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.
Discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In instances where there are discriminatory actions or practices in the workplace, expert lawyer Tayeb Hyderally can offer his assistance or counsel. He has successfully litigated and practiced employment law for many years and has also made it his goal to inform employers and employees of the various aspects involved in keeping the workplace free from such discriminatory activities. Ty Hyderally shares his vast knowledge and years of experience in the field of employment law with individuals in order to reduce instances of discrimination in the workplace.
Swenson V. Schwan’s Consumer Brands North America
The only way to substantiate a case is to present valid evidence and without it there just is not a case. In this employment law case there was more than just circumstantial evidence and more than simply pretext. A San Antonio federal court heard the case against Schwan’s and viewed evidence that the employer had falsified information. However, the trouble was that the employee, Swenson, did not provide enough evidence that actions pursued by Schwan’s were motivated by age discrimination. Many experts in the area of employment law felt that this false explanation on the part of the employer should have been enough to make a jury decide the factual issues.
Why was Swenson Fired?
Schwan’s claim is that the termination of Mr. Swenson was due to violations pertaining to vacation policies. However, Swenson alleged that the policy did not hold to the true form of a “policy” and that the vacation pay he had requested was granted without dispute. Swenson also presented key evidence which indicated that the employer’s reasons for his termination had changed numerous times. This alone can be enough evidence to show that the explanations offered by the employer had been falsified. However, the court chose to disregard the evidence brought in by Swenson and felt that the employer believed the vacation policy had been violated by the employee. Again, this trial could have been one that was heard and determined by a jury due to the nature of the evidence.
Mr. Swenson alleged that the employer had made many different age related comments about him. He was frequently referred to as “my disabled dad.” When eating at restaurants, the employer would ask for the “senior citizen’s menu” for Swenson who was only 48 years of age. The court threw these out and credited them as “stray remarks.” The remarks were not made at the time of termination nor were they made by the one who made the determination of termination close to the time Swenson was fired. Had they been made when he was terminated or very close to that time it would have changed this entire case. Mr. Swenson also provided some evidence that proved the employer was not following its own disciplinary policies and stated that younger workers had far better treatment than he did. This evidence was disregarded by the court stating that these facts by themselves did not require a denial of summary judgment.
There are employment laws in place which are meant to prevent discriminatory practices in the workplace. Expert lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally work with many different organizations to ensure that employees and employers are aware of the laws that were enacted to protect workers. Ty Hyderally travels extensively working with a wide variety of organizations, PR personnel and businesses to inform them how to maintain a workplace that remains free from discrimination. As an expert in employment law, he also provides information on what to do if you believe a discriminatory act has occurred in the workplace. Mr. Hyderally also informs staff members about how to identify and protect themselves from retaliation in cases where discrimination is reported. Of all the places we would think would be free from discriminatory practices religious organizations seem to be one of the most likely. However, in this case we find that a religious organization can also engage in age discrimination similarly to other employers.
Horst Brandt VS Trinity Broadcasting Network
Horst Brandt was in charge of TBN’s computer systems. He was hired as an independent contractor instead of a regular employee although he worked full time for the religious organization. This was reportedly a less expensive way for TBN to keep Brandt on board. However, there were many slurs about Brandt’s German heritage and discriminatory remarks made about his age. It was alleged that there were statements made such as, “Horst runs his department like Nazi Germany during World War II.”
Filing the Age Discrimination Suit
Brandt filed a claim against TBN which stated he had been discriminated against based on his age. He was subjected to repeated remarks about their “older workers.” In the meeting where Brandt found out about his termination Crouch Jr. stated that “Paul Crouch, Sr. and Ruth Brown are getting up there in age too.” After terminating Horst Brandt, Crouch Jr. reportedly told a vendor that “there are some older people here and it is time for a change.” He also stated that Ruth Brown who was TBN’s Chief Financial Officer was “getting up there in age and should find something else to do.” The building that Brandt worked in was frequently referred to as the “old folk’s home” and Brandt was often referred to as “an old dinosaur.”
More Problems for TBN
It is also alleged that TBN’s senior officials told Brittany Koper to implement “alternative reforms.” Brittany Koper was head of the human resources at TBN and her grandfather, Paul Crouch Sr. is the founder and CEO of TBN. Crouch allegedly told Koper to update the age report on TBN’s workers. She was then instructed to fire anyone over 65 years old because there were “too old, too sick and too lazy.” Crouch Sr. began a campaign to move older workers to part time employment and tried to force some into retirement. Anyone over 80 were placed automatically at a part-time status.
Brandt and TBN reached a settlement agreement in court. However, due to the nature and saturation of alleged age discrimination it appears that there could possibly be a class action lawsuit against the religious employer in the near future.
Discrimination can take many forms in the workplace. Ty Hyderally is an expert in employment lawwho is dedicated to educating employees and employers of both their rights and responsibilities regarding employment law in the workplace. Some cases are instances where there are subtle but continuous harassment or discriminatory activities; other times cases involve blatant acts of discrimination. Tayeb Hyderally represents clients who have been discriminated against in the workplace in any way. In this age discrimination case, there were behind the scenes activities that the worker was unaware of. However, when these came to light, she was able to receive retribution for the inappropriate actions of the company.
Debra Moreno – A very Efficient Worker
Debra Moreno’s manager seemed to always speak highly of her work ethic and referred to her as a very “thorough and efficient” worker. However, the owner of the company stated that she thought Ms. Moreno sounded “old” on the phone and that she also looked like a “bag of bones.” Carolyn Frutoz-De Harne, owner of the company, allegedly told another manager that Ms. Moreno was not the “type” of worker that she preferred to represent Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc. which is a home health care provider for senior citizens.
Upon completing a thorough investigation, the EEOC filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and named Ms. Frutoz-De Harne as the defendant. The EEOC did see the conduct as a form of age discrimination. The courts found that this was indeed a case of age discrimination and Debra Moreno was awarded over $190,000. In addition to gaining this monetary award, part of the judgment included that the defendant in the case develop and disseminate procedures which will prevent future cases of age discrimination. The company must provide adequate and appropriate training to all its personnel. This includes training all staff members concerning age discrimination as well as retaliation. Supervisors were also to be trained regarding how to handle these types of complaints. Hawaii Healthcare Professionals were also required to work closely with EEOC coordinators to work through these materials as well as posting notices for current employees about the judgment. The EEOC will continue to monitor the company to ensure that they remain in compliance with the judgment.
Examining the of the Case of Age Discrimination
The regional attorney for the EEOC, Anna Y. Park is in charge of overseeing the litigation for the agency in Hawaii stated that “age should never be a factor when evaluating an employee or job applicant’s worth.” What makes this employment law case so interesting is that the worker’s abilities were completely disregarded and she was terminated solely for her age. The EEOC works to ensure that this type of violation does not occur in the workplace. Employers are responsible to have strong anti-discrimination policies in place and to offer adequate training for personnel to prevent age discrimination from occurring in the workplace. The EEOC is organization which enforces the federal employment laws which prohibit discrimination.