Employment Discrimination

February 27, 2013

Department of Justice Settles Immigration-Related Employment Discrimination Claims Against College

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

February 20, 2013

Lawsuit Against New Jersey Furniture Store Alleges Sexual Orientation Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

January 29, 2013

Former Manager Sues Hotel for Firing her After She Gave Birth in Guest Room

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former manager at a “swanky” New York City hotel has filed a lawsuit accusing hotel management of discriminating against her because of her pregnancy. She alleges that her superiors told her repeatedly that she, possibly because of her age and race, was not a good fit in the hotel’s environment. She nevertheless worked eighty- to one-hundred-hour weeks, even well into her pregnancy. She was working when she went into labor, and ended up giving birth in a guest room at the hotel. After that, she alleges that management began eliminating her job duties, and then fired her on what she claims was a pretext.

Tara Tan claims that she helped build the Standard Hotel’s business in the four years that she worked there. Despite putting in long hours, even while pregnant, she alleges that her superiors told her she did not “fit the culture” of the hotel, a prominent nightlife spot in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District. Tan took this as a criticism of her Chinese heritage and her age, as compared to the young, mostly white, “model-like…beautiful people” she says the management preferred to have around. She had reportedly gained weight during an earlier difficult pregnancy, and endured harassment regarding her appearance before the pregnancy that immediately preceded her termination.

Tan was working a late shift on April 30, 2011 when she went into labor at around midnight. She claims that her superiors did not offer any assistance, allegedly because they did not want to disturb the hotel’s party scene. She was sent into a guest room on the fifteenth floor and waited for her husband, who came two hours later from their home in New Jersey. Tan also alleges that when she called the front desk to ask for help, the person on the phone asked if she was joking. The child was born soon after her husband arrived, at around 2:30 a.m. Tan’s husband assisted in the delivery, with Tan’s doctor offering guidance over the phone. They called for an ambulance, and hotel staff made them leave through a side exit so they would not disrupt hotel guests.
Continue reading

January 15, 2013

Former Game Show Model Receives $8 Million Verdict in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former model on the long-running daytime game show “The Price is Right” received a verdict totalling over $8 million in a suit against the show’s producers. The plaintiff alleged that the producers unlawfully discriminated against her because of her pregnancy by firing her after she took leave to give birth. Federal law prohibits discrimination in employment based on a worker’s gender, and includes pregnancy discrimination as a form of gender bias. Laws in most states, including New Jersey, include similar prohibitions.

Brandi Cochran worked as a model on the show for several years before becoming pregnant. She alleged in her complaint that she witnessed discrimination by the show’s producers against other models who became pregnant, and so decided not to reveal her pregnancy for some time in order, she believed, to protect her job. When Cochran informed one of the producers, the producer told her she knew, citing Cochran’s weight gain. Cochran alleged that another producer, upon learning of the pregnancy, began to avoid interacting with her and suggested that he would have fired her had he known of the pregnancy.

Cochran claimed that the producers made her announce that she was pregnant with twins on the air. After the announcement, she alleged, the producers reduced her work load. She also allegedly received ridicule regarding her weight gain from co-workers. Cochran miscarried one of the twins, and she gave birth to the other three months premature. The child had severe health problems, and Cochran said she had to balance caring for the child and attempting to lose weight so she could return to the show. She claimed that the producers would not commit to a return date, and she eventually learned that she had been fired after she was removed from the show’s website.
Continue reading

January 7, 2013

Firing Employee Due to Concerns of Employer’s Wife is Not Unlawful Gender Discrimination, According to Iowa Supreme Court

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

In a decision that has already created a firestorm of controversy, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist did not unlawfully discriminate against an employee based on her gender when he fired her because of his attraction to her. The court acknowledged in Nelson v. James H. Knight, DDS, P.C., No. 11-1857 (Iowa, Dec. 21, 2012), that the employer’s actions were unfair, but concluded that they were not motivated by the employee’s gender. Concerns over the employer’s marriage, the court found, was the primary reason for the firing. The court held that this was lawful even though the employee had done nothing wrong, but it also noted the potential for this decision to enable future employers to make similar claims in an attempt to justify otherwise unlawful firings.

