currently claims violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. An investigation of employment discrimination claims is still underway by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the plaintiff has stated an intent to amend her complaint should the EEOC authorize her to do so.

The plaintiff, Isabel Perez, began working for the defendant, Factory Direct of Secaucus, which operates several Ashley Furniture HomeStore locations, on September 25, 2012. In her position as human resources director, she reported to the defendant Kathy Martin, the Director of People Services and Development, and defendant Eugene Chrinian, the CEO. Perez alleges that, during the interview process for the position with both Martin and Chrinian, both defendants questioned her extensively about her marital status and her religious beliefs. Perez, who is homosexual, preferred to keep such issues private, although she did discuss her religious beliefs briefly.

Perez alleges that Martin made frequent derogatory remarks in her presence about homosexuals, as well as discriminatory remarks about other employees based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or appearance. Perez claims that she brought up her concerns with Martin about Martin's derogatory comments to employees, as well as Martin's invocation of her religious beliefs in routine workplace issues. On at least one occasion, Martin allegedly told Perez "to be more understanding of the Company's 'culture.'" Complaint at 6. Martin began most meetings with prayers, Perez claims, including "unsolicited 'laying of the hands' on [Perez]." Id.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Against New Jersey Furniture Store Alleges Sexual Orientation Discrimination" »

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that an employer's termination of five employees over posts to the social media service Facebook violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In re Hispanics United of Buffalo and Ortiz, Case No. 03-CA-027872, decision and order (NLRB, Dec. 14, 2012). It rejected the employer's argument that the employees' posts violated its zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of other employees. The ruling affirmed an earlier finding by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the employees' posts were concerted activity protected by the NLRA.

Marianna Cole-Rivera and Lydia Cruz-Moore were employees of Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc. (HUB), a nonprofit organization providing assistance to domestic violence victims and others. The two communicated frequently via telephone and text message, and Cruz-Rivera reportedly criticized other coworkers on a regular basis. Cole-Rivera reportedly received a text message from Cruz-Moore on Saturday, October 9, 2010, when neither person was at work, saying that Cruz-Moore intended to report her concerns about other employees' performance to HUB's executive director.

After replying to Cruz-Moore via text, Cole-Rivera posted a message to her Facebook page saying that Cruz-Moore felt that other employees "don't help [their] clients enough," id. at 2, and asking for other employees' thoughts. Four HUB employees, all off-duty, responded with comments on the Facebook post. Cruz-Moore complained to the executive director and provided a printout of the post and its comments. The following Monday, the executive director fired Cole-Rivera and the other four employees for violating HUB's "zero tolerance" policy towards "bullying and harassment." Id.

Continue reading "NLRB Rules that Facebook Posts Regarding Coworkers Were Protected Concerted Activity" »

A former Ph.D. candidate at a San Francisco university is suing the school for gender discrimination, alleging that faculty and staff began to mistreat him once he revealed that he had undergone sex-reassignment surgery. The cause of action is a rare one, as only a handful of states, including New Jersey and California, allow claims for employment discrimination based on gender identity. New York state law currently does not allow such a claim, but New York City does. A lawsuit filed in New Jersey in 2011 was the first to test this state's transgender discrimination law. Federal authorities allowed a claim to proceed in 2012.

Kellen Bennett was a candidate for a Ph.D. in clinical psychology at Alliant International University's California School of Professional Psychology in San Francisco. He says that he received good grades and good recommendations from August 2006, when he started the program, until October 2011, when he revealed his transgender status to a faculty member and several students. Bennett underwent sex-reassignment surgery thirteen years ago, and he has lived as a man ever since. He claims that his reviews suddenly all turned bad, and that a postdoctoral internship he had been promised was no longer available to him. At least one supervisor frequently used anti-transgender slurs in his presence. Bennett also alleges that someone altered his academic records in a way that affected his job search. He completed his degree, but was unable to continue in the program as he had planned. Bennett filed suit against the university for gender discrimination and retaliation last year.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Alleges Gender Discrimination After Plaintiff Revealed Transgender Status" »