The goal of both federal and local employment laws is to help provide a workplace that is free from any form of discrimination. Tayeb Hyderally is an expert at employment law who specializes in educating a wide variety of audiences on how to keep the workplace free of discriminatory practices. He works to educate both employees and employers about the various aspects of employment law. He works with corporate officials in the development of policies which are in place to protect both the company as well as the workers. In order to be aware of the current trend in employment law, Mr. Hyderally reviews many different employment law cases. This case is one in which the EEOC sues a hospital owned day care for disability discrimination. Even health care facilities must be able to comply with ADA and any local laws as well as be capable of providing any accommodations that might be necessary. 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
The EEOC is in existence to enforce federal laws which prohibit discrimination in the workplace. When an employee feels that a discriminatory act has occurred, they can file a complaint with the EEOC. It is also wise to seek council with an attorney who is an expert at employment law. Many times in cases of workplace discrimination a case is not sought because the individual does not recognize the act as discriminatory. It is very important for those who suspect this type of illegitimate activity on the behalf of an employer to seek council from experts such as Tayeb Hyderally. Such is the case involving a worker who was terminated once she asked for time off to have a life saving surgery.
The EEOC Claim
There are not too many cases in which a heart condition can be considered a disability which is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (ADA) However, in New Hampshire the EEOC did charge a Nashua company under the ADA. The company terminated Nancy Hajjar because of her heart condition. Windmill International, Inc. terminated Ms. Hajjar one week after she requested time off for a heart procedure which would clear her clogged arteries and she stated she may possibly need heart surgery as well. According to the EEOC, this was potentially a life-threatening impairment. Continue Reading
The world of employment law can be rather complex, especially when it comes to defining terms as it relates to disability and discrimination. One area that expert lawyers such as Ty Hyderally must correctly interpret is what makes reasonable accommodation. What makes this so difficult to determine is that what might be a reasonable accommodation for one, would not work for another; this means it is determined on a case by case basis which can be complicated. Those interested in employment law have their eyes on a case which involves reasonable accommodations and whether or not a location transfer meets the criteria.
Sanchez vs. Vilsak
Ms. Sanchez is employed by the United States Forest Service. After falling at work she suffered irreversible brain damage which affects her vision. She totally lost the left side in her field of vision. The Tenth Circuit appellate court is set to determine if her employer must consider it a reasonable accommodation to transfer her to another location. Under the Rehabilitation Act the court found that it is a reasonable accommodation to ask for a transfer so that she can receive adequate medical treatment and care.
Sanchez’s Request for Transfer
In this disability discrimination case, Clarice Sanchez did request a transfer so that she could be in a location which is closer to a medical facility. The facility provides her treatment for the lost field of vision due to the work place accident. The employer denied her request for a transfer and they asserted that according to the federal disability discrimination laws they are not required to grant such a transfer to an employee only for the purpose of receiving medical treatment. They also asserted that Sanchez was able to “correct” her vision impairment by just “turning her head.” Continue Reading
The courts are still attempting to determine the boundaries as they are set forth in disability discrimination cases. The EEOC is in place to enforce laws which make it illegal to discriminate against an individual in the workplace based on a disability. The trouble seems to be determining what a “disability” really is. It must be a condition which substantially limits at least one major life activity. Employment law experts can help individuals decipher the guidelines as they are laid out by the ADA. Discrimination of workers based on limiting disabilities is illegal in the workplace. Tayeb Hyderally is an expert at employment law and keeps up on cases which pertain to employment law as it relates to disability discrimination.
EEOC vs. Cottonwood Financial Ltd
The EEOC filed a case against Cottonwood Financial stating that they erroneously terminated store manager Sean Reilly. The company allegedly fired him because they thought he was too disabled to work because he has bipolar disorder. Reilly was under the care of a physician and was actively working to control his disability while attending school and attempting to secure employment. He had been an honor student when he was in high school and had begun attending college in Portland, Oregon while on a scholarship based on academic excellence. While he was in college he was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder. His symptoms worsened and he was forced to withdraw from school at which time he returned to Texas and began working at The Cash Store in Cottonwood, Texas. 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 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.
Expert lawyer, Tayeb Hyderally spends a large amount of his time educating both employees and employers about the various aspects of discrimination in the workplace and how it can be avoided. Both groups need to be well informed about their rights and responsibilities to ensure that all individuals are allowed the opportunity to work in a workplace which is free from discriminatory practices. And employees as well as employers are responsible to ensure that it does not occur and if it does that it is reported properly and taken care of quickly. No matter how educated we become regarding these very important employment law issues, sadly it occurs in many establishments today. In our thinking sometimes there are certain classes of people, such as doctors and lawyers, who are “above” discrimination. This is not the case as we will see in this case concerning a doctor who was the object of age discrimination in the workplace.
Dr. Zane Hurkin VS Woodward Resource Center
Dr. Zane Hurkin of Clive, Iowa was hired at Woodward Resource Center which is a facility through which treatment and services for mentally disabled individuals are provided. Dr. Hurkin was only on the job for 8 days before he was unjustly fired. Jill Zwagerman, his attorney, stated that he had been asked questions that were age-related during the interviewing process and upon being hired he was inadequately trained. His pay was also several thousand dollars less than the pay grade that had been posted.
