New York Employment Attorney Blog

In Gail Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Engineers, P.C., et al., 12-3489-cv, April 26, 2013, the plaintiff filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging that an affair that one of her brothers had with another worker in their family business created a sexually hostile work environment, and that following her complaints, both of her brothers retaliated against her. The lower court dismissed both claims, and the plaintiff appealed only the dismissal of her retaliation claims.

Continue reading "U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of Retaliation Claim Made in Connection with "Paramour Preference" Claim" »

In 2005, the New York City Council amended the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") to make it clear that courts should construe New York City's anti-discrimination protections more broadly than federal discrimination protections. Under the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, the New York City Council alerted courts to their mistaken assumption that interpretations of the NYCHRL should be coextensive with federal and New York State discrimination law. Consequently, courts began construing the NYCHRL much more broadly and in favor of discrimination claimants. Now, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont) has confirmed that the NYCHRL is broader in its protections and application.

In Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreaux North America Inc. (11-3361-cv) (April 26, 2013) , the Second Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer on plaintiff's sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims. Specifically, the Second Circuit found that the District Court had applied federal standards in determining whether the employer was liable under the NYCHRL

The court summed up its conclusions as follows:

Continue reading "U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Confirms Broader Construction Under New York City Human Rights Law " »

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual harassment in employment. In 1998, the United States Supreme Court held in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc. that sexual harassment also included same-sex harassment and violated Title VII. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut, reversed a decision of a District Court in the Western District of New York, dismissing a same-sex harassment claim on summary judgment grounds. The Second Circuit concluded that there was ample evidence and issues of fact that could support a jury verdict in favor of the harassed employee.

In Barrows v. Seneca Foods Corp., Jeffrey Barrows alleged that his male supervisor, Victor Sanabria, sexually harassed him by touching his genitals and otherwise creating a hostile working environment on the basis of sex. Among other things, Sanabria referred to Barrows as a "faggot" and leveled vulgar sexual comments at him during work. In addition, Barrows alleged that Sanabria had likewise harassed other men in similar fashion, but not women. The District Court for the Western District of New York had previously dismissed the lawsuit, holding that "there was no evidence that [Barrows] had suffered discrimination because of his sex." (emphasis in original).

The Second Circuit reversed, noting that under the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale, the focus on whether sexual harassment has occurred is on "whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment [e.g. hostile work environment] to which members of the other sex are not." Indeed, this is the very essence of a sexual harassment claim, and it does not matter that the harasser and victim are of the same sex. In addition, in order for the sexual harassment to be illegal, it needed to be "severe or pervasive." The Second Circuit held that a jury could find that "Sanabria treated women better than men and that, therefore, men were 'exposed to [a] disadvantageous term[ ] or condition [ ] of employment to which [women] were not.'" (alterations in original).

Same-sex harassment cases tend to cause difficulties for courts because Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Consequently, the same-sex harassment must rise to the level of sex discrimination in order to be illegal under Title VII. Under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights law, sexual orientation discrimination, including harassment, is illegal. Thus, many same-sex harassment cases are asserted as sexual orientation harassment claims under those New York laws.

On December 17, 2012, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") approved its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2016 ("SEP"). The SEP establishes priorities and integrates all components of the EEOC's enforcement. In so doing, the SEP adopted the following national priorities:

1- Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring. The EEOC intends to target class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin, religion, age, gender (women), and disability.

2- Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers. Among other things, the EEOC intends to target disparate pay, job segregation, harassment, trafficking and discriminatory policies affecting those workers who may not be aware of their rights to equal employment opportunity, or are otherwise reluctant to exercise them.

3- Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues.

4- Enforcing Equal Pay Laws. The EEOC will continue to target compensation disparities and practices in the area of gender or sex discrimination.

5- Preserving Access to the Legal System. The EEOC will scrutinize policies and practices that have the effect of discouraging employees from seeking relief under the applicable employment discrimination statutes.

6- Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

Continue reading "EEOC Approves Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016" »

Following a two-week trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that the employer had subjected a class of female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to the class of employees who had been sexually harassed. The court, however, declined to impose injunctive relief to ensure that the sexual harasser would not be in a position to harass women in the future.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, reversed and held that under the circumstances of the case, injunctive relief was necessary to prevent future sexual harassment.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. KarenKim, Inc., 11-3309-cv, the Second Circuit determined that the employer had not adopted adequate measures to ensure that the sexual harassment would not recur. The court noted that the sexual harasser and owner of KarenKim were involved in a romantic relationship, which meant that he might still have access to the employees even if he were no longer technically employed as a supervisor. In addition, the court noted that the complaint procedure adopted by KarenKim to prevent future sexual harassment following the lawsuit was ineffective in that it required that complaints be made in writing and within 30 days of the alleged harassment in order to be acted upon. This coupled with the fact that the initial sexual harassment went unchecked for years prompted the Second Circuit to order the New York federal district court to impose the injunctive relief requested by the EEOC.

Today, Governor David Patterson signed into law, the New York Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which reflects the first sweeping domestic workers' rights legislation in the nation.

Among other things, the New York law provides for overtime pay to domestic workers, and protection against workplace discrimination and harassment based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, marital status and domestic victim status. The legislation specifically addresses sexual harassment, which is cited as a major problem for domestic workers in New York.

In Pucino v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont) reversed a decision by a New York federal court granting summary judgment in favor of Verizon on a former employee's gender-based hostile work environment claims.

Continue reading "Second Circuit Clarifies Proof Necessary to Establish a Hostile Work Enviroment Claim" »

The plaintiff, Diane Gorzynski, brought forth claims alleging hostile work enviornment, age and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation for complaints of race and age discrimination, against JetBlue, her employer. Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways, Corp. (February 19, 2010).

Continue reading "New York Federal Appellate Court Rules that Employee Claiming Sexual Harassment May not be Required to Complain to Multiple Managers about Harassment" »

On January 6, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") released data concerning charges of discrimination filed with the agency in FY2009. The EEOC resolved a record number of charges alleging harassment and violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. FY2009 saw the second highest number of charge filings nationwide, 93,277 --just about 2,000 filings less than the record high set for FY2008.

Continue reading "EEOC Releases 2009 Charge Statistics" »

An assistant marketing manager has sued Steiff, a maker of teddy bears and stuffed animals, and its CEO, claiming that she was sexually harassed by the company's CEO, which culminated, according to the employee, in a rape. The case was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Continue reading "$80 Million Sexual Harassment Suit Filed Against New York Teddy Bear Maker" »

A sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Duane Reade Inc., was recently settled for $240,000 and other relief. The lawsuit had alleged that Duane Reade, which operates over 200 drugstores in New York, had unlawfully created and failed to correct a sexually hostile work environment at one of its stores located in Bronx, New York.

Continue reading "New York Drugstore Chain Settles Sexual Harrassment and Retaliation Lawsuit" »

Last week, a lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court alleging sexual harassment against Southern Hospitality, a New York City restaurant, and its owners, one of whom is Justin Timberlake. The lawsuit was brought by Alison McDaniel, a former restaurant manager, who accuses two of Timberlake's owners of discriminatory conduct.

Continue reading "Celebrity Owned New York Restaurant Sued for Sexual Harassment" »

In what is being referred to as the largest verdict for an individual case of sexual harassment in New York, a Queens County jury awarded $15 million to a nurse, Janet Bianco, who claimed that a physician, Dr. Matthew Miller, sexually harassed her over an 8 year period. According to the lawsuit, Bianco complained repeatedly to supervisors at Flushing Hospital concerning Miller's actions, which began in 1993 and ended in 2001.

Continue reading "New York Jury Awards Nurse $15 million in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Under federal law, an employee who seeks to hold an employer liable for a hostile work environment, based upon sex, race, age, national origin, or other protected category, is generally required to show that the hostile work environment or harassment is "severe or pervasive." Until recently, courts interpreting New York State and New York City anti-discrimination statutes have assumed that the standards for proving harassment under those laws were similar to federal law.

Continue reading "New York Appellate Court Recognizes Lower Standard for Proving Discrimination Under New York City Human Rights Law" »

Mauricia Grant, a former employee of NASCAR, filed suit alleging 23 specific instances of sexual harassment, as well as 34 instances of racial and sexual discrimination.

According to Grant, she complained to her supervisors of the discriminatory treatment on multiple occasions, but her complaints were ignored. She alleges in her complaint that her supervisor even participated in the discriminatory conduct. At a press conference, Brian France, NASCAR's CEO, faulted Grant for allegedly not following internal harassment complaint procedures.

The civil action seeks $225 million in damages.