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.

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.

Is GPS Tracking an Invasion of Privacy?

This post was written  by: Robert T. Szyba, Esq.

On November 8, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in United States v. Jones.[1] The case asks the Court to determine whether police, without a warrant, can affix a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking device onto a suspect’s personal vehicle and track the suspect’s movements.[2] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had previously decided that the government violated a suspect’s Fourth Amendment privacy interest when it used GPS technology to track the suspect continuously for a month.[3] The D.C. Circuit reasoned that, in the aggregate, the information gathered by the police over the course of a month of continual twenty-four hour tracking revealed much more about the suspect than just his travels, and thus due to the invasion into his privacy required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.[4] The Supreme Court’s determination of the issues in this case are likely to provide guidance that may be relevant to how employers, both public and private, use GPS tracking of their employees.

 

One way employers track employees is by affixing a GPS receiver to a vehicle.[5] The receiver may allow the employer to easily locate the vehicle if there is an emergency or if the vehicle is stolen. This approach may be useful for law enforcement agencies and businesses that employ fleets of vehicles, like taxi companies, shipping companies, and messenger services. Alternately, an employer may issue a cellular telephone to an employee that contains a GPS receiver so that the employee’s movements may be tracked. Sprint, for example, offers Workforce Locator to its business customers to track employees using their cellular telephones.[6] Sprint advertises that Workforce Locator allows supervisors to locate and track field employees, send travel directions to handsets, and communicate with employees.[7]

 

GPS tracking of employees has been challenged in courts by employees in both the private sector and the public sector, but the employers’ use of GPS tracking has been upheld. [8] In Alexandre v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, New York taxi drivers objected to the use of GPS tracking devises on their cabs because the devices would also track their movements while they were off duty.[9] The Southern District of New York upheld the use of the GPS devices because there were adequate safeguards to protect personal information, the vehicle owners had a strong interest in tracking and protecting the vehicles, and the taxi drivers did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their movements on public roads.[10]

 

Employing a similar mode of analysis, the court in Elgin v. St. Louis Coca-Cola Bottling Co. found that the employer did not violate employees’ privacy interests when it used GPS tracking devices to affixed to employees’ vehicles. [11] The court reasoned that the employees had a very limited privacy interest because the vehicles were in public view and the GPS devices only tracked the movements of the vehicles.[12]

 

In light of this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s approach to the privacy considerations involved with GPS searches, albeit in the criminal context, may provide insight into the Court’s broader considerations of privacy. This may influence employers’ decisions whether to use GPS tracking, employers’ policies on informing their workforce, and whether to get written consent from employees to have their movements tracked. In sum, even though it may not be intended, the Supreme Court’s decision may have a direct impact on employers and employees, and their use of GPS technology in the workplace.

Gregory v. Derry Township School District – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

The decision rendered in this particular case remains unpublished. This simply means that it does not set a legal precedent. Cases like Gregory v. Derry Township School District are a good reminder of the need to seek legal help in the area of employment law in New Jersey. Seeking legal aid from expert lawyers in the New Jersey area such as Ty Hyderally can be beneficial in receiving favorable decision by the courts.

Many times a company will offer benefits to employees who are being laid off or fired. This is part of a separation package or severance agreement that is offered by companies. Usually these are agreements wherein the employee waives their employment law rights prior to receiving certain benefits. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made a ruling that Ms. Rhauni Gregory waived her rights to be able to sue the company for discrimination when she signed a release. She claimed that she was pressured into signing and was only allowed to review it for 15 minutes.

The Third Circuit Federal Appellate Court handles appeals that come through the New Jersey district. This court ruled that the court needed to consider the circumstances from a broader perspective when deciding whether or not an employee had indeed waived legal rights. There are several things that they felt like should be taken into consideration. For instance, the specific language that is used in the release as well as the employee’s business and educational experiences should be considered. The employee also needs to know that they were giving up all of their legal rights upon signing a release. It is also important to note whether or not the employee received encouragement to obtain advice from a lawyer such as Tayeb Hyderally; or whether or not they were given the opportunity to negotiate the specific terms of the agreement. And whether the employee was to receive any other benefits as a result of signing the agreement or release should be a factor.

After looking at all of these factors, the court decided that Rhauni Gregory had waived her rights to bring a race discrimination claim against the school district when she signed the Separation Agreement and General Release. Ms. Gregory felt that she was forced into a resignation when her supervisor evaluated her job performance as unfavorable. After the poor evaluation she was placed in an “intensive assistance track.” According to Gregory she felt it was an oppressive gesture because of her African-American race. However, when she signed the release she waived her right to a discrimination claim based on her national origin. The release was deemed valid even though she stated that she only had 15 minutes to review and sign it.

The court concluded that the union representative negotiated the terms of the resignation for Rhauni Gregory. Also according to the agreement she and her family were entitled to continue medical benefits until the end of the year. It also included a that she would receive a positive letter of reference for her to use to obtain future employment. These two items would not have been available if the separation agreement had not been signed.

Pam Huber v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc – Employment Law Cases

There are some notable cases which do not alter present precedents. Tayeb Hyderally is an expert in employment law and has successfully litigated many such cases. He is familiar with federal employment laws as well as New Jersey employment laws. Cases such as Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are among those he is very familiar with.

