Discrimination

Discrimination Against Caregivers

May 22, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this month, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published suggested best practices for companies to minimize the chance of violating the rights of employees who are also caregivers. Those suggested practices supplement the guidelines the EEOC issued in 2007 regarding when it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee who is a caregiver.

Although there is no law in New York or New Jersey which expressly prohibits discrimination against employees because they are caregivers, many state and federal laws provide protection to caregivers under certain circumstances. For example, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New York Human Right Law, the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the New Jersey Family Leave Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) all provide some protection to caregivers.

The EEOC’s 2007 guidelines regarding employees with caregiving responsibilities recognize that, in part due to anti-discrimination laws, women now make up nearly half of the workforce in the United States. In addition, while the role of men as caregivers has substantially increased over the past 50 years, women still disproportionately have the primarily responsibility for caring for children and elderly parents, in-laws, and spouses. As a result, employment practices that disfavor caregivers disproportionately harm women.

President Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

January 29, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier today, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The Act reverses the United States Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) which requires an employee to bring a federal claim of pay discrimination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) within 180 days (or in some states, including New York and New Jersey, within 300 days) of the decision that caused the pay disparity.

In the Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court ruled that Lilly Ledbetter was outside of Title VII’s filing deadline when she initiated her gender discrimination claim against Goodyear. Ms. Ledbetter was seeking damages because she was paid less than men in comparable positions at the company. The Supreme Court found that her claim was untimely because she did not file a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days after the company’s initial discriminatory decision, even though she was still underpaid due to the past discrimination in that her salary remained lower than her male coworkers.

The Ledbetter decision was highly criticized on the basis that employees usually do not know how much their coworkers are paid, making it difficult or impossible for them to determine that they are experiencing discriminating against with respect to their compensation. As a result, employees who have been underpaid because of their race, color, sex (gender), religion, national origin, or disability are unlikely to know about it until long after the 180 (or 300) day EEOC filing deadline.

Damages in Employment Law Cases

January 17, 2009 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Many people who have been fired, demoted, harassed, or experienced some other violation of their employment law rights wonder what kind of damages they can recover if they win their case. Damages in employment law case can vary greatly in different states and under different laws, so it is recommended that you contact an employment lawyer in your area to discuss your specific claims. However, the most common type of damages available in employment law cases in New York and New Jersey include economic damages, emotional distress damages, attorneys fees and costs, punitive damages, and liquidated damages.

Economic Damages

Most employment laws allow for the recovery of economic damages. Economic damages are intended to compensate you for the salary and benefits you lost. They can include your lost salary and the value of your lost benefits like health insurance, a pension, or a 401(k) plan. Economic damages include past losses (called back pay) and future losses (called front pay).

New Jersey Employees Can Prove Discrimination Even If Decisionmaker Had No Discriminatory Animus

November 24, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently ruled that it is possible for an employee to prove he was fired for a discriminatory reason even if the person who made the ultimate decision to fire him did not have any discriminatory animus. Specifically, that can happen if the employee’s supervisor did something to bias the decisionmaker, or if the decisionmaker’s involvement in the process was a mere formality.

The case, Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch, involved Merrill Lynch’s decision to fire one of its employees, Darren Kwiatkowski. Mr. Kwiatkowski is gay. Merrill lynch fired him after he deliberately disobeyed an instruction from his supervisor, Theresa Wonder.

Immediately after Mr. Kwiatkowski’s insubordination, Ms. Wonder reported him to her supervisor, Sandra Givas, and recommended that the company should fire him. There was evidence that Ms. Wonder knew Mr. Kwiatkowski was gay and was biased against him on that basis. However, there was no evidence that Ms. Givas even knew that he was gay.

