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.

Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West – Sexual Harassment Cases

Tayeb Hyderally is an attorney whose expertise is in the area of employment law. One of the primary reasons he pursued this particular area of the law was the diverse types of cases and situations that could be presented under the topic.  Ty Hyderally makes it his business to keep both employees and employers informed on their legal rights and responsibilities regarding employment law. He is very well respected in this field as he has had years of successful litigation for his clients. One interesting case which has captured the attention of those who practice employment and discrimination lawis Chopourian v Catholic Healthcare West.

There are several very interesting facts about this particular case. For one thing, it is the largest sexual harassment case that involved only one plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s reward was also extremely high for these types of cases; and there are several distinct areas of employment law that were directly violated. In the end, the jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded Ms. Chopourian $168 million in damages and for lost wages. They agreed that she had been a victim of sexual harassment as well as retaliation.

Ani Chopourian is a cardiac surgery physician assistant. She cited several specific incidents that occurred while she was at work where she felt she had been the target of bullying and sexual harassment. On one occasion, one surgeon purposefully stabbed her with a needle. A different surgeon would call her “stupid chick” while working with her in the operating room. One surgeon greeted her each morning with a pat on the bottom and the comment, “I’m horny.” She felt her work place had become a hostile environment.

On top of the bullying and sexual harassment, she was ridiculed for her Armenian heritage. She was teasingly asked if she had joined with Al Qaeda on many occasions. And she had also been denied meal breaks which were in violation of wage and hour laws set forth by the state of California. The jury sided with Chopourian, possibly due to the fact that there were several former employees of Catholic Healthcare West who testified to similar abuses that occurred while they were employed at the facility. Ms. Chopourian was likely a target of retaliation as well. After she filed her complaints, it was less than a week that the company terminated her.

The hospital continues to deny the severity of the allegations. However, the jury awarded Ms. Chopourian $125 million for punitive damages as well as $42.5 million in lost wages and for mental anguish. These dollar amounts are large for this type of case. Perhaps it is due to the violation of so many types of employment laws.

The jury’s verdict in this case is a stark reminder that even in healthcare environments where roles such as cardiac surgeons are generally highly respected; there is no place for this type of gross misbehavior. Employment laws are in place to protect all employees regardless of their field of work. Those employers and employers in highly respected positions are subject to all of the same policies regarding discrimination in the workplace.

EEOC v Texas Roadhouse

Employment law

According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, a qualified person applying for a job cannot be denied employment based solely on their age. Tayeb Hyderally is an expert in employment law NJ who diligently represents cases where employment laws have been violated. He is also dedicated to help employees and employers become aware of various applicable employment laws. Ty Hyderally speaks to different types of groups to help inform individuals of their rights and responsibilities regarding employment laws. Texas Roadhouse is currently involved in a case where there has allegedly been repeated age discrimination in their hiring policies.

Because of increased claims citing age discrimination the EEOC filed a suit against Texas Roadhouse. The restaurant chain is accused of discriminating against job applicants because of their age. The EEOC stated in a press release that there had been a significant increase in complaints since 2007. Upon investigating the allegations, the EEOC pursued the lawsuit.

According to the suit filed the company officials told hiring personnel that younger people were preferred for open positions. Older applicants were told that they seemed old to be applying for a job in the restaurant; and many were told that the hiring officials were looking for people “on the younger side.”

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is a federal statute which protects employees who are 40 years old or above from discriminatory practices based solely on their age.  According to the ADEA guidelines, it is prohibited to favor a person who is younger over an older person (40 years old or older) based only on their age. These regulations include hiring, promotions, job duties, assignments, layoff, benefits and firing.  It also prohibits any type of harassment based on the age of the employee, specifically for individuals who are 40 years of age or older. This is built to include offensive statements or comments about the individual’s age.  However, this type of conduct has to be a part of the work place becoming a “hostile work environment” before the law applies. It can be applied to any supervisor or a co-worker. If a client or customer makes derogatory remarks the company can be held liable, if the employer does not at least attempt to make reasonable effort to prevent the harassment. The law also states that policies cannot be put in place that have a negative impact on workers aged 40 or above.

Many applicants believe they have been denied employment at Texas Roadhouse based solely on their age. These instances are also cited at various locations of the restaurant chain, and are not isolated to only a single location. The EEOC tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement according to its conciliation process. The intent is to obtain monetary amounts for those applicants who were not hired based on their age. The second part of the EEOC’s case is to help the restaurant change its hiring policies and training so that age discrimination does not occur in future hiring practices.

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.

Haybarger v Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole

Employment law covers a wide range of situations. This variety of interests is why expert lawyers such a Tayeb Hyderally pursued the area as a career. Employment law NJ is a field that is undergoing constant changes as different types of cases are presented before the courts of the land and precedent setting judgments are handed down. In most instances, these types of cases have an effect on other cases for years to come.

One such case is Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole. The issue surrounded an employee’s rights regarding FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act). In this particular case the question was if a supervisor could personally be held liable for violations of FMLA.

Debra Haybarger worked at the Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole agency as an office manager. Her immediate supervisor was William Mancino, who was the Department Director. Ms. Haybarger suffered from several serious illnesses such as kidney problems, heart disease and Type II diabetes. These medical conditions were the cause of her frequent absences from work. Although Mancino was well aware of her medical conditions he repetitively noted in performance evaluations that she should reduce her absences. He also questioned her constantly about her reasons for needing to see physicians frequently.  Mancino carried out disciplinary action against Ms. Haybarger by placing her on 6 months’ probation stating that she lacked leadership abilities. He finally secured the proper authorizations and fired her when he felt like there was no improvement in her performance.

Ms. Haybarger filed suit against the Probation Department, Lawrence County and Mancino based on violations of the FMLA. The case was dismissed by the federal district court on the idea that Mancino was not her “employer.” However, Haybarger appealed the decision of the district court to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit noted that Mancino was considered Haybarger’s employer according to the guidelines set forth in the FMLA. Mancino was acting directly in the interest of the employer which put him in the position of “employer” and therefore could be found liable for violating FMLA guidelines.  The Court based its findings on previous FLSA case laws which mean that any individual who exercises supervisor authority over another while acting in the interest of the company, or employer is subject to FMLA liability.

In this particular employment law case, the court found that Mancino was able to exercise sufficient control over the employment of Ms. Haybarger. He was her immediate supervisor, periodically completed performance reviews, had the authority to issue discipline and ultimately recommended that she be terminated. Therefore, as an individual supervisor he was held liable since he had direct authority over her position.

It is important for employers and supervisors to be well educated on FMLA guidelines and be familiar with their responsibilities regarding these regulations. Ty Hyderally is regularly a keynote speaker whose intent is to inform employees and employers of their rights and responsibilities regarding employment law in the workplace.

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.

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]