Dr. Hurkin alleged that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment as well as harassment regarding his age and was denied job responsibilities. He stated that he did not receive training for some aspects of his job. He also alleged that his hours and pay had been reduced and he was not paid on an equal level with his peers and then he was terminated.
Dr. Hurkin stated that he had been asked some age related questions when he was interviewed for the job and after he was hired he was harassed and discriminated against because he was 81 years old. The company first cut his pay and then his hours before they fired him after only 8 days on the job. He had been a practicing physician for about 55 years and following the termination, Dr. Hurkin suffered from depression and required medical treatment.
According to the official court documents, the pay scale normally allotted to the position Dr. Hurkin was hired for paid somewhere between $162,843 and $231,608 annually. However, the doctor was only being paid $105,000 per year. The lawsuit alleged that he had indeed been subject to discriminatory practices. The courts agreed and he was awarded $140,000 in lost wages. He also received another $200,000 for emotional distress, both past and future. According to the Iowa Attorney General’s office a representative of Woodward Resources Center stated that they did not know if the facility would pursue an appeal of the jury’s decision or not. Their spokesman, Geoff Greenwood said that they would review their options.
As an employment law expert Tayeb Hyderally many times handles cases in which there are different kinds of discriminatory practices occurring. He chose to practice NJ employment law because there are many interesting facets to each case. As an expert lawyer in employment law NY, he frequently shares with companies, organizations and individuals about their rights and responsibilities. In the case against the New York based fish business, M. Slavin & Sons there were several discriminatory actions alleged. In this case alone there was reported racial and sexual discrimination as well as retaliation to an employee who reported the alleged abuse.
The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The claim was that M. Slavin was in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law makes it illegal to discriminate against a person based on the individual’s race or sex, along with other categories. This law is also instrumental in protecting a person from retaliation when they try to defend their rights. This makes it possible for employees to file claims against their employers when a hostile work environment has been created through discriminatory actions.
Employees at M. Slavin alleged that there had been several instances of harassment. Over 30 employees stated several instances of discrimination and harassment. Some said that they were subjected to verbal and physical sexual harassment; others said that non-Caucasian male employees (mostly African-American) were continually harassed by various actions such as offensive and unsolicited sexual comments, groping and racial slurs. The first individual who reported the alleged discriminatory actions also reported that he was subjected to acts of retaliation from managers at M. Slavin. His claim was that his immediate supervisors instructed employees to disassociate with him and also made threats on his life.
In December of 2011 the EEOC and M. Slavin reached a settlement in which the company agreed to pay $900,000. But there were other requirements that went along with the settlement proceedings. For instance, M. Slavin also had to revise all of its policies regarding all three areas: sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation. They also had to submit to being closely monitored by the EEOC for 5 years. An independent consultant was retained so that any further complaints about discrimination could be handled appropriately and the company had to provide training for those individuals who committed the acts of harassment. And they had to continue training for all managerial staff as well as notify the EEOC if there were any new complaints about discrimination.
In this instance there were several infractions of employment law. The company is taking appropriate steps to ensure that this type of hostile environment does not occur again in the future. Cases such as these can become very complicated and it takes an expert at employment law NY such as Ty Hyderally to be able to represent employees and litigate for their rights. The company’s action to retain an employment law specialist on site will help prevent any further infractions of these laws which are meant to protect employees from such abuses in the workplace.
Racial discrimination is never satisfactory behavior on any scale, but especially on the job. This is only one area of NJ employment law that Ty Hyderally deals with on a regular basis. He chose the vast field of employment law partly because he was intrigued by the many facets. He has worked for many years to ensure that employers and employees are aware of both their rights and responsibilities as they pertain to employment law NY. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed suit on the company Pepsi Beverages due to an alleged infraction that occurred in some of the ways their employment policies were carried out.
As part of their hiring procedures, Pepsi required a background check. Applicants who had previously been arrested but their prosecution was pending were disqualified for permanent employment even though they had not been convicted of any type of crime or offense. This policy adversely affected over 300 African American applicants. Policies created by Pepsi also denied the opportunity of employment to many who had been convicted or even arrested of some types of minor offenses. But under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if this is not relevant to the position it can be illegal. It is considered illegal because it can reduce the employability of some applicants based on race or ethnicity.
Perhaps the intent of the policy was not to violate any employment laws with regard to discrimination but inadvertently many African Americans were denied employment unfairly. While the EEOC was conducting their investigation, Pepsi rewrote and adopted new guidelines pertaining to criminal background checks. The bottling company will begin to offer employment to those who were victims of their previous policies; as long as they do qualify for the positions and jobs for which they had applied. The company will also follow up in this case by submitting regular reports to the EEOC regarding their practices in hiring. And the company will make sure that all managers attend Title VII training and in-service.
The case that EEOC filed against Pepsi did not have to go all the way to trial. Pepsi Beverages was able to reach a settlement agreement with the EEOC. Not only will they make the stated modification to their hiring procedures and training process, they will also pay $3.13 million. The position that Pepsi’s hiring procedures got them into is an example of how a policy can inadvertently affect certain classes of people. Policies that are not intended to be discriminatory can still be in violation of some of the anti-discrimination laws. This type of disparate impact can end up with the company liable for discriminatory actions even though the intent was not there. It serves as a reminder to businesses and companies to reexamine policies and procedures to ensure that they are not discriminatory in any fashion directly or indirectly. Companies can rely on expert lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally to help ensure policies are correctly written and carried out to avoid cases such as these.