Alexander v Seton Hall University – NJ Employment Law Cases

Discrimination law encompasses many different types of actions and discrimination can take many different forms. This is why it is important to contact lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally whose expertise lies in the field of employment law. The world of employment law can be difficult to figure out if you do not have help from a qualified legal expert. Ty Hyderally is just that and has many years of successful litigation behind him. It is important for employees and employers to stay informed on the constantly changing world of employment law, especially as it pertains to discrimination. Tayeb Hyderally makes it his business to help companies and individuals be aware of their rights and responsibilities in this area. Alexander v Seton Hall University was a case that made everyone take a second look at New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

In Alexander v Seton Hall University three professors who were female and over 60 years old sued the school. Their claim was that they were paid less than male colleagues who were much younger. They used one annual report filed by the university for the 2004-2005 school year. The report made it obvious that Seton Hall indeed paid younger male professors higher amounts than older female members of the faculty.

The trial court dismissed the case stating that the discriminatory actions occurred more than two years prior to when the employees filed suit. The statute of limitations sets a limit for discriminatory wages at two years. New Jersey’s Appellate Division also upheld this decision based on Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in 2007. This case was decided by the US Supreme Court and set the time limitations for such cases.

However, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not agree with these two lower courts. Although the lower courts can use federal law cases for guidance, it does not have to follow the rulings, especially when concerning the LAD. The NJ Supreme Court ruled that each time a discriminatory payment was made it was a separate violation of the law and the two year limit applies to each one.

The Ledbetter case received much criticism since many times employees do not know for a very long time that they are being paid less than other colleagues. If they are unaware that they are being paid considerably less it is difficult to file a suit. It is very possible that the statute of limitations can be surpassed long before an employee becomes aware that their pay is less than other employees. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was passed in response to the case to bring a balance to the law. This act makes it a separate violation each time an employee is given benefits, paid wages or receives any compensation that is based upon a prior discriminatory decision.

Alexander v Seton Hall University made it clear that one can sue when they receive lower wages based on discriminatory decisions. However, it also reminds employees that it is very important to make a timely claim and not wait too long to file suit.

Kaytor v Electric Boat Company – Employment Law Cases

Many times when situations pertaining to discrimination law are not handled quickly or properly they can escalate far beyond reasonable circumstances. The extreme situations that can occur in the area of employment law are precisely why many legal experts such as Tayeb Hyderally pursued their careers in the first place. Ty Hyderally is an expert in the field of employment law and successfully litigates many types of cases regarding discrimination law. When it comes to discrimination cases, nothing is cut and dried, each case must be evaluated on the existing circumstances and what would be reasonable in the particular work environment.

Sharon Kaytor was an employee at Electric Boat Corporation when according to her allegations Daniel McCarthy, her boss, sexually harassed her. Mr. McCarthy made many statements that were sexual in context.  Some of these inappropriate comments were in regards to her gynecologist. He made very suggestive statements. Ms. Kaytor also filed some claims that were not related to sexual discrimination. She claims that Mr. McCarty said he wanted to choke her and wanted to see her in a coffin. He made these types of statements frequently throughout each work week.

Ms. Kaytor’s case was dismissed by the trial court citing that she did not have enough proof of the sexual harassment allegations made against Mr. McCarthy. The court stated that she lacked evidence that the harassment occurred frequently enough and was not severe enough to create a work environment that was hostile. They did not include the death threats in the case with her claim of sexual harassment. These statements were not included as they were not sexual in nature. They also dismissed her claim of retaliation.

According to Kaytor she filed a sexual harassment claim with the HR department and the next day she was transferred to another position. In the transfer she lost many of her previous job responsibilities, had very little work and she was isolated. She also claimed that there were changes made to her work hours and that she had to attend various unrelated meetings with HR. These actions seemed to be in retaliation to her complaint. The trial court did not agree with Ms. Kaytor. However, the Second Circuit did.

The Second Circuit ruled that even though she failed to prove sexual harassment based on her gender. They also found that even though his death threats against her were not sexual in nature and did not refer to her gender, they cited that when it was considered with all the evidence it could be determined that he threatened her because of her gender.

Ms. Kaytor was also given an opportunity to provide evidence for her claim of retaliation. A jury can find that a demotion where work is reassigned and responsibilities are reduced can be retaliatory. It noted that the demotion came immediately following her complaint to the HR department. Any demotion can be an act of retaliation even if a job title or salaries are not lowered. The trouble with retaliatory actions in a company is that it discourages others from coming forward with  other harassment or discrimination claims. A jury trial was granted for Ms. Kaytor since it could be possible that the company was harassing her.

