The area of employment law is vast and can be very complicated. This is why Tayeb Hyderally shares his legal expertise with his clients and various audiences across the United States. Ty Hyderally works diligently to keep up with precedent setting employment law cases so that he can represent his clients adequately. He also works closely with various types of businesses and corporations in helping educate employees, supervisors and employers about employment law. He believes that the workplace can be a safe environment for every level staff member. He shares his expertise regarding both the rights and the responsibilities of employees and employers. He also works closely with professionals to develop the proper policies and procedures to ensure that the workplace is free from violations of employment law. One aspect of employment law is the Fair Labor Standards Act which ensures that workers are paid for their work. When an employee feels that their rights have been violated, they can file a suit. Continue Reading
Tayeb Hyderally has successfully litigated employment law cases for years. His expertise and experiential knowledge in this multifaceted legal arena allows him numerous opportunities to travel and educate audiences regarding their rights and responsibilities in dealing with matters of employment law and keeping the workplace free from all forms of discriminatory actions. He is often invited to be the keynote speaker for seminars and meetings throughout the US where he is asked to share his expertise with attorneys, human resource personnel and corporate officials. Ty Hyderally also works closely with corporate officers in developing policies and procedures which help keep the workplace free from discriminatory practices. This disability discrimination case is one in which a facility engaged in discrimination by not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for a medical disability and then wrongfully terminating the employee based on the disability. Continue Reading
Discrimination can take many forms all of which are distasteful. There are also times when people try to claim discrimination in the workplace and it simply has not occurred. Employment law experts such as Ty Hyderally can help clients determine if discrimination in the workplace has occurred or not. Perhaps one of the most difficult areas in employment law is that of disability discrimination as the definition can sometimes be vague. But there are times in cases such as this one with the Sutton twins when it is clear that the employer has not engaged in discriminatory activities. Cases such as these take careful consideration to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected.
Sutton v. United Airlines
The Suttons, Kimberly Hinton and Karen Sutton are identical twins who both suffer from acute visual myopia. They filed a suit under the ADA of 1990 against United Air Lines when they failed to hire them for positions as commercial airline pilots. The company has a standard for pilots which states their uncorrected vision has to be 20/100 or better. The twins both have uncorrected vision which is worse than 20/200; but it is 20/20 with the use of corrective lenses. Other than the vision requirements, the twins met all other criteria for pilot positions. When they were not hired, the twins filed a suit claiming that they were discriminated against. The court dismissed the case based on the fact that the actions were not discriminatory in nature; and they were not covered by the ADA. Continue Reading
There may be many reasons for an employer to terminate an employee. Many times this is a legitimate action based upon some form of misconduct. However, when there is no reason given for the termination it opens the company up for scrutiny and legal experts such as Tayeb Hyderally may begin to question the ultimate reasons for the actions. Many times as in the case with Mr. Velez, there is reason to believe that there discriminatory practices had occurred on the part of the company. Experts in employment law may have a relatively easy case when the company either does not have proper procedures in place; or does not follow them. Puerto Rican employer, Thermo King de Puerto Rico, Inc learned this the hard way. Continue Reading
Those active in any capacity in matters pertaining to employment law are watching a case filed in Portland, Maine. Disability discrimination can be a real problem in the workplace and it can also be a very difficult situation to determine. There are not always clear cut definitions. For instance, in this case involving an individual who suffers from Type 1 diabetes, it does appear that purposeful discriminatory actions have occurred. However, this case may not apply to every person who has diabetes. Many of the terms associated with disabilities and even discrimination are best defined by legal professionals such as Tayeb Hyderally who is an expert in employment law. When someone feels that they have been discriminated against in the workplace it is advisable to contact such a lawyer to determine if indeed discriminatory actions have occurred. Cases such as Manning vs. Kohl’s are those which are being watched closely as the outcome may very well affect individuals as well as employers for years to come.
EEOC vs. Kohl’s
Pamela Manning suffers from Type 1 diabetes. In order to control her condition she requires regular injections of insulin. She was employed at the Kohl’s located in Westbrook, Maine and had a consistent daily schedule. In January of 2010, the company switched her from a full time schedule to an irregular schedule which interfered with her routine daily medical care. Ms. Manning presented a doctor’s request to the company for her to be placed on a regular work schedule so that she could consistently monitor her illness. Kohl’s refused to change her to a regular schedule and she eventually developed serious health complications because she could not regularly administer her own medications. She eventually quit the job. Continue Reading
Tayeb Hyderally is an expert in employment law and has many years of successful litigation. He is adamant about helping keep workers safe from discriminatory practices. Ty Hyderally understands the many facets of employment law and works to educate personnel on how to keep the workplace safe by breaking down laws pertaining to discriminatory practices. As part of his work in the field of employment law, he also helps businesses and employers understand areas such as ADEA, Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The ADEA prohibits discriminatory actions against employees and applicants who are over 40 years of age. Employers cannot harass, fail to hire, layoff, terminate or fail to promote or in any other way discriminate against individuals who are over 40 years old based on their age.