Pam Huber was earning $13.00 per hour working at Wal-Mart filling orders. In an accident, she injured both her right hand and arm and was no longer able to complete the duties that were required for the position. She requested a transfer to a vacant and equivalent router position. Instead of transferring her within the company Wal-Mart made her compete for the position and then chose another individual that they felt was more qualified. Ms. Huber was then assigned to a janitorial position at another location and reduced her pay to $6.20 per hour.

Ms. Huber chose to sue Wal-Mart and claimed that it was a discriminatory violation of the ADA. It was agreed upon by the trial court who stated that she should have been reassigned to the other position as a reasonable accommodation. However, the appellate court upheld the ruling that ADA requirements only stipulated that Wal-Mart should allow her to compete for the other position. The appellate court upheld the ruling previously made by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in EEOC v Humiston-Keeling which stated that Wal-Mart only needed to offer her the opportunity to compete for the position. There was a private settlement agreed upon between Wal-Mart and Ms. Huber.

According to the ADA reasonable accommodations must be made for a person who has a disability but otherwise can perform job requirements. The ADA also allows for a reassignment when there is a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation if it is available. Ms. Huber stated she was qualified and should have been reassigned. She felt that her rights under the ADA were violated. Wal-Mart maintained that Ms. Huber was not the highest qualified person for the job. This is their reason behind why they did not reassign her to the vacant position. In similar court cases employers have been required to reassign an employee to an equivalent position that has been vacated. But two other courts have maintained that reassignment is not required, but that the employee should be allowed to compete with other applicants.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case in 2008 when Ms. Huber and Wal-Mart reached a private settlement. This leaves it open as to whether or not the ADA requires an individual with a disability to be reassigned to another equivalent position for which they are equally qualified. The Eighth Circuit Court’s ruling that the employee does not have to be reassigned will continue to stand.

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.

 

Sexual Discrimination laws in New Jersey

It is the responsibility of both employees and employers to become familiar with New Jersey employment laws pertaining to sexual discrimination in the workplace. For those who feel they may have been discriminated against in the workplace based on their gender or sexual orientation, a lawyer should be consulted. New Jersey employment law expert, Tayeb Hyderally offers his expertise to both employees and employers.

What constitutes sexual discrimination law in New Jersey is laid out in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. According to the law, it is illegal for employees to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. Decisions such as hiring or firing and any work related benefits cannot be based on the gender of an employee. New Jersey sex discrimination laws also make it illegal for any type of sexual harassment that creates a hostile environment in the workplace. This law is intact to protect both genders from an unfair work environment.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) defines an employer as anyone hiring an employ including public agencies and it also includes the State of New Jersey. The main difference in this law and federal Title VII guidelines is that it includes any employer, not just those who have at least fifteen employees. The only exclusion in the New Jersey law is for domestic services.

If one feels that they have been discriminated against based on their gender they must file a complaint against the employer within 180 days. This complaint is to be filed with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. They will then contact the employer and allow them a chance to respond to the allegations. If there is no agreement reached early on then and investigator will decide if there is reasonable cause to believe that an individual’s rights were violated. In cases where the investigator finds evidence to raise reasonable cause the employee and employer will enter into a settlement phase. If it is not successful the case will go on to the hearing stage.

There are two options for those individuals who feel their rights have been violated; either file the complaint with the Division, or file it with the state courts. However, it cannot be filed both places. Lawyers who specialize in New Jersey employment law, such as Tayeb Hyderally, can help an individual be aware of their available options.  They can discuss both options and help decide which option is best for the particular situation.

Types of Workplace Discrimination

There are many types of workplace discrimination. However, unless the discrimination is against a protected category discrimination itself is not illegal. An employer firing a person does not constitute a form of actionable discrimination unless it is based on a “protected category.” These specific categories are defined in discrimination laws which are in place to protect the employee from such actions. If the specific category is not written out in the statutes the employee is not protected by any type of discrimination law. Basically there are two forms of discrimination as defined by law, disparate treatment or disparate impact. Disparate treatment is simply treating an individual differently based on a condition such as gender or race. Disparate impact is where a policy excludes an individual from positions or promotions although that was not the original intent of the policy; simply the result of the policy.

Racial discrimination is probably one of the most common among law suits. Regulations by Federal and State laws make it illegal to discriminate according to the “terms or conditions of employment” on the basis of an individual’s skin color or race. Racial discrimination can also mean associations with a particular race are prohibited. For example, if an employer fired a white employee simply because he had black friends or was dating a woman of another race it is classified as workplace discrimination.

The ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, is a Federal law that states the illegality of employers discriminating against an individual on the basis of a disability. An individual who is qualified and capable of completing a job cannot be denied position, promotion, compensation or training based on a disability. The stipulation here is that the individual must be physically able to complete the job or else there is no basis of discrimination which implies that the individual was denied a basic right of employment because of the disability.

Age discrimination in the workplace is a common practice. It has more loopholes that some of the other types of discriminations. Basically anyone over 40 is protected by Federal laws pertaining to age discrimination. It is illegal to simply replace an older person with a younger worker. However, it is not illegal to offer “golden handshakes” to older employees who will agree to early retirements.

Gender discrimination is rampant in the workplace as well. It is illegal to treat employees differently simply because of their gender. It goes beyond just whether or not a person is hired based on gender. Sex discrimination is pertaining to any aspect of employment such as: pay scale, title, position, vacations or hours. The Equal Pay Act states that an employer cannot pay differing wages for similar positions based on gender.

There are many forms of bias and prejudice in the workplace. Discrimination law helps to protect individuals from improper treatment and unjust discrimination.