Gorzynski v JetBlue Airways Corp – Employment Law Cases

There are some common misconceptions regarding employment law as it pertains to various cases of sexual harassment. It is very important to contact lawyers such as Ty Hyderally who are experts in this arena. Many think that there is only one set way to deal with a situation where sexual harassment has occurred, or continues to occur. One important factor that must be considered is the company policy pertaining to such issues. According to employment law regulations the steps an employee must take when sexual harassment occurs should be clearly drawn out so that there is no misunderstanding. Employment law specialists such as Tayeb Hyderally must sort through the various circumstances regarding each individual situation to ensure that employees and employers are covered in such cases. One case that was somewhat different from the classic cases dealing with this issue is Gorzynski v JetBlue Airways Corp.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from harassing or discriminating against their employees because of their race, sex, religion, color or national origin. In cases where a supervisor harasses someone assigned to work under them the company must prove that they did everything within reason to correct the situation and prevent further instances. They may also have a defense if the employee that was harassed did not object to it or deal with the situation according to the company’s set policies regarding harassment.  The difference in the Gorzynski case against JetBlue Airways was that the victim only complained to the harasser and to no one else in the company. Is that enough to build a case on? It would certainly depend largely on the company’s policies.

Diane Gorzynski was a crewmember for JetBlue Airways Corporation when she was subjected to sexual harassment. According to Ms. Gorzynski, James Celeste, her supervisor, made massaging gestures and stated he wanted to massage her breasts. He frequently made many different statements containing offensive sexual content; and making sexual gestures while on the job. He grabbed female crewmembers by the waste and tried to tickle them on several occasions. The Second Circuit agreed that his behavior possible created a work environment that was sexually hostile for Ms. Gorzynski.

It seems Ms. Gorzynski did comply with JetBlue’s policy regarding sexual harassment. According to the employee handbook it is to be reported to the immediate supervisor, another member of management or the HR department. Ms. Gorzynski objected to the sexual harassment to Mr. Celeste on many different occasions. However, she did not file complaints with anyone else when the harassment did not cease. Her reasoning was that the HR department had retaliated against other employees who had filed similar complaints at work; and other supervisors had been unreceptive to other complaints she had filed.

The initial claim for sexual harassment was dismissed because she did not complain to any other company agent. But the Second Circuit disagreed with this ruling and declared a jury would have to decide. It was upheld that each individual circumstance is unique. They also recognized the courage it took for Ms. Gorzynski to address the situation to her supervisor understanding that there could be retaliation. It was reasonable for her situation to not complain to another supervisor.

Smith v City of Jackson

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) requires that businesses make no distinction among employee’s pay based on their ages. They cannot be paid less due to their age as long as they are performing their jobs effectively; they must be paid the same as younger counterparts. Ty Hyderally is an expert in employment law who works diligently to inform employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities concerning employment law NJ, including ADEA guidelines. Individuals can file against corporations, as can groups. However, just because the complaint arises from an affected group, is no guarantee that the courts will act on their behalf; or agree that a disparity has taken place. This is the case with Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss.

A group of police department employees which included Azel Smith sued the city of Jackson, Mississippi and their police department. The city’s police department in an attempt to make their pay scale competitive with surrounding departments gave officers raises. Officers who worked for the department for less than 5 years were given larger pay raises than employees who had over 5 years of tenure. Since many of those with more than 5 years of tenure were over the age of 40, the group sued the city alleging that the salary changes was in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the claim because they said it was not a violation of ADEA. Upon appeal the Supreme Court upheld this dismissal. One reason for this dismissal was the particular wording of the language used in the ADEA. Another cause for the dismissal of their claim was the history of legislative rulings and statutes. The court recognized that these types of disparate impact claims can indeed be classified under the ADEA, however, the group (Smith) failed to be able to prove their claim.

The group of officers could not isolate a specific practice carried out by the department that would prove the disparities according to statistical analysis. The officers stated that the pay plan that was put in place was not as generous to older officers and therefore had an impact on the age group. The group failed to prove that the raises were made on solely on the basis of age. The city was trying to ensure that the police department offered salaries that were competitive with other communities in the area. Since the pay scale was not based at all on an employee’s age there was no act of discrimination to be found.

To prove a case of age discrimination it is very important to be able to statistically show that the disparities occurred solely based on age. The group of officers could not do this in this case and the dismissal was upheld.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.

EEOC

Employment law in New Jersey is always undergoing changes as precedent setting cases are finalized. It is very important for employers and employees alike to be well aware of all applicable laws. Tayeb Hyderally, an expert at employment law NJ, makes it a priority to help keep business personnel aware of changes in employment law. This is a key way to protect both employees and employers. One of the most controversial decisions in the world of employment law was Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. It is a primary example of how lack of knowledge can end up costing in the end.

