Previous Post

The law is becoming clearer on what exactly constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. Legal experts such as Ty Hyderally have been successfully litigating cases which set new precedents in the legal world. This class action suit which was filed against the Mitsubishi Corporation is an example of successful litigation. This is a case wherein sexual harassment in the workplace got totally out of hand and became a sexually hostile environment.

A class action law suit was filed against Mitsubishi Motors Corp by the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission on April 9, 1996. The suit contained over 300 claims by women who worked at the Normal, Illinois Mitsubishi plant. Their claims were that they had been subjected to repeated sexual harassment in the workplace which began as early as 1988.  The EEOC alleged that managers had been involved in passing around pornographic photographs of male workers displaying sexual acts, male workers who had exposed themselves, obscene graffiti and assaults (both physical and verbal) against women who worked at the plant. The second part of the class action suit stated that the management and Employee Relations Department failed to respond adequately. Many times there was no response at all to the complaints filed by women who had filed regarding the harassment. EEOC pursued the case to stop the harassment and also to obtain some compensation for the women who had been harassed.

Mitsubishi tried to argue that there were time constraints on some of the older cases and therefore they were not eligible to be included in the class action law suit. However, the court rejected the argument stating that there is not a statute of limitations and that EEOC did not unduly delay their actions.

On June 10, 1998, the EEOC and Mitsubishi reached a settlement. Mitsubishi agreed to pay $34 million in compensation to the workers who had been affected. The company also agreed that they would revamp their sexual harassment policies and adapt a “zero tolerance” policy toward sexual harassment. This meant that they would revise the company’s existent policies and commit to setting up a proper complaint procedure as well as sexual harassment training for its employees. Mitsubishi would also be under review by an independent panel which would monitor the progress at the Normal, Illinois plant. Mitsubishi did become vigilant in their stand against sexual harassment in the workplace and hired Lynn Martin, former Secretary of Labor to help overhaul the system. They now boast a zero tolerance policy.

Sexual harassment is unfortunately part of the day to day life of many workers around the country and makes going to work difficult for many, fortunately there are employment law attorneys such as Tayeb Hyderally who are there to fight vigorously for the rights of all employees.

Harassment Claims Against the Church

Cases all across the nation can set precedents for rulings in other states. New Jersey employment law is affected by cases such as this one which was heard in the state of Kansas. It is interesting cases like this one that has kept Tayeb Hyderally involved in employment law as it pertains to sexual harassment. What makes this case so interesting is that it involves a sexual harassment case in a church setting. Before the case could be heard by the courts it first had to be deemed that it would not in any way violate the separation of church and state. In this case, it did not as the alleged sexual harassment was job related yet the secular ruling had no bearing on the religious standings of the church. The court also found that Title VII could be applied to the work setting without entangling the government in religion.

Sue Ann Dolquist was ordained in the Presbyterian Church and served as pastor. She alleged that during her tenure the choir director, who was also a church elder, made vulgar comments and touched her inappropriately. She reported the conduct to her supervisor who threatened to fire her. The situation was not addressed properly by authorities. When the work environment became unbearable she decided to quit. She then filed suit in federal court against the churches which had employed her stating that the church and its supervisors where in violation of Title VII. The defendants tried to argue a “ministerial exception” but the courts denied this motion.

Miller subjected Dolquist to oppressive, degrading, emotionally upsetting and sexually inappropriate behavior from 1996 to 2001. He was also engaged in such inappropriate behaviors with other women in the church during this same time frame. He finally resigned from his position as music director in June of 2000, but remained in the position of a church elder. When members tried to rehire Miller as the church music director in 2001, Dolquist objected and referred to his past sexual misconduct. In September of 2001 the church advised her that she had also been accused of engaging in behavior similar to Miller’s. In October, 2001, she was fired even though her job performance was satisfactory.

She filed five counts against the Heartland church sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and outrage and failure to supervise. Two of these cases were dismissed, infliction of emotional distress and claim for negligence.

This case was very important in setting precedents to protect employees of religious institutions against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The legal world is vast, especially when one begins to study employment law and sexual harassment. Ty Hyderally is an experienced lawyer who has been intrigued with the complexity of this legal area. Actually, this complex world is what first made it appealing to him. He has been successfully litigating cases of employment law and various forms of discrimination for many years. He also has offices in both the New York and New Jersey areas.