The plaintiff, Melissa Nelson, began working for Dr. James Knight’s dental practice in 1999, when she was twenty years old and just out of school. She worked for him for ten-and-a-half years as a dental assistant. Both were married and had children by 2009, and Nelson testified that she viewed Knight as a “friend and father figure.” Slip op. at 3. Knight reportedly began to complain to Nelson during the last year and a half of her employment that her attire was inappropriate for the workplace, although Nelson denied wearing clothing that was too tight or otherwise inappropriate.

During the last six months of her employment, the two began communicating via text message. Some of the texts discussed matters of a sexual nature, but none indicated a sexual relationship between the two. Nelson said that she was not uncomfortable with the correspondence, although some of Knight’s texts could be described as explicit, such as a reference to bulging pants caused by her revealing clothing. Knight’s wife, who also worked for his practice, discovered their text correspondence in late 2009, and complained to him about it, calling it a “big threat to [their] marriage.” Id. at 4. In consultation with the couple’s pastor, Knight decided it was best to fire Nelson. He informed her of her termination on January 4, 2010, by reading a prepared statement with another pastor present. Knight acknowledged that Nelson had done nothing wrong, and that she was his best dental assistant. He later hired another woman to replace Nelson, and has always employed female dental assistants.
Continue reading

January 3, 2013

Federal Immigration Laws Protect Employees from Discrimination Based on National Origin

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are widely-known and frequently invoked in cases of allegedly unlawful discrimination or harassment. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on a wide range of factors, including race, gender, and religion. Other statutes also protect workers from specific types of discrimination. The federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), for example, prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or, in some cases, citizenship status. While the principal purpose of this statute is to protect United States citizens, it can also protect immigrants with employment authorization in many situations.

Section 274B of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring or firing individuals, as well as other features or benefits of employment, based on national origin. For United States citizens and legally-admitted immigrants, the statute prohibits discrimination based on citizenship status. This includes anyone admitted as a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card, and anyone authorized by immigration authorities to work in the United States. The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) handles alleged discrimination in violation of the INA.

The law differs from other federal anti-discrimination laws in two important respects. First, it does not protect undocumented immigrants or immigrants without employment authorization. It also does not prohibit employers from giving U.S. citizens preference over non-citizens, provided the applicants are otherwise equally qualified. The statute specifically prohibits filing overlapping claims with the OSC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which investigates alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Continue reading

November 15, 2012

New Jersey Court Backs Alcoholic Employee’s Disability Discrimination Claim

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Superior Court recently overturned a lower court’s summary decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination on the basis of her voluntary admission of alcoholism.Our New Jersey employment lawyers know it is a little-known fact that alcoholism is considered a disability, both under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. What this means is that you cannot be discriminated or retaliated against by your employer for seeking substance abuse treatment or for simply admitting you are an alcoholic or a drug addict.

This may not summarily protect your position if you show up for work intoxicated, if your job performance is poor or if you are putting others at risk. But in this case, the long-term employee was performing well and had no disciplinary issues. What’s more, the company’s internal policy on which her termination was based was found by the state’s Superior Court to be “facially discriminatory,” though the company vehemently defended it.

The case, A.D.P. v. Exxonmobil Research and Engineering Company, originated with a voluntary admission from the employee to her employer that she was an alcoholic and was in an inpatient rehabilitation center receiving treatment. This admission was not the result of an inquiry or pressure from the employer based on poor job performance. In fact, she was performing quite well. Regardless, the company, by its own policy, subsequently required the employee to undergo regular alcohol testing in the form of breathalyzer tests and mandated that she sign an agreement pledging to abstain from alcohol.

