When Ty Hyderally began to study law he found the area of employment law intriguing. The more he studied, the more fascinated he became and he chose to concentrate on this area of practicing law. It did not take long for him to become one of the premier employment law attorneys in the New Jersey area. He has many years of experience in successful litigation. Besides his law practice Mr. Hyderally also speaks to various groups regarding employment law. He hopes to keep employers aware of recent changes in the laws including discrimination. In this way he protects both employees as well as employers. One such case that helped shape terms of racial discrimination is Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education.
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
In 1985 this case was brought before the Supreme Court. The Jackson Board of Education layoff policy established that seniority was protection against lay-off. But their policy also stated that the percentage of minority teachers had to remain the same overall. This meant that some white teachers were laid off even though they had more seniority than other minority teachers.
Wendy Wygant, who was a white teacher, took legal action and the case was first heard in the Federal District Court. The District Court’s ruling was in favor of the Board of Education. Their claim was that the minority teachers deserved preference to help offset social discrimination.
The Supreme Court came to a decision in 1986 and reversed the ruling of the District Court stating that the Board of Education’s policy could not infringe on the rights of other innocent people. These types of decisions when used for hiring purposes are not intrusive on the rights of innocent people, but using it for deciding who is laid off from a job is.
Tayeb Hyderally chose to go into employment law because he found the field interesting and constantly changing. Mr. Hyderally began practicing employment law in New Jersey and soon became a well respected expert in the area. He successfully litigates on behalf of his clients to protect them from maltreatment or discrimination in the workplace. Mr. Hyderally also speaks at various corporate organizations to educate them on the newest information regarding employment law. Cases such as AT&T v Hulteen can have a huge impact on the way employment law is interpreted.
Hulteen v AT&T
In 1968 Noreen Hulteen took maternity leave but because of complications she was hospitalized and missed a total of 240 days of work. AT&T gave her only 30 days of paid leave. At the time employees who took any form of disability leave were paid for the duration of the leave, for as long as they were disabled. Prior to the Act of 1978, it was common practice for businesses to not extend sickness benefits to those who were pregnant. For Ms. Hulteen this meant that while she was disabled due to the complications of pregnancy she received no pension benefits.
When Ms. Hulteen retired from AT&T in 1994, she realized the effect the missing 210 had on her pension plan. She took legal action against corporate giant AT&T stating that the leave of absence should have been retroactive and the company should have paid into her pension plan for the days she missed due to the disability that occurred during the pregnancy.
AT&T of course argued that the 1978 law was not retroactive. Congress had not made the law retroactive and they were basing the calculations for her pension upon the business practices at the time of the disability.
The Supreme Court ruled that any maternity leave taken before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 cannot be considered when calculating pension benefits of an employee. Even though it would be in violation of Title VII today, the PDA does not cover discrimination in the past.