Employment Lawyer Blog

New York employment discrimination is prohibited by the state's unique Human Rights Law, which ensures "an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life" for all NY citizens. The state even has an institutional organ, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), to help people who have been discriminated against in employment, housing and credit. The DHR provides critical services, such as:

Prosecuting/stopping illegal New York discrimination.
Investigating and resolving certain claims.
Educating people about the damaging effects of discrimination and helping all parties understand their rights and obligations under state law.
Developing policies for the New York legislature to advance the cause of human rights.

The DHR's main offices are in the Bronx, but the DHR maintains regional offices throughout New York. NY state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of family or military status, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, race, creed, and color. The law also makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against a worker for investigating or filing a claim (for instance by firing or demoting her).

Differences between Federal and New York State Employment Discrimination Laws

The New York Human Rights Law is separate from federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination. Although these laws have much in common they overlap as well. For logistical purposes, in some cases of employment discrimination covered by both federal and NY state law, you can file a single complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. For more information, see the FAQ section on the Division's official website.

Limits of the Human Rights Law

Every employer who has at least four employees is subject to the HRL. Potential plaintiffs may have only one year following the act of discrimination to file a complaint. Connect with the reliable New York employment discrimination and harassment attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum to find out more details and for assistance in placing a claim.

For more information about the New York State Division of Human Rights, visit the DHR in person at 1 Fordham Plaza, 4th floor, Bronx, New York 10458, or phone them at 718-741-8400.

Often the variables involved in pursuing a New York discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim against your current or former employer can be confusing. Call the experienced employment rights attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 for assistance, or explore more free resources at our website, www.jhllp.com.

New York City has robust anti-employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation laws on the books. But NYC was not always so friendly to claimants. This article briefly reviews the history and evolution of the Big Apple's journey to ensuring fair treatment for city workers.

1944

Mayor LaGuardia forms the Mayor's Committee on Unity via an executive order, in part to address citizen concerns following 1943 race riots. LaGuardia's committee lacks enforcement powers. Despite this, he manages to make some progress, settling disputes in Harlem and Coney Island, and being instrumental in passing a Fair Educational Practices Act.

1955

New York City Mayor Wagner eliminates the committee and replaces it with a more empowered Commission on Intergroup Relations, also known as COIR. The Commission is established by Local Law 55 to collect and investigate all manner of discrimination complaints. COIR also takes an active role in studying and resolving employment discrimination matters.

1958

Sharkey-Brown-Isaacs Law passes, expanding the power of COIR to investigate housing discrimination.

1962

COIR renamed as the Commission on Human Rights.

1965

New laws extend and expand Commission's power.

1980s and 1990s

Human Rights Law amended multiple times to add protection for people with mental disabilities, people of alien status, victims of bias-related sexual harassment, individuals of different sexual orientation, and individuals who are retaliated against for complaining about New York City employment discrimination.

First decade of 2000s

City Human Rights Law again experiences numerous changes. Domestic violence victims become a protective class, the legal definition of "gender" changes to protect individuals of different gender identities, and victims of domestic violence, stalking and sex offences get guaranteed workplace rights.

2005

Mayor Bloomberg enacts Local Law 85, which strengthens the NYC employment discrimination laws by eliminating requirement that victims of retaliation must suffer adverse effects in order to file legal action.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of New York City harassment, retaliation, or employment discrimination, you may benefit greatly from a free consultation with the trial-proven lawyers of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Read more about our services and approach at www.jhllp.com

The New York Daily News is reporting on an exotic New York retaliation and sexual harassment case involving accusations that a salesman's boss made homosexual advances on him.

Background:

Salesman Adolfo Mendez worked for the Gucci Department Store on Fifth Avenue for years, becoming a top seller of luxury apparel. When a new boss took over his department, however, problems ensued. According to allegations, this new manager, Michael Daly, gave Mendez a massage and touched him on his buttocks multiple times. Mendez rebuffed the advances and told his boss that the touching made him uncomfortable. Daly did not respond sympathetically. Soon thereafter, another manager, David Gray, took the helm of the Gucci women's clothes department and made mocking comments towards Mendez, such as "I know you are gay."

Mendez asked his managers to stop the New York sexual harassment and even complained to the HR department, but this didn't seem to help. Gucci put him on administrative leave and then fired him two weeks after he complained. In the wake of all this, Mendez leveled a lawsuit against Gucci for $5 million for New York sexual harassment and retaliation. Although the two managers at the center of the alleged scandal no longer work for Gucci, the company can still be held liable for their actions.

Unfortunately, in many sexual harassment cases, plaintiffs experience a double hit. They face direct aggravation from the harassment. And then they endure stonewalling from HR. If you or a family member has complained fruitlessly to your HR department about harassment, employment discrimination, or other unwanted behaviors, you may be able to take legal action to seek significant compensation under New York and national anti-discrimination laws.

To get justice and end the harassing conduct, look to Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-866-348-7394, or visit us on the web at www.jhllp.com.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer Wal-Mart faces a class action suit for gender discrimination that could go down as the biggest class action in American history. In an 84-page order issued at the end of April, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled 6-5 that Wal-Mart can face class action charges that it discriminated against female employees. The class will include around 1.5 million women - all female employees who worked for the retailer from December 26, 1998 onwards. Six women will represent the class. The titular claimant, Betty Dukes, worked as a greeter at a California Wal-Mart and sued the store in 2001. Wal-Mart operates more than 3,400 stores. If the litigation goes to trial, and the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Wal-Mart may have to pay out literally billions in damages.

What Claimants Seek in this Giant Gender Discrimination Suit

According to allegations, Wal-Mart's culture facilitated discrimination against female employees. Women earned less than male counterparts and found it harder to climb the corporate ladder. Plaintiffs point out that 70% of Wal-Mart's hourly paid workers are women; whereas only around 30% of its managers are women. The plaintiffs seek punitive damages and back pay.

The Ninth Circuit Court had to resolve whether the sheer size of the class would make the dispatch of any case unmanageable. Judge Michael Hawkins, who voted in favor of the certification, wrote that "although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable." A dissenting judge disagreed and wrote that "no court has ever certified a case like this one, until now, and with good reason."

For its part, Wal-Mart has denied allegations of gender discrimination and general employee discrimination. A company statement said, "we do not believe the claims alleged by the six individuals who brought the suit are representative of the experiences of our female associates."

Wal-Mart has numerous options at its disposal, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to attempt to decertify the class action.

If you or a family member has experienced sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or any other kind of employment discrimination, options are available. The New York based law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide a no-nonsense, no obligation consultation about your pressing discrimination claim. Call us toll free at 1-866-348-7394, or email to get immediate assistance through our website at www.jhllp.com.