Ms. Ledbetter was employed by Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama where she worked in a supervisory capacity. When she first began her employment, her wages were at the same rate as male workers with the same responsibilities. However, after 20 years of service, there was a great disparity between her wages and male colleagues. Ms. Ledbetter came to the understanding that she made around $15,000 less each year. By this time she was making substantially less than new hires. When she became aware of the unfair wages she filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The jury awarded Ms. Ledbetter $3.5 million for damages. However, the district judge reduced this amount to $360,000.

Although the disparity in pay had occurred over a 20 year period, there were limitations that she was not aware of which caused her problems within her case.  Title VII clearly states that all complaints must be filed within a 180 day window from the time the discriminatory act occurs. Goodyear appealed the initial decision and noted that the jury was not allowed to consider the wage discrepancies that occurred before the 180 days prior to filing her complaint. This meant that even though discriminatory practices did indeed occur over a period of time that spanned almost 20 years, it could not be considered since she had failed to file a complaint after each occurrence. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with Goodyear’s reasoning. Therefore they could not take into consideration the fact that she was unaware of the disparity for that period of time.

According to Title VII’s 180 day limitations, each time there is a discriminatory action on the part of an employer, a separate EEOC charge must be filed. The purpose of this short deadline for filing with the EEOC is meant to offer a prompt resolution for discrimination by employers. Its intent was to make sure that discriminatory actions could be quickly resolved and penalized to prevent further occurrences. The jury could not take into consideration that Ms. Ledbetter had no knowledge of the wage discrepancies until the time at which she filed her complaint.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear is a prime example of how important it is for employees to be fully aware of their rights and responsibilities concerning employment law.

Rules of Engagement

This post was written by: Yesenia Francisco, Law Clerk

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Class of 2012

A recent U.S. Supreme Court case has broadened the scope of individuals who may be able to raise a claim of retaliation.In Thompson v. North American Stainless, (2011), the Court unanimously held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) creates a cause of action for third-party victims of retaliation.

 

The plaintiff, Eric Thompson, and his fiancée had been employed by North American Stainless (“NAS”).  Thompson’s fiancée filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination complaint against NAS, and three weeks later, the company fired Thompson.  Thompson ultimately sued, alleging that NAS retaliated against him as a result of his fiancee’s complaint against the company.

 

The Court had little difficulty in finding that based on the facts presented, NAS’ termination of Thompson violated Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits an employer from discriminating against any of his employees because he has made a charge under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The Court reasoned that Title VII’s anti-retaliatory provision must be construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. Furthermore, Title VII prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

 

Under this broad standard, the Court concluded that it is “obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.” Id.

 

In deciding the second issue of whether a third party can sue for retaliation under Title VII, the Court determined that an employee constitutes a “person aggrieved” and is eligible to bring a Title VII challenge when that person “falls within the zone of interests” protected by the statute. Because Thompson was an employee of NAS and the purpose of Title VII is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful conduct, the Court found that Thompson was within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII. The Court declined to adopt a bright-line test for which relationships would be covered under this standard. In an attempt to provide at least some guidance, Justice Scalia noted that while the termination of a close family member will almost always meet this standard, retaliation against a mere acquaintance may not.

 

Although it does not establish a bright-line test for third-party retaliation claims, this decision could have an impact upon employees’ incentives to file discrimination claims as well as the frequency of employers’ retaliation on third parties. In creating an independent cause of action for retaliation on behalf of friends and family members who have not engaged in protected activity, the opinion expands the group of employees who can actually file Title VII claims.  It is now likely that employers will now take extra precautions when taking adverse employment action against any worker closely related, married or engaged to an employee who has engaged in protected activity.

Age Discrimination Over 70

This post was written by: Francine Foner, Esq.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”),  is intended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of several protected categories, including age. owever, the LAD contains an exception which permits employers to discriminate against individuals over 70. The “over 70 exception” to the LAD provides that, “nothing herein contained shall be construed to bar an employer from refusing to accept for employment or to promote any person over 70 years of age….”

 

But should this exception permit employers to refuse to renew the contracts of employees based upon their being over 70? Not according to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent holding in Nini v. Mercer County Community College (2010).

 

Rose Nini worked for Mercer Community College continuously for twenty-six years under a series of contracts. Her last contract was not renewed and she sued the school for age discrimination. The school countered that since Nini was over 70 she was not covered by the LAD because of its “over 70 exception.” Nini lost in the lower courts, but prevailed in the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Nini majority found that the “over 70 exception” applies to initial hiring decisions, but not to contract renewals. The Nini Court reasoned that a contract renewal amounts to the same thing as a termination, and termination based upon age is prohibited by the LAD’s broad remedial purpose and strong public policy of eradicating discrimination in the workplace.