There are both state and federal laws which are created to protect employees against sexual harassment in the workplace. Federal laws are centered on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws apply to employers who employ 15 or more persons. Most of the time employees who work for smaller businesses are still covered by state level anti-discrimination laws. While state laws may vary some on issues of same sex harassment, federal law supports claims against an employer for same sex harassment.

There are two types of sexual harassment as it occurs in the workplace. Quid Pro Quo Harassment is where an employee is required to tolerate some level of sexual harassment so that they can keep their job, obtain benefits, raises or promotions. And a Hostile Work Environment Harassment is a situation in which the harassment interferes with the work performance of an employee, or creates an offensive or abusive work environment.

One incident could be considered a quid pro quo harassment claim, but usually to establish a hostile work environment there will be a pattern of abusive conduct. There are several types of behaviors that can be classified as sexual harassment. Any time there are unwelcome sexual advances, verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature or requests for sexual favors it can constitute a sexual harassment claim. There are certain situations where an employer can be held liable for misconduct of non-employees, if they do not take any form of appropriate or corrective action to detour the behavior.

To bring a claim for sexual harassment the plaintiff will have to establish that they found the conduct to be offensive, abusive or hostile. To file a complaint against a workplace for sexual harassment does not mean that one has to be a victim. Usually prior to filing a suit in a sexual harassment case, the complainant will have to file a complaint with the employer or their administrative agency. To file a federal complaint, it will have to be filed with the EEOC first. And there are local and state agencies to which persons can file complaints.

Title VII will also provide protection for employees who file a sexual harassment case, who are testifying in these types of proceedings, or are participating in an investigation or litigation that is associated with a sexual harassment complaint. An employee may lose a sexual harassment claim, but still win against the employer on the grounds of retaliation.

Faragher V Boca Raton – Employment Law Cases

There are many different aspects to employment law; and just as many facets to discriminatory practices. Employment lawyers have to stay current on the many changes these laws undergo as rulings set the precedent for future cases. Cases like Faragher v. Boca Raton are the types of cases that draw many lawyers into studying employment law to begin with. The many transformations that NJ employment law undergoes is what drew Ty Hyderally to the field to being with. This is one of the types of cases that helps keep employment law interesting.

In 1998 the United States Supreme Court heard and decided Faragher v. Boca Raton. This case set the precedent for qualifying those circumstances for which employers could be held liable for an employee whom they have placed in a supervisory position. The company can be held liable if the supervisory employee creates a hostile work environment for workers under them.

Faragher and several other workers alleged that their supervisors had created a sexually hostile environment which included inappropriate touching which was unsolicited. The supervisors also spoke about women in general using offensive terms. Faragher alleged that the supervisors specifically told her that she should date him, or clean toilets for a year. There were many such instances cited. Although another female worker had brought the instances to the attention of the city, the hiring party, no actions had been taken.

The defense tried to say that it was a personal issue with the supervisors and had nothing to do with their employment. And they made the point that their views were not necessarily those of the employer. Another point was that Faragher’s job or position was not threatened and therefore it did not qualify as “harassment.” The city was unaware and they proposed that the City did not have a need to know about the situation. This was based on the fact that the incidents were spaced out over a long period of time and in a remote facility. The final point was that if it was a more serious issue, Faragher would have reported it sooner to the proper authorities.

Faragher felt like the situation was used to help the supervisors carry out the harassment. She maintained that the supervisors tried to use their position of authority to try to demean workers while making offensive statements. However, some felt that the city should not be the one responsible for ill actions of their employees. Faragher’s defense stated that since the offenses occurred on the job site while she was working for the city they are indeed the ones who should be held responsible.

The 7-2 opinion of the court determined that the City was responsible for the actions of their employee’s actions. This finding was based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore the City was finally charged with an act of discrimination caused by a supervisor. This set the precedent for other similar cases where an employer is held responsible for the discriminatory practices of an individual that the administration placed in a leadership or supervisory position.

 

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (Employment Law Cases)

When Ty Hyderally began to study law he found the area of employment law intriguing. The more he studied, the more fascinated he became and he chose to concentrate on this area of practicing law. It did not take long for him to become one of the premier employment law attorneys in the New Jersey area. He has many years of experience in successful litigation. Besides his law practice Mr. Hyderally also speaks to various groups regarding employment law.  He hopes to keep employers aware of recent changes in the laws including discrimination. In this way he protects both employees as well as employers. One such case that helped shape terms of racial discrimination is Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education.