When the employee in turn failed a random breathalyzer test, she was fired.

The Superior Court found that because the employee’s required breathalyzer test was based not on job performance or imposed on every employee regardless of disability, the employer in fact was engaging in discrimination.

The court underscored the fact that the employer had not made her sign this agreement as part of a “last chance agreement,” which might have been extended to an employee on shaky ground stemming from poor performance due to alcoholism. The employee was not the subject of any pending disciplinary action or internal investigation. In fact, managers for the defendant testified that the employee’s work was exemplary, and that the tests were mandated on factors other than her job performance.

Therefore, the court ruled, it was discriminatory.

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 outlines that employers may not terminate a defendant on the basis of a disability. As alcoholism is a disability, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for alcoholics.

Because substance abuse is not widely accepted as a legitimate illness, many employers may not understand their responsibilities under the reasonable accommodations requirement. It doesn’t mean, for example, that an employer has to tolerate it if you come in late to work on a Monday or leave early on a Friday in order to binge. It does, however, mean the employer can’t target you for discipline because you sought substance abuse treatment or you had to leave a little early to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Reasonable accommodation means an employer has to be willing to work with you on these matters, so long as it does not create an undue hardship.
Continue reading

November 2, 2012

New Jersey Passes Law Against Gender Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

By signing into law new posting requirements aimed at combating pay and gender discrimination, Gov. Chris Christie advanced the fight for equal pay in the workforce.

Under the new law, companies that employ more than 50 people must post gender equality information in the workplace. This information must also be provided to employees at the time of hire, annually thereafter, and upon an employee’s request.The law is scheduled to take effect Nov. 21 and employers will have 30 days to comply once the New Jersey Department of Labor issues notice.

However, our NJ employment lawyers understand there is much work left to be done. Employees, particularly women, must remain vigilant in making sure they are fairly compensated, particularly in relation to men holding similar positions within the company.

Christie vetoed a measure that would have increased the reporting requirements for public contractors in an effort to better determine and enforce compliance. Those doing business within New Jersey would have been required to report gender, job title, occupational category, race and total compensation to the New Jersey Department of Labor.

“When Gov. Chris Christie had a chance to sign legislation I authored to prevent gender wage discrimination in public contracts, he vetoed the bill, calling it ‘senseless bureaucracy,'” wrote Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden/Burlington), in the Star-Ledger. Lampitt is also chairwoman of the Assembly’s Women and Children Committee.

Christie said it would have been burdensome and would have ultimately driven up the cost of public contracts paid for by tax dollars.

However, fact remain that women continue to fight for the equal pay owed them for equal work; this remains particularly true for jobs traditionally held by men. Lampitt notes a nationwide annual gender wage gap of $15.8 billion. In New Jersey, women earn just 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in the workforce.

Christie returned two New Jersey employment discrimination bills to the legislature for significant amendments.

The first would have eliminated the statute of limitations for bringing compensation discrimination claims. The Christie Administration contends that asserting into the bill limitations on the amount of backpay that can be recover would bring it into better agreement with the holdings of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The governor proposed a two-year limit.

The next measure would have prohibited retaliation against employees requesting pay information. The governor recommended the provisions be included in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination rather than being made part of NJ’s whistleblower law.

Establishing whistleblower protections is a key component that must be part of any real solution. The secrecy around pay in the workforce is one one the primary reasons why this form of silent discrimination is allowed to continue. Until employees who have reason to believe they are being paid unfairly are given access to compensation information, such discrepancies in pay will remain commonplace.
Continue reading

October 23, 2012

New Jersey Employment Discrimination: State Police Refuse to Answer Questions about Promotional Policies

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a discrimination lawsuit in New Jersey against State Police on behalf of the Latino Leadership Alliance. The group is seeking access and information regarding promotion policies, The Inquirer reported.

