Tag Archives: gender

NY Expands Discrimination Law to Allow Students to Sue Public School Districts

Date
Posted by

Governor Cuomo recently signed a bill amending the New York Human Rights Law, New York State Executive Law § 290 et seq., to include discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims filed by students against public school districts and BOCES. This constitutes a significant development in education law and the amendment is effective immediately. 

Prior to this bill, the New York Court of Appeals held that discrimination and harassment claims filed by students could only be brought against private not-for-profit educational institutions. Thus, the Division of Human Rights had no jurisdiction over discrimination and harassment claims filed by students against public school districts for claims of discrimination. 

This legislation amends Human Rights Law to prohibit educational institutions from discriminating against, or permitting the harassment of any student or applicant, “by reason of race, color, religion, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, age, or marital status.” Educational institution is defined to include “any public school, including any school district, board of cooperative educational services, public college, or public university.”  

School districts and BOCES are already obliged under the Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”) to investigate and intervene in student complaints of harassment (aka bullying). Now however, students have another legal avenue to challenge school district’s or BOCES’ response to allegations of harassment. Moreover, insofar as DASA does not provide for damages, the fact that New York Human Rights Law allows for damages for valid claims of discrimination, establishes this amendment as a significant development in Education Law.

It is critical to note that there are a number of variables which come into play as it relates discrimination, retaliation, New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Division of Human Rights. Individuals should seek qualified and experienced counsel with questions. Call Gilbert Law Group today at (631) 630-0100.

Changes in New York State Human Rights Law

Date
Posted by

The NYS Legislature has passed sweeping changes to New York State Human Rights Law, the State’s discrimination law, that will make it easier for employees and outside contractors who interact with those employees to successfully bring discrimination claims. These claims involve, but are not limited to, sexual harassment, as well as discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, ethnicity, familial status, pregnancy, etc. Similarly, it will have a significant impact on how employers manage their workplace.

The changes include eliminating size requirements for employers to be covered by Human Rights Law. It also broadens the application of hostile work environment to various forms of discrimination, such as based on race, gender, ethnicity, disability, age, etc., rather than only sexual harassment. Moreover, the legislature has eliminated the pervasiveness requirement as it relates to hostile work environment. Another significant change is eliminating the requirement that the employer have knowledge that the employee had been subjected to discrimination in order for liability to exist. Additionally, the legislature’s changes now make punitive damages available. It is critical to note that the significance of these changes cannot overstated.

Although the changes have not yet been signed into law by Governor Cuomo, the Governor has promised the laws will be signed immediately. Significantly, there are many other changes which will drastically effect the how New York State Human Rights cases are litigated moving forward. Employees and employers alike will be greatly impacted by these changes. If you have questions or concerns regarding these changes, or require legal counsel, call Gilbert Law Group today at (631) 630-0100.

EEOC: Employers, be Proactive vs. Workplace Harassment

Date
Posted by

Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson that workplace harassment was an actionable form of discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several examples of common harassment and discrimination that take place in the workplace are sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, racial discrimination, and age discrimination (under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or ADEA). Recently, the EEOC issued a report encouraging employers to be more proactive in preventing workplace harassment.

In January 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created a Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace (“Select Task Force”). This Select Task Force spent  18 months examining the myriad and complex issues associated with harassment in the workplace. In June 2016, the Select Task Force  published its findings. The report calls for employers to “reboot” workplace harassment prevention methods. The report also outlines statistics, risks and administrative recommendations.

The study encourages employers to assess their workplaces for the risks associated with harassment, survey employees. Further, the report urges employers to hold accountable managers and supervisors for preventing and reacting to grievances while also actively promoting diversity.

Interestingly, the report also states that employers should be wary of “zero tolerance” anti-harassment policies that are used as a one-size fits all model. Rather, any discipline that might result from such policy violations should be proportionate to the offense.

Additionally, the report finds that employers should also consider including a social media policy that ties into their anti-harassment policies.  The downside to this however is that the National Labor Relations Board has released guidelines on drafting and updating social media policies. Some cases have held that such a policy may violate an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity.

In conclusion, the findings state that the name of the game is truly harassment prevention. This may prove challenging as labor and employment laws are not logical and often do not follow common sense. To this end, seeking experienced legal counsel is critical.

Should you have questions, or wish to seek counsel, call Gilbert Law Group today at (631)630-0100.

N.Y. Mets Deny Pregnancy and Marital Status Discrimination

Date
Posted by

N.Y. Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon has denied discriminating against and eventually firing a former female senior executive based on her pregnancy and marital status, specifically, for having a baby out of wedlock. In a lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Brooklyn, New York, Wilpon is quoted as saying during a discussion of e-cigarette ads, “I am as morally opposed to putting an e-cigarette sign in my ballpark as I am to Leigh [Castergine] having this baby without being married.” Wilpon is also alleged to have made fun of Castergine by pretending to look for an engagement ring on her finger at meetings, and trashed her to colleagues by saying that “people would respect her more if she was married.” The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy and marital status. A Major League Baseball source said the league was aware of the suit and considered it a team matter.

The suit alleged Wilpon told Castergine, who earned a six figure salary, to tell her boyfriend “that when she gets a ring she will make more money and get a bigger bonus.” Castergine gave birth in March 2014 and returned to work in June 2014, but was allegedly urged by other executives to quit.

In August 2014, she claimed that the Mets raised issues about her job performance but offered a severance package if she would agree to not sue or say negative things about the team and Wilpon. Castergine also claims that she was fired August 26, 2014, three minutes after her lawyer sent an email to the team claiming that she was subjected to work-related discrimination. In court papers, however, the Mets asserted that she was fired before they received the email and that it “was based on legitimate business reasons” unrelated to Castergine’s “gender, marital status, pregnancy, or leave.” They pointed to “business issues and conflicts” between Castergine and her supervisor and other executives which began prior to learning that she was pregnant. They also asserted that Wilpon was a longstanding supporter of her.

It remains to be seen if the case goes to trial whether a jury will believe Castergine’s discrimination claims or the Mets’ and Wilpon’s defense that there were independent business reasons unrelated to the plaintiff’s gender, pregnancy and marital status, or leave, all of which comprise categories of discrimination protected by federal and state law.

For workplace issues concerning pregnancy, marital status, leaves, work performance, and gender discrimination or harassment contact the Gilbert Law Group at 631.630.0100.