Single Anti-Gay Comment Can Create a Hostile Work Environment

November 11, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On August 13, 2008, in Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that a single anti-gay comment can create a hostile work environment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). In particular, the court ruled that a jury could find that an employee had been unlawfully harassed based solely on his supervisor calling him a “stupid fag” once, under her breath. That is important because the law requires harassment to be either sufficiently severe (bad enough) or pervasive (frequent enough) that the terms and conditions of employment have been materially changed and the employee’s work environment is hostile.

The decision in that case is unpublished. That means it is not binding on other New Jersey courts. However, it is still a significant decision for its reasoning and analysis, which other courts are likely to consider, if not follow.

The plaintiff in that case, Mr. Kwiatkowski, is gay. Although he told only a few of his coworkers, he assumed it was common knowledge that he was gay.

President Signs Law Expanding Scope of Americans With Disabilities Act

September 25, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Today, President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 into law. As previously discussed, the Act restores the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the ADA), and is intended to increase protection for disabled employees from discrimination. Among other things, it substantially expands the definition of disability and greatly increases the number of disabled individuals who are protected against discrimination in employment and places of public accommodation. The ADA Amendments Act will go into effect on January 1, 2009.

The United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 on June 25, 2008, and the United States Senate unanimously approved a slightly different version of the Act on September 11, 2008. The House of Representatives then approved the Senate’s version of the Act on September 17. Later that day, the White House released the following statement:

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is instrumental in allowing individuals with disabilities to fully participate in our economy and society, and the Administration supports efforts to enhance its protections. The Administration believes that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which has just passed Congress, is a step in that direction, and is encouraged by the improvements made to the bill during the legislative process. The President looks forward to signing the ADAAA into law.

Senate Passes Amendment to Restore Americans With Disabilities Act to Protect Disabled Employees From Discrimination

September 13, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On September 11, 2008, the Senate unanimously voted in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. If it were to become law, the Act would “restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990” (the ADA) by protecting many more disabled individuals from discrimination. The ADA is a federal employment law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, both in the context of employment and places of public accommodation such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. However, the ADA has been interpreted so narrowly that the vast majority of cases brought under it are dismissed, primarily because the individuals suing are unable to meet the statute’s definition of”disability.”

As discussed in a previous article, on June 25, 2008 the United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a slightly different version of the ADA Amendments Act, called the ADA Restoration Act. If the House of Representatives approves the Senate’s version of the Act, which seems likely, then the President would need to sign it into law before it would go into effect.

The ADA Amendments Act would reverse many United States Supreme Court cases which have interpreted the ADA narrowly and limited the scope of its protection. For example, it would amend the ADA to make it clear that:

Employee Rights Laws Part 3: Overview of New Jersey Employment Law Statutes

September 1, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Employee Rights Laws Part 3: Overview of New Jersey Employment Law Statutes

In most states, unless you have a written employment contract, are a member of a labor union, or are a civil service employee, you are probably an employee at will. Employment at will is the general principal that your company can fire you for any reason, or even for no reason at all. It also means you can quit your job for any reason.

Fortunately, federal, state, and local laws create many exceptions to employment at will that give employees significant protection from an unfair or arbitrary termination. This, the third part of a four part series, discusses some of the most important exceptions to employment at will under New Jersey. The first part of the series discusses some of the most important federal anti-discrimination laws. The second part describes many other important federal “wrongful termination” laws. Part four reviews employee rights under New York State and New York City law.

Employee Rights Laws Part 1: Overview of Federal Anti-Discrimination Employment Laws

August 17, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Employee Rights Laws Part 1: Overview of Federal Anti-Discrimination Employment Laws

In most states, including New York and New Jersey, unless you have a written employment contract, are a member of a labor union, or are a civil service employee, you are probably an employee at will. Employment at will is the general principal that your company can fire you for any reason, or even for no reason at all. It also means you can quit your job for any reason.

Fortunately, federal, state, and local laws create many exceptions to employment at will that give employees significant protection from an unfair or arbitrary termination. This, the first part of a four part series, discusses some of the most important federal anti-discrimination laws. The second part describes many other important federal “wrongful termination” laws. Part three addresses some of the most important exceptions to employment at will under New Jersey law. Part four reviews employee rights laws under New York State and New York City law.

