Employment Lawyer Blog

Retiring NFL quarterback, Brett Favre, has faced a gauntlet of bad news over the past two months - and not just news of the Viking's elimination from playoff contention. The 20 year NFL veteran has been accused of sexually harassing a masseuse who worked for the Vikings during the 2006 season. The Minnesota woman, Stephanie Dusenberry, alleges that the Viking's QB sent her multiple harassing text messages, including:

• "This is Brett with the Vikings; do you have time to work on me? No hurry I am alone."
• "You don't know what it's like not to be touched by a woman for three weeks, come over and no one needs to know."

Prior to Favre's masseuse related troubles, the QB had been fending off questions about the arrest of his sister Brandi at a Mississippi meth lab.

Favre belongs to a pantheon of NFL quarterbacks who've been dogged by various seedy-sounding allegations. Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback Michael Vick famously served time in prison after committing horrific animal abuse against dogs. Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and Patriots' quarterback Tom Brady both have been ground up in the sports press for bad-boy behavior and their aggressive actions towards woman.

When men in powerful positions (e.g. NFL quarterbacks and corporate CEOs) commit acts like sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination, their less powerful and less famous victims often feel bullied by the press and helpless to respond effectively.

The reality is that many instances of employer abuse go unreported (or underreported) because victims fear reprisals or fear they won't prevail in getting justice done. Fortunately, the law provides more resources than most victims realize.

If you have evidence that someone at your work withheld overtime or vacation pay; subjected you to inappropriate standards based on your age, sex, or skin color; or retaliated against you by demoting you because you made a complaint to HR, the attorneys at the law firm of Joseph & Kirschenbaum can help. Connect with the team at www.jhllp.com or 866-348-7394 for a free (and completely confidential) consultation today.

Last week, astronomer Dr. C. Martin Gaskell won a religious discrimination settlement of $125,000 against the University of Kentucky, pursuant to claims that the school passed him over for a research position because of his belief in divine creationism - essentially, that God created the universe.

Curiously, the University of Kentucky apparently confused Dr. Gaskell's view on evolution. As analysts at the website DailyTech.com pointed out, Dr. Gaskell is not strictly a biblical literalist or "intelligent design" proponent. Rather, he is a "theistic evolutionist." In other words, according to his written views, he apparently believes that a divine being set up the universe with discrete rules and also that the theory of evolution -- as is commonly understood by chemists, physicists, and biologists -- has serious flaws.

Rather than engage in long litigation, the University of Kentucky agreed to the six figure settlement with Dr. Gaskell. But as the analysis piece at DailyTech.com points out, it may not be too long before courts witness similar religious discrimination lawsuits against other academic institutions. The DailyTech.com article also raises this interesting question: "Can a university pass over a candidate who publicly (and vocally) turns their back on science in the name of religion, in a field unrelated to their work?"

Many astronomers, physicists, biologists, and other scientists are deeply religious, contrary to the popular stereotype of academics as agnostic/atheists. And, as Dr. Gaskell's story nicely illustrates, not all critics of the theory of evolution share the "intelligent design" perspective.

On a more practical note, individuals who feel like they have experienced some kind of religious discrimination at work or who've experienced racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation for complaining about abuse, or other mistreatment generally lack a practical understanding of their legal rights.

The law firm of Joseph, Hertzfield, Hester & Kirschenbaum can give you a complementary consultation to help you determine your best next steps. Connect with the team today at www.jhllp.com, or phone 866-348-7394 to get sound and responsible guidance about your claim.

34 year-old Alisa Dolinsky will receive $40,000, pursuant to charges of New York City religious discrimination, according to an article in the Associated Press.

The orthodox Jewish nurse applied to work at Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital on Roosevelt Island in 2007. Initially, the hospital offered her the nursing job, but rescinded their offer when Ms. Dolinksy stipulated that she would not work on the Jewish Sabbath (from Friday evening through Saturday evening). Since the hospital operates around the clock, seven days a week, administrators determined that they couldn't afford to hire Ms. Dolinsky when other applicants might be able to provide more complete coverage. The New York City Commission on Human Rights brokered the settlement, although the hospital did not admit any wrongdoing, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Cases of employment discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and religious discrimination at work often serve as cannon fodder for employment blogs, pundits, and academics. This case, even in its condensed form, appears pregnant with interesting ethical questions. For instance, how long does a religious Sabbath have to be to constitute a serious inconvenience? If Ms. Dolinsky had been a member of another religion that required her to take off six days a week (and work only one day), common sense would dictate that she would not be an appropriate job applicant for the hospital. Conversely, what if she only had to take off half a day a week? Or a quarter day? Would that constitute a significant enough impediment to her working at the hospital? Where do you draw the line, time-wise?

The story also touches on a deeper discussion about work-life balance. Nurses and doctors are routinely expected to be available around the clock. This expectation is somewhat understandable. Accidents and emergencies don't wait. If city hospitals lack well-trained available employees, patients could die. But is it really fair to expect employees to be available to work around the clock? How many hours should medical residents be allowed to work? It's not just an issue of quality - after all, if you push someone to work, say, 110 hours a week, the quality of their work will obviously be negatively affected -- it's also a question of workers' rights. Is it really just to expect this level of service from medical professionals? And if not, what expectation is fair and just? And how would any such adjustments to current policies impact the efficiency of treatment and the quality of care?

It's interesting how this short story about Ms. Dolinsky's religious discrimination suit can raise all these fascinating and fundamental ethical questions.

But if you have been discriminated against at work, you're probably less concerned with the philosophical big picture and more concerned with questions like: "How can I hold my employer accountable?" "How can I get my job back?" and "What steps should I take to protect my rights?"

For a confidential and completely free first consultation about your situation, connect with the law firm of Joseph & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

Pharmaceutical giants Schering-Plough and Novartis received some bad news at the end of 2010 regarding their wage and hour violation cases.

In case you haven't been tuning into the news, both Novartis and Schering-Plough got slapped with suits for failing to pay their sales representatives fairly, pursuant to FLSA overtime laws and regulations. One of the key issues is whether the sales representatives can be classified as employees who deserve overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. From the court rulings so far, it appears that the big drug makers may have trouble trying to prove that their salespeople are exempt:

• First of all, Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations prohibit drug maker representatives from selling directly to doctors. Therefore, even the moniker "sales rep" is in some sense incorrect.
• Second, the staff are not given serious autonomy - thus, the courts are saying that they must be wage workers.
• The District Court found that: "Schering did not meet its burden to prove that their reps should be exempted from FLSA overtime pay requirements... We have considered all of Schering's contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit."

Obviously, the big drug makers will likely fight as hard as they can because of the huge amounts of money at stake. But the courts appear to be pretty clear, and we may soon witness an industry-wide recalibration, based on the fallout of cases like Schering's and Novartis'.

Whether you have been denied overtime pay, forced to labor in a hostile work environment, or demoted, fired or not hired due to your gender, skin color, or religious belief, the law offers you abundant resources and protections. Look to the firm of Joseph & Kirschenbaum to get a free case evaluation today. Learn more at www.jhllp.com, or call to set up your free consultation at 866-348-7394.