The chairman of the group, which describes itself as a coalition of community organizations, says he is a former police officer looking to ensure that there is no “disparate treatment of minorities,” according to the lawsuit.State police denied a state Open Public Records Request last month, saying the request was “improper and overbroad.” The ACLU asserts police are permitted to keep individual employment records private but not general employment policies.

The ACLU is accusing state police of a culture of secrecy, saying it’s the third public records request the agency has denied in recent months. For their part, state police are pointing to a recently adopted rule by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, which permits police to withhold “standard operating procedures” from public view. The new regulation was first adopted in December 2011; the Attorney General’s Office had previously said the rules would not be used to exempt general polices and procedures.

Yet it’s been used to deny this request by the Latino Leadership Alliance, which wanted to know if promotion policies favored one ethnic or racial group over another.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate in employment matters on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national orientation. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission statistics from 1997 to 2011 show charges filed under Title VII alleging race discrimination in the workplace have risen from 762 in 1997 to nearly 3,000 last year. Race-based charges have increased from 29,199 in 1997 to more than 35,000 last year.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits employment discrimination in any job-related action — including hiring and promotion — on the basis of any of the law’s protected categories. Protected categories are: race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information liability for military service, or mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses.

Such discrimination is also forbidden in setting salary and benefits, making job assignments, in disciplinary actions and when reducing the workforce or otherwise conducting layoffs or terminations.

The law also protects employees from retaliation in the wake of making a good faith complaint about discrimination or harassment. Avenues for remedy include filing a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (which must be done with 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination) or pursuing a case through New Jersey Superior Court, typically with the assistance of an experienced New Jersey employment lawyer.
Continue reading

October 10, 2012

Sexual Harassment Costs New Jersey Millions – Many Offenders Remain on the Job

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Sexual harassment lawsuits, filed by NJ sexual harassment lawyers on behalf of state workers, against state agencies is costing New Jersey millions, yet many of the offenders remain on the job or have retired with lucrative pensions, according to an investigation by the Asbury Park Press.

A cadet at the state’s corrections officer academy said she was subjected to offensive obscenities, inappropriate touching my male instructors, sex and gender discrimination and on-the-job retaliation in the wake of complaints to superiors. Fed up, she sued in 2005 and agreed to settle the case last year for $415,000. She now works as a senior corrections officer at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton.Despite millions in settlements, most agencies refuse to discuss the issue — citing either ongoing litigation or private personnel issues not subject to disclosure. However, the newspaper’s investigation found many state employees or supervisors who have been named in the lawsuits either continue to work for the state or have retired with generous pensions. Many of the employee complaints allege the harassment has been occurring for years, according to the Park Press.

Whether in the private or public sector, failure to adequately deal with employees who violate sexual harassment policy ensures that the company remains exposed to such lawsuits and that employees remain exposed to unlawful conduct in the workplace.

The New Jersey Civil Service Commission reports nearly 1,000 state employees have filed sexual harassment lawsuits in the last 5 years. In recent years, 27 lawsuits have been settled for a total of $3.9 million. The average settlement is $145,000. In fact, the number of sexual harassment complaints in New Jersey has increased by 10 percent since 2006, even as the number of complaints nationwide has dropped by 5.5 percent.

The State of New Jersey has had a sexual harassment policy on the books since 1993 and all of the state’s 74,000 employees are required to take training courses aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual harassment which creates a hostile work environment is when an employee endures sexually abusive or offensive behavior and does not have to include physical contact. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is when an employer demands sexual favors as a condition of continued employment or advancement.

A total of 78 complaints involving state workers have been filed this year through Sept. 12.

Ironically, most of the settlements involved state agencies entrusted with enforcing the law. The State Department of Law and Public Safety was responsible for more than $1 million in settlements — the highest dollar amount of any agency. Other agencies included state courts, the Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program and the Department of Corrections.

A spokesman for the state Attorney General said state agencies thoroughly investigate complaints and that disciplinary action can include reprimand, demotion, suspension or termination.
Continue reading