Federal Anti-Discrimination Employment Laws

The following is an overview of some of the most important federal anti-discrimination laws. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. It is also important to understand that not every federal employment law applies to every employee. If you believe your employment law rights have been violated, you should contact a knowledgeable, dedicated and experienced employment lawyer.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

Protects employees who are at least 40 years old from age discrimination.

Prohibits employers from harassing employees who are 40 years old or older because of their age.

Makes it unlawful to retaliate against individuals who object to age discrimination.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)

Prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who are disabled, perceived to be disabled, or have a record of a disability.

Requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to allow disabled employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs.

Protects individuals who complain aboutdisability discrimination or who request a reasonable accommodation for a disability, by prohibiting retaliation.

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)

Prohibits employers from discriminating between men and women in terms of salary and other wages if they hold the same job under similar working conditions.

False Claims Act of 1986 (FCA)

Allows individuals to file whistleblower actions (called qui tam actions) against individuals who defrauded the federal government, including health care fraud, fraud by defense contractors, and fraud in other federal spending programs.

Permits some whistleblowers who bring successful claims under the False Claims Act to receive a portion of any damages recovered.

Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)

Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of genetic information. Additional information about GINA is available in a previous article.

Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970 (OSHA)

Requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.

Makes it unlawful for employers to fire or otherwise discriminate against employees who file complaints, testify, or exercise other right under OSHA.

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)

Prohibits companies from denying employee benefits to older employees because of their age, with limited exceptions.

Adds numerous requirements before a settlement of an age discrimination claim to be enforceable under the ADEA, such as requirements that the employee is:
1. Provided the ages of employees who were laid off and retained in a reduction in force;
2. Provided at least 21 days to review the agreement (45 days in the case of a mass layoff);
3. Given at least 7 days to revoke the agreement after signing it; and
4. Advised to consult a lawyer before accepting a severance offer that contains a waiver of rights.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions, as forms of unlawful.

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)

Prohibits discrimination due to race or ethnicity in the making, performance, modification, and termination of contacts, including employment contracts, or with respect to the benefits, privileges, terms, and condition of a contractual relationship.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex (gender) color, national origin, and religion.

Makes it illegal for an employer to harass an employee due to race, sex (gender) color, national origin, or religion, including prohibiting sexual harassment.

Protects individuals who make complaints of discrimination or harassment based on race, sex (gender) color, national origin, and religion, by prohibiting retaliation.

Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (URESSA)

Prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because of his or her service in the Armed Forces Reserve, the National Guard, or other uniformed services.

Entitles veterans, reservists, National Guard members, and other members of the uniformed services to return to their jobs in the private sector after an absence for military service or training.

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1994 (WARN Act)

Requires most companies with 100 or more employees to provide at least 60 days advance notice of a mass layoff or plant closing.

United States Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Prove Age Discrimination

July 16, 2008 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Supreme Court Rules Employer Has Burden to Prove Adverse Employment Action Based on Reasonable Factors Other Than Age

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. (“ADEA”), is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment because of age. On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court made it easier for employees to prevail in disparate impact claims under the ADEA, by placing an important burden of proof on the employer. A disparate impact case under the ADEA is when an individual seeks to prove that his or her employer illegally discriminated against him or her because of age, even though it did not necessarily intend to discriminate, because it used a specific test, requirement, or practice that disproportionately harmed employees who are at least 40 years old.

In that case, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the Supreme Court interpreted a provision of the ADEA that permits an employer to take an adverse employment action against an employee, even if the employment action is “otherwise prohibited” by the ADEA, as long as the adverse action is “based on reasonable factors other than age.” The Supreme Court ruled that if an employer seeks to rely on that defense, it has the burden to prove that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age.