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.

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.

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]

Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary – New Jersey Employment Law Cases

According to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination reasonable accommodations must be made by employers for their employees with disabilities. Tayeb Hyderally is an employment lawyer in the New York and New Jersey areas. He is a legal expert who specializes in employment law cases such as these and successfully litigates for the rights of his clients.

In Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary Thomas Bowers, an Information Technology Analyst claimed that he had suffered from mental and physical distress because of workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation.  His case claimed that the Judiciary failed to provide him reasonable accommodation according to his level of disability.

Mr. Bowers was diagnosed with Anxiety disorder and the doctor suggested that he take a medical leave from June 6 to July 1, 2007. However, due to the lack of acceptable progress his medical leave was extended several times until he was out until October 1, 2007. According to the Family Medical Leave Act, employees have at least 12 weeks of protected leave. The Judiciary told Mr. Bowers that he was exceeding this protected time and that he would be allowed to use his available vacation time. This would cover his time off until September 6. He was warned that if he was not back at work by September 10 he would be considered to be on “an unauthorized leave of absence” and would be disciplined.

After consulting his doctor and legal counsel Mr. Bower’s lawyer explained to the Judiciary that he would be back at work by October 1. The Judiciary’s answer was that he must return to work by September 10 or disciplinary actions would ensue. Their claim was that the Judiciary had “experienced significant operational hardship” due to his absence. Therefore, they were unwilling to accommodate for his disability. Effective on September 10, 2007 Mr. Bowers was terminated from his position as he had failed to return to work.

The Appellate Division decided that it should be heard by a jury to determine if the Judiciary had failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Mr. Bower’s disability which was in violation of LAD. The courts noted that Mr. Bower’s vacated position was not posted until October 2008 and that the position was not filled until January 20, 2009. Had the Judiciary simply placed Mr. Bowers on unpaid medical leave through September and then allowed him to return to the workplace on October 1 the position would have been unclaimed for only 3 weeks. However, instead, it was empty until January 20. The Judiciary claimed that they had undue financial hardship that prohibited them from filling the position any sooner. If they had overcome this budgetary constraint earlier the jury might have ruled in their favor. As it was, the jury found that the evidence supported Mr. Bower’s claim that the Judiciary failed to accommodate his disability and was in direct violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

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.

Contract Law and Employment Law

Ty Hyderally is a legal expert in employment law and his firm has had many successful years of litigation concerning contract law and employment law in New Jersey. The terms of at-will employment presume that the employment is indefinite; meaning that employees may quit at anytime for any reason. It also presumes that the employers may layoff or otherwise relieve the employee of duty at anytime with or without reason. Basically, either of the parties may break the employment relationship at anytime without being liable. However, in many instances it is preferable to obtain an employment contract.

An employment contract is binding by law. Employees mainly in executive level positions usually seek to establish job security and stability. Employees may also design employment contracts to help protect confidential business information, patents or trade secrets. In such crucial situations it is best to detail the mutual obligations of both parties involved in the employment relationship. A meaningful employment contract will carefully consider all the various contingencies that could possibly arise during the time involved in the employer-employee relationship.

An employment contract will take the place of the arrangements that are understood by an at-will employment. It becomes a legal document in which the relationship between the employer and employee is written out in great detail. It will include particulars about compensation, stock options, bonuses and severance packages. It will also detail any fringe benefits that are intact during the period of employment as well as retirement.

The employee will usually be asked to sign paperwork that goes along with the employment contract. This will include items such as being forbidden from sharing internal information about the business even after the contract comes to an end. This post employment confidentiality includes refraining from coming back to remaining employees after the contract is terminated and soliciting other employees.

These types of forms are typically signed at the time the contract is drawn up at the time of employment. This usually includes details concerning the terms of the contract and its termination if applicable. The position can only be withdrawn as lined out in the contract. And in many instances it also prohibits the employee from working for a competitive company for at least a certain amount of time. (Usually three years)Even though some of these terms are applicable after the initial contract is terminated, they are still considered part of the conditions of the employment and are legally binding.

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.

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.

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.