 

The Supreme Court also observed that it would create a loophole in the LAD’s protections by permitting employers who want to terminate their aging employees to simply put them under contract and then not renew the contract. The Nini Court further noted that it would also have the absurd result of giving greater protections to “at will” employees (i.e., those without contracts) than to contract employees.

 

One caveat to the Supreme Court’s holding might be the extent of the employee’s pre-existing relationship with the employer. Nini had a long-term and successful pre-existing relationship with the college, which was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s finding in her favor. What about the over-70 employee whose relationship is only a year or less? The Nini Court failed to address whether or not the pre-existing relationship must be of any specific length or scope. Thus, chances are that employers will try to distinguish cases in which the employee has a short pre-existing relationship from the type of lengthy career that Nini had at the college. Thus, it remains to be seen whether this will be a hard and fast rule, or may be modified down the road.

Discrimination in Unemployment

This post was written by: Omar A. Lopez, Esq.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current estimated number of unemployed persons is 13.9 million, making the unemployment rate approximately 9%.[1] The number of long-term unemployed (those that have remained jobless for over 27 weeks) is estimated to be 5.9 million which is about 42.4% of the total unemployed.[2] Of this, Black and Latino persons hover at even higher unemployed rates.[3] Thankfully, employers are responding with help wanted ads-although sometimes, the unemployed need not apply.[4]

 

The discrimination against job applicants because they are unemployed is not a new invention, although recently the White House took note and decided to address the issue head-on. In September of this year, President Obama revealed The American Jobs Act of 2011, a comprehensive unemployment reform and job creation bill. The bill includes measures which would help restore jobs to those workers living in the United States, such as the “Buy American” section, which offers funds in connection with the act to those which would be building or repairing a public building, as long as the materials used were created or purchased in the United States. [5] However, the part of the Act garnering much of the public’s attention is the addition of the unemployed to the discrimination protections already afforded by federal law.[6] The Act attempts to give voice to a rapidly intensifying clamor from the unemployed or underemployed by creating a new protected class and curtailing discriminatory advertisements.

 

The Act would serve to add unemployment to the now standard classes which federal law protects from employment discrimination and discriminatory hiring practices: race, age, color, religion, gender, national origin, and disability status, among others. The Act will seek to prohibit an employer from rejecting a job applicant solely on the basis that the applicant is unemployed.[7] [8] In addition, if the Act passes, it will prohibit employers from posting job advertisements that specifically exclude the unemployed–like this advertisement which mandates that an applicant be “currently or recently employed.” [9]

Wallace v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

Tina Stewart and Moneck Wallace were both female employees at the Mercer County Youth Detention Center. They alleged that they had been sexually harassed by a male coworker, Jerel Livingston. Both ladies made complaints to the employer that detailed their situations. However, once the employer had conducted an investigation, they concluded that there was not enough evidence to sustain their claims. Therefore, the women began the process of filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. According to employment laws in New Jersey, an employer can be held liable for employees who sexually harass coworkers if there are no harassment policies in place.

The case was dismissed by the trial judge for lack of evidence. The court found that even though they did have evidence to support their allegations of the sexual harassment, it was concluded that the employer could not be held liable because Mr. Livingston was not in a supervisory position. And the ladies also lacked evidence that the employer failed to respond to the allegations, or that he even knew of said incidents. However, New Jersey’s Appellate Division disagreed with the decision by the court to dismiss the case. They upheld that an employer could be liable for sexual harassment that was committed by either a supervisor or a coworker if there were no anti-harassment policies in place. Since there was not an active anti-harassment policy, Mercer County had enough evidence to take the case before a jury trial.

Actually, the evidence was present in that Mercer County failed to inform employees about the sexual harassment policy as well as not providing worker training in such matters. They also failed to enforce the policy and did not conduct a thorough enough investigation into the incident. The company also had no criteria to determine if a sexual harassment claim could be substantiated or not. And they did not have any effective ways of measuring if their policies were adequate or effective.

The Appellate Division put the case back into the hands of the trial courts to let a jury decide between the two parties. They will determine according to employment laws in New Jersey whether or not the employer was liable for their employee’s conduct in this matter. Previous cases have set the precedent which makes the employer responsible for having the proper policies in place as well as a way to measure their effectiveness. It is their responsibility to protect their employees and ensure that they are allowed to work in a hostile-free environment. According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) employers are liable for acts of sexual harassment that are committed by a coworker when the employer does not have an anti-harassment policy in place.

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.