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education

In 1985 this case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Jackson Board of Education layoff policy established that seniority was protection against lay-off. But their policy also stated that the percentage of minority teachers had to remain the same overall. This meant that some white teachers were laid off even though they had more seniority than other minority teachers.

Wendy Wygant, who was a white teacher, took legal action and the case was first heard in the Federal District Court. The District Court’s ruling was in favor of the Board of Education. Their claim was that the minority teachers deserved preference to help offset social discrimination.

The Supreme Court came to a decision in 1986 and reversed the ruling of the District Court stating that the Board of Education’s policy could not infringe on the rights of other innocent people. These types of decisions when used for hiring purposes are not intrusive on the rights of innocent people, but using it for deciding who is laid off from a job is.

Employment Law Cases – Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

Previous cases that have been settled by a ruling by the Supreme Court set the precedent for cases that are heard today. Ty Hyderally has been successfully litigating employment law in New Jersey for many years and is considered an expert in his field. Cases like Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur help to determine many of the rulings that are handed down in courtrooms today.

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur established that regulations regarding maternity leave were too restrictive and that these rules for public school employees violated the Due Process Clause of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. This ruling which drastically altered mandatory maternity leave guidelines was a great win on behalf of women in the workplace.

Teaching was one of the first careers in which American women dominated. Previous to this most women were housewives. The bias that believed a women’s primary role was that of a housewife dominated political offices, male administrators and was very much so of the school systems across the country. Because of this bias, married women were discouraged from entering the workforce period, but specifically from taking teaching positions. And many times being a married woman was an immediate disqualification for a teaching job. It was the general consensus that men and single women were in more need of a job than a married woman. After WWII caused so many labor shortages married women became more eligible for teaching positions. However, the prejudice against married women continued.

Prejudice began to focus more on pregnant women and in 1948 a survey conducted by the NEA showed that nearly half of the schools had no policy regarding maternity leave, and the remaining schools had a compulsory maternity leave. This mandatory leave forced teachers to take from 4 to 6 months leave before childbirth and a long period of time after the birth. These were unpaid leaves that were forced upon women teachers who were pregnant. Basically, if a woman was visibly pregnant, she would not be allowed to work, thus implying that she was not capable of meeting the demands of the job. The court ruled this as faulty reasoning.

The Supreme Court ruling was that this sort of compulsive maternity leave is unconstitutional. The Court stated it was too arbitrary, meaning that there was no reasonable explanation of the fixed dates. It also stated that there was no way to decide individual medical conditions for a whole group of people. The right of an individual to choose when to take maternity leave without such restrictive regulations was upheld.

History of the FMLA

As with most legislation which deals with employment law, The Family Medical Leave Act can become complicated quickly. However, Ty Hyderally is an expert and has years of successful litigation in such cases. His firm successfully litigates cases dealing with FMLA and other facets of employment law in New Jersey.

This law states that certain employees may take an unpaid leave of absence for a period of up to 12 weeks during each 12 month period. According to the federal Family Medical Leave Act this leave can be taken to care for a newborn child, attend to an ill family member, or for the employee who is experiencing serious health issues. In 2008 revisions were made to the FMLA which extended this time to 26 weeks to care for a family member who is in the Armed Forces. The employee is ensured that their job is protected during their leave of absence.

President Bill Clinton signed the first FMLA legislation into law August 5, 1993, just 16 days after his inauguration. The law is carefully worded to ensure that it is gender neutral. However, the initial purpose of the law was intended to protect women who took extended leave to take care of a newborn child.

The FMLA applies to employers who employ 50 persons or more for 20 or more workweeks per year. This covers public employers such as schools and other public agencies whether state, local or federal. Employees who desire to take an unpaid leave are required to have worked for the employer for at least 1250 hours for the preceding 12 months, although those months do not have to be consecutive. Employees must give employers at least a 30 day notice before the leave time will begin. An employer can also request a certification from a medical professional if an employee takes the leave to care for an immediate family member who has any sort of serious medical condition, or if the employee is suffering from some sort of health condition.

According to the FMLA an employer cannot retaliate or discriminate against an employee who takes an unpaid leave that is covered by FMLA guidelines. The employee must be reinstated to their former position or at least to a position which is equivalent. The employer also cannot terminate employee’s benefits during the leave. Also under the FMLA an employer is prohibited from any garnishment of said employee’s benefits which have accrued such as paid vacation.