EEOC VS Red Rock Western Jeep Tours
Gloria Rose was hired as a reservationist at Red Rock Western Jeep Tours located in Sedona, Arizona. Ms. Rose was hired and instructed to return her “new hire” packet which had different types of employment related forms such as direct deposit forms, and tax forms. When she brought the completed forms back the next day, she was met by a supervisor who asked her several more questions as well as for her age. Ms. Rose stated that she was 75 years of age. There was no communication from the company for several days after that conversation and when Ms. Rose sent an e-mail to the company asking when her start date would occur she received a response which stated that the supervisor and the general manager did not feel that Ms. Rose was the “right person” for the position. She promptly responded with an inquiry as to how they made this type of determination without seeing her work ethic. She also informed Red Rock that she felt she was being discriminated against based on her age.
After supervisors at Red Rock received this email they hired Ms. Rose but then terminated her after only 2 days. According to the EEOC, Ms. Rose never received training during these 2 days but instead was sent on several jeep tours which took up several hours. Once Rose was terminated, the EEOC alleged that Red Rock filled Ms. Rose’s position with substantially younger individuals.
Red Rock Western Jeep Tours Settlement
The suit against Red Rock did not go to court but reached an out of court settlement. The company was ordered by consent decree to pay Ms. Rose $35,000 to settle the lawsuit. In addition, Red Rock was mandated to adopt an adequate anti-discrimination policy and to provide training regarding avoiding discrimination for all of its employees who are involved in the process of hiring. Red Rock Western Jeep was also instructed to refrain from engaging in any further age discrimination or forms of retaliation.
According to the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees who are 40 years of age or older. Employers cannot harass, fail to hire or promote, layoff, terminate or discriminate in any other way against workers who are over 40 because of their age.
There is no workplace exempt when it comes to discrimination; and education about employment law is the best protection. This is why Tayeb Hyderally continues to provide educational resources and training at workplaces. His expert advice in the area of employment law is useful to both employee and employer. Proper training can prevent many different types of discrimination. Ty Hyderallys’ expertise in employment law can help workers, co-workers or employees identify the injustice when it occurs. His expert advice can ensure that workers know how to report instances and guard themselves from retaliatory actions. Mr. Hyderally arms businesses and individuals with the information needed to keep workplaces free from discrimination. In this case against Kmart Corporation, discriminatory practices should not have happened, but they should have been handled much differently when they did occur.
EEOC VS Kmart Corporation
The EEOC filed suit against the Kmart Corporation for harassing a pharmacist who was 70 years old. The allegations were that she was harassed, forced to quit and was threatened if she were to retaliate. During her 4 year employment the pharmacy manager frequently made discriminatory remarks about her age. She was allegedly accused of being “greedy” since she continued to work at 70 years of age and the manager sent her written notes such as “the pharmacy is no longer your forte” and “you need to retire from pharmacy work now.” These statements were clearly written in a communication book that was used by the entire department. The pharmacist was also told openly by the manager on many occasions that she was “too old” and that she should “just retire.”
The pharmacy manager repeatedly and purposefully scheduled her to work Sundays with the knowledge that she attended church on Sunday. This action was to try to encourage her to resign, according to the EEOC. When the pharmacist complained about the age-based discrimination to company managers including the general manager, district manager and the human resources manager nothing was done. Instead, Kmart threatened her with legal action based on an unrelated matter if she pursued the complaint of discrimination. Eventually she was forced to resign in an attempt to avoid the mistreatment.
The Cost of Age Discrimination
The EEOC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Hawaii on the basis that Kmart did not pursue remedial action which eventually forced the pharmacist to quit. They also argued that the lack of action on Kmart’s part was in violation of the ADEA. (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) Rather than addressing her legitimate complaints about the age related discriminatory actions, Kmart threatened her for complaining. The suit was settled and Kmart agreed to pay the pharmacist $120,000. To cooperate with the EEOC the company also had to enter a 3-year consent decree. This stipulated that Kmart would post a notice about the case and hire an EEO trainer. The company also had to review and revise their anti-discrimination policies, provide ADEA training to all staff members yearly, and make certain that all performance evaluations completed by management staff would reflect any discriminatory misconduct.