Harassment Claims Against the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

Discrimination laws in the United States

on any of these factors. Employees and applicants cannot be classified by any of the above mentioned matters. He has successfully litigated cases regarding discrimination in the workplace for many years.

Enforcement is in place for companies who employee more than 15 individuals. These businesses are prohibited from discrimination according to Title VII regulations. There are several public offices that also fit into this category. State and local governments as well as educational institutions must all abide by Title VII rulings. One exception can be religious educational facilities if they set forth requirements of employment regarding the institution’s religious beliefs and make it a bona fide qualification for the occupation.

Under Title VII a person’s religion, gender, and race are protected rights. This also includes protecting employees from being discriminated against based on sex stereotyping, harassment and pregnancy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 also helped specify the proper procedures for Title VII and the Pregnancy Disability Act set pregnancy under the same guidelines as discrimination that is based upon a person’s gender. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 set the precedent that allows for jury trials in some cases of discrimination.

Even though there are many areas of discrimination covered under Title VII laws, the two types of cases that most frequently come up for litigation are sexual and religious discrimination. Title VII is used many times in cases where employers are punished for creating a hostile work environment, or harassment that stems from some sort of tangible action. Using Title VII in such cases began in 1971 when the US Supreme Court maintained that Title VII forbids practices which have a disparate impact on a class that is presently protected.

Three federal laws, Title VII, The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act must be followed by each company’s hiring procedures. They are free to hire those who are most qualified for the position as long as they do not violate any of these laws. Each company should have their own checks and balances so that discriminatory practices do not occur during the hiring process.

Employment Law Cases – Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

Discrimination in the workplace is not a new issue. It has been an issue for many years. Ty Hyderally has many years of successful litigation in cases dealing with employment law. Ty Hyderally is considered an expert on employment law in New York and the surrounding areas. Cases like Griggs v Duke Power Co. help to set the precedent in cases that are still being heard by the courts today.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company was one of the fist causes of its type. It was presented before the US Supreme Court in December of 1970 and was decided in March of the next year. The major concern was employment discrimination as well as the disparate impact theory. The court found that the company had requirements in place for applicants that were not pertinent to be able to properly perform the job as required. Thus, it was indirectly discriminating against African American employees, although that was not the company’s original intention.

The Duke Power’s Dan River plant’s policy in 1950 was that African Americans could only work in its labor department. These were the lowest paying jobs that the company had available. Later, in 1955, the company also stipulated that higher paying jobs must be filled with personnel who had obtained a high school diploma.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed Duke Power Plant removed racial restrictions concerning employment but the high school diploma policy remained. They also added that an IQ test was required for employment. Because African American applicants were not likely to have obtained a high school diploma, and scored lower average scores on IQ tests, they were selected for employment for these positions fewer times than white applicants.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was that businesses must show that such requirements must be directly, or at least reasonably, related to the job for which testing is required. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the use of testing as a decisive factor for employment, if it is not a “reasonable measure of job performance.” This is regarded as the rule whether or not discrimination towards any group was intentional or not. Duke Power’s procedure for transferring employees was found to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act, since the requirements of a high school diploma and aptitude tests were not directly related to the performance levels required by the position. Griggs v Duke Power Company held that an employer has the burden of proving the necessity of the testing before being able to require it as a basis of employment.

History of the FMLA

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

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

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

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

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

Types of Discrimination Law

There has been much progress in trying to alleviate discrimination in the workplace. Discrimination law has been through many changes over the past 40 years. In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was enacted to protect workers from discrimination based on race, religion, national origin or gender. In 1967 Congress then adapted the law to also prohibit discrimination based on age. And in 1990, Congress once again made changes to discrimination law which also makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on a disability. Many states have followed suit and also prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Many of the worst discriminatory practices were alleviated by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Resistance to enforcement of the laws is what makes it so difficult to eliminate in the workplace. Political resistance to any form of remedial action has made this a very difficult task to undertake and to succeed. Businesses have become much craftier in their employment schemes which make it even more difficult to detect and even harder to correct. Thus the workplace continues to practice unjust and illegal discriminatory practices. Despite the government’s best attempts to eradicate discrimination in the workplace it sadly still exists.

Only about 2% of cases heard on discrimination are won by the plaintiff, the worker who feels they were discriminated against. However, unfair treatment must not be confused with illegal discrimination. Treating an individual differently than others is in violation of discrimination law when the ill treatment is based on the existence of a characteristic which is protected. Actions by a company based on job performance or even something as subjective as personality do not necessarily indicate discriminatory practices.

When it is proven that a company has been engaged in such illegal actions they can be made to pay up to $300,000 in punitive damages. The person who was dealt with unfairly based on one of the protected groups can receive back pay or reinstatement of their previous position or their job if they were fired. They can be compensated for any pain and suffering that was due to the illegal practices of the business.

The Federal law carries a statute of limitations for most forms of discrimination in the workplace. The complaint must be filed within 180 days of the alleged occurrence. The exception occurs for sexual discrimination. Claims for these cases must be filed within 90 days of receiving the “right to sue” letter from the EEO certifying the individual’s right to file a claim for sexual discrimination.

Age Discrimination Law

The Federal law that protects individuals who are 40 years old or older is called the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA. The intent of the age discrimination law is to protect employers from making decisions about an employee based solely on age. It is illegal for a business to refuse to hire a person just because they are aged 40 or above. Also, it is an illegal practice to fire an older person and then hire a younger person to fill the same position.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection act of 1990 added an amendment to the ADEA that prohibits business owners from denying benefits to its older employees. These two laws are in place specifically to protect older workers from being discriminated against based on age.

The laws dealing with age discrimination in the workplace only apply to businesses who hire more than 20 employees. Independent contractors are not bound by these laws. However, to protect older workers, some states may have other types of discrimination laws in place. Or there may be some added protection against age discrimination under other state employment guidelines.

Discriminatory practices that are prohibited by the law include hiring and firing as well as any types of transfers, promotions or layoffs. A person cannot receive more or less compensation based on age, nor can a business alter fringe benefits because of an employee’s age. But they also make it illegal to harass someone in regards to age.

Businesses are offered some exemptions from these laws. For instance, a company may offer early retirement to older workers as long as it will not affect their benefits and as long as it is purely voluntary. An early retirement cannot be forced and it cannot reduce the worker’s benefits as their age increases.

A few jobs in which an age restriction clause is allowed are exempt. These are typically jobs which deal with public safety such as fire or police workers. Some companies may carry this restriction for top level executives. And a company is allowed to use a seniority system. However, if utilizing a seniority system it must be based on years of employment not based solely on age.

Businesses are encouraged to find solutions for the problems that arise from the impacts that age can have on employment. Younger and older workers are assured that they each have equal access to benefits and pay. Health care and pension cannot be manipulated to the advantage of the business just because a worker is aging. There must be fair treatment across the board.

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.