The ADA Act and Employment Law

This blog post was written by Tayeb Hyderally; Ty Hyderally (as he is known) is an employment lawyer in New Jersey and is a super lawyer.

Employment laws are written with the intent that those who wish to work and have the ability to work should be allowed to work. There should be no discrimination in the workplace regarding age, gender, marital standing, race, skin color, sexual preference or disabilities. IF a person is willing and able to perform a job it should be their right to do so.

The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) took other discrimination laws a step further to include those who had disabilities but are still capable of functioning and performing designated job duties. ADA prohibits any form of discriminatory practices against a worker based on a mental or physical handicap. The ADA also requires employers to make any type of necessary and reasonable accommodations for their disabled workers. These accommodations must be within reason and not cause a undue hardship on the business. An individual who has a disability for which accommodations should be made is someone who is “substantially limited” in their main daily activities. Examples may include the addition of ramps for ease of access or redesign of a desk or office area to make it possible for them to work in the designated space.

Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 explains that Congress and States are also required to be in compliance with ADA. Federal agencies are not exempt either. ADA also allows the recovery of legal fees for those who file a suit and it is found that they were discriminated against in the workplace because of an existent disability.

Another facet of Title V also prohibits any type of negative actions against a disabled person. These include actions such as coercion, threats or retaliation in any way. This law stands to also protect those who attempt to help the disabled person assert their rights under ADA.

What is the Civil Rights Act of 1991?

This blog was written by Ty Hyderally. Tayeb Hyderally is an employment attorney in NJ.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was enacted by Congress on November 21, 1991. The act was addressing Supreme Court decisions that seemed to be giving businesses a loop hole whereby they could avoid penalties for acts of discrimination by disguising them as other “business practices.” The business would not be liable in such cases and the plaintiff would have to try to prove differently although they were allegedly the one discriminated against.

Before the enactment of this act in 1991 jury trials were not undertaken unless the case fell under EPA or ADEA guidelines. With the passing of this 1991 Ace compensation could be made in lawsuits where there was deliberate discrimination. Those discriminated against are now allowed jury trials. The Act also capped the amount of damages a business would have to pay in restitution for punitive damages as well as pain and suffering. This cap was based solely on the size of the employer and their financial capabilities. For employers with over 500 employees the maximum compensation for damages could be $300,000.

The Act of 1991 also made some additions to Title VII. Under this provision, employers were liable to pay attorney’s fees and court costs in cases where the plaintiff proves that discrimination was indeed the motivation for the employer’s decision. This is the case even if the employer can prove that the decision would have remained the same for the business even without the motive of discrimination. The 1991 Act also broadened the scope of protection against employment discrimination to include employees of Congress and most political appointees involved in higher level politics. The coverage included in Title VII and ADA made American employers abroad liable by these same standards.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is in place to protect employees and employers. Employees are to be free from discriminatory practices in the workplace. But an employee should not have financial ruin because of an isolated incident.

What is the Equal Pay Act of 1963?

I am Ty Hyderally; I am an employment law attorney in New Jersey

For years there remained a discrepancy over the amount of pay for men versus women. When performing the same job responsibilities and skill women were paid far less. In February 1963 Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz sent submitted a letter and a bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives recommending legislation for “equal pay.” Initially, Congress rejected the bill but after some rewording the bill passed. The wording was changed from “equal pay to comparable work” to “equal pay for equal work.” The new wording indicates that there should be no pay discrepancy for those who perform identical job skills, regardless of whether they are male or female.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 makes it illegal for employers to pay workers varying rates for the same job performance based on the employee’s gender. The goal of this legislation is to abolish pay discrepancies between men and women for the same job positions, responsibilities and skills.
These discrepancies were deemed to be difficult on the economy. They caused many labor disputes as well was contributed to unequal methods of competition. Wages were depressed and it caused a lowering of the overall standard of living.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) (P.L. No. 88-38, 77 Stat. 56, 59) protects workers from discrimination on the basis of their gender. Employers are prohibited from paying varied wages between the genders for the same job. To the layman, it means that women and men who do exactly the same job and skill levels cannot be paid at different rates of pay. They must be paid based solely on their capabilities to do the specific job as well as carry out all the required responsibilities. An individual cannot be compensated any less in wages or other amenities simply because they are female or male; rather it states equal pay for equal work.