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
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
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.
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.
Tayeb Hyderally chose to work in the field of employment law because of the wide variety of situations. As an expert lawyer he has seen just about everything, but it is cases like Ash vs. Tyson Foods that raises eyebrows. Employment law NY is a vast field and encompasses lots of different scenarios. The intent of various employment laws is of course to protect from any type of discrimination in the workplace. Ty Hyderallyhas spent a large part of his professional career in advising both employee and employer of their rights and responsibilities pertaining to employment law.
US Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
The case with Tyson Foods is interesting because of the final result. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision that it made when the case was originally tried. This is very rare – and almost unheard of. John Hithon and Anthony Ash both alleged racial discrimination on the basis that they were dismissed for a promotion in favor of other white workers. They also alleged that it had become a hostile work environment because one of the managers repeatedly called employees who were adult black males, “boy.” The suit was filed based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case made it all the way to trial jury where the plaintiffs were awarded more than $1.4 million in punitive and compensatory damages.
Naturally, the Tyson Foods appealed the case and it moved on to the 3 judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit. They upheld part of the case but totally determined that the use of the word “boy” was not discriminatory. Ash dropped his portion of the case at this time but Hithon continued to pursue. In 2010 the Eleventh Circuit deemed that the use of the word, “boy” was purely conversational and not racial in its contextual use. However, there was some evidence that was being overlooked.
A brief was filed with the Eleventh Circuit by U.W. Clemon who was Alabama’s first black federal judge, since retired. He along with 10 other civil rights leaders from Alabama filed the brief asking the court to reconsider the ruling. The civil rights leaders gave explanation to the use of the term “boy” as it is customarily applied in the South. It is a derogatory statement in most southern states which is a carryover from slave days and is a racial slur based on the culture of the area. The court reversed its decision and awarded Mr. Hithon $365,000 but did not grant the one million dollar award for punitive damages. This was because they did not feel the supervisor was in a high enough corporate position for it to be attributed to the company who has a strong policy against workplace discrimination.
The reversal of this type of decision is a rare occurrence. Situations such as these are why it is important to know your individual rights and responsibilities under employment law. Ty Hyderally is an expert in NJ employment law and frequently is asked to provide counsel and advice on matters of discrimination in the workplace.