Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S Supreme Court decided the age discrimination case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc on Thursday with a five to four ruling in favor of the defendant. The majority opinion of the Court ruled that claimants in age discrimination cases must show direct evidence that their age played a significant role in their employers' decisions.

Speaking for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "even if age can be proven to be a partially motivating factor for a business's decision, age discrimination claimants must meet a higher burden of persuasion." Speaking for the minority, Justice John Stevens suggested that the majority was essentially attempting to legislate from the bench by disregarding a 1991 amendment to federal civil rights laws.

Facts of the Case

The discrimination matter debated concerns an executive at FBL Financial Group named Jack Gross, who had allegedly been passed over for promotion in favor of a younger employee who had once been his subordinate. Pursuant to the Age Discrimination Employment Act, Mr. Gross sued his employer and was awarded $46,945 by a federal jury. The company claimed that Mr. Gross had been demoted from Director to Coordinator due to in-company restructuring.

Employer advocacy organizations, such as the National Federation of Independent Business, have cheered the high court's decision. Speaking on behalf of disappointed labor advocates, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont argued that the court's ruling disregarded legislative precedent -- most notably the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Discrimination Act that Congress passed earlier this year.

If you or a family member is facing an age discrimination matter at a workplace, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP may be able to provide strategic assistance. Book a free consultation with us today to explore your options.

Department store chain Dillard's will pay $100,000 and substantially change its practices to settle a same-sex sexual harassment claim brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami New Times reported June 12. The lawsuit stems from the behavior of a supervisor at an Orlando, Florida store. Two male employees, a sales associate and a dockworker, alleged that their male supervisor created a hostile work environment with the sexual harassment, which included exposing himself as well as other inappropriate behavior and comments. Dillard's allegedly ignored their complaints.

According to the New Times, the unnamed supervisor lured employees into isolated areas, then started masturbating in front of them. On other occasions, he touched employees' genital areas without permission and pressed his own against their bodies. The EEOC press release said he also propositioned the employees and made derogatory and sexually explicit comments. When they brought their concerns to supervisors, they were ignored; the New Times said Dillard's denied that any sexual harassment happened. In addition to the $110,000 payment, the settlement includes obligations by Dillard's to put harassment complaints in an employee's personnel file and submit to three years of federal monitoring.

This is not the only recent sexual harassment case against Dillard's, although it may be the first alleging same-sex sexual harassment. In April of 2008, the store settled another EEOC lawsuit involving 12 women in two different states who said they were harassed by the same supervisor. That supervisor, Scott McGinness, was transferred to Colorado after complaints about his behavior at a California store. His supervisors in Colorado were not notified of the past problems. He was finally fired after he verbally and physically harassed a Colorado 18-year-old, who went to the police.

Some workers might be surprised to see that the EEOC protects men as well as women from harassment by supervisors. Sexual harassment complaints by men are less common -- they made up 15.9% of complaints received by the EEOC in 2008 -- possibly because male victims are reluctant to come forward. However, sexual harassment of men absolutely does happen, and when it does, it's just as illegal as harassment of women. That's true regardless of whether the harasser is a man or a woman and regardless of the victim's sexual orientation. Sexual harassment laws are based on the prohibition against sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act, and that prohibition protects both men and women.

Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP represents clients of all genders who were subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. That includes outright "quid pro quo" harassment, in which employees are asked for sexual favors in exchange for benefits, as well as harassment that creates a work environment so hostile that it's hard for victims to do their jobs. Our sexual harassment attorneys help clients claim wages and benefits they lost to illegal harassment and retaliation; get their jobs back, if necessary; and make positive changes in their current or former workplaces.

If you are a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace and you want to protect your rights, contact Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP as soon as possible. Based in New York City, our sexual harassment lawyers represent workers throughout the United States. To set up an initial consultation, you can contact us through the Internet or call toll-free at 1-866-348-7394.

An employment discrimination case with potentially profound implications for the state of Indiana has taken a new twist. For the past 5 years, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis's largest employer (12,000 employees in the state and many more thousands elsewhere around the country) has been dogged by workplace discrimination allegations. On Tuesday, June 9th, the NAACP asked a presiding federal judge to grant class action status to more than one hundred current and past Lilly employees who claim they've been victims of racial discrimination.

Retaliation or Appropriate Termination?

The legal battle began in 2004, when a woman named Cassandra Welch complained to the company's HR department about harassment. According to Ms. Welch's account, the company did not respond appropriately. Ms. Welch subsequently found a black doll with a noose around its neck at work, and she was later fired in retaliation for complaining. The company has denied firing Welch for retaliation and has insisted that she was let go because she forged emails.

Others Complain

Shortly after Ms. Welch lost her job, workers like Joy Mason and Kelly French voiced similar complaints about harassment and race discrimination at Lilly. These women complained that they had been passed over for promotion by less qualified applicants and they had not received pay concomitant with the jobs they were doing.

How many more?

All told, more than 2,000 African Americans currently work at or have worked at Eli Lilly and Company. At least a hundred have joined in the potential class action suit. The drug manufacturer stands by its argument that the company does not tolerate and has not tolerated discrimination in any form at its workplaces and that it offers equal pay and promotion opportunities to all employees. Given the lawsuit's current size and Lilly's prominent community stature, the outcome of this case may have significant cultural and economic consequences for the city of Indianapolis.

If you believe that your company has perpetrated race based or national origin based discrimination, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP can provide guidance. Please review our site or call our team for a free consultation.

A Linden, New Jersey oil refinery owned by ConocoPhillips has settled a religious discrimination claim, MyCentralJersey.com reported May 29. The suit was brought by Clarence Taylor, a pipe-fitter at the Bayway Refinery who was forced to work Sundays for two months despite his requests for accommodation. The settlement in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit includes $7,500 and five extra vacation days for Taylor, $12,500 for a food bank Taylor selected and revised anti-discrimination policies and training for the refinery.

Taylor brought the suit after a 2006 schedule change forced him to work on Sundays for two months. He didn't want to miss church, where he was a deacon and lay leader, so he asked to change his schedule. The company refused and told him he could use his vacation time. He contacted the EEOC, which filed a religious discrimination lawsuit on his behalf. A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the company disagrees with the EEOC charges, admits no wrongdoing and offered Taylor a reasonable accommodation, but settled the case for business reasons.

Religious discrimination in the workplace is illegal under the Civil Rights Act, the same law that makes it illegal to discriminate according to race, sex and national origin. Among other things, Title VII of the act says employers must reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious practice, as long as it does not pose an undue hardship to the employer. That includes schedule changes to accommodate attendance at religious services, as long as it doesn't incur substantial extra costs or push particularly burdensome work onto co-workers.

Some people are surprised to find that Christians are covered by civil rights laws. In fact, the groups entitled to protection from religious discrimination are defined broadly in the law, including mainstream religions, uncommon and informal religions and even atheism, as long as the beliefs are sincerely held. Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP's religious discrimination lawyers represent people of all backgrounds and faiths in employment discrimination lawsuits. In addition to cases where a reasonable accommodation was denied, we represent people who were illegally forced to participate in religious practices as a condition of employment, subjected to wrongful termination, treated less favorably because of their faiths, retaliated against or denied the right to non-disruptive religious expression.

If you believe you're a victim of religious discrimination in the workplace and you're ready to fight back, call Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP. Based in New York City, our religious discrimination attorneys represent workers throughout the United States. For a free consultation, you can contact us through the Internet or call toll-free at 1-866-348-7394.