Employment Lawyer Blog

A major gender discrimination case against Bentonville, Arkansas based Wal-Mart was settled on March 3rd for $12 million. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had filed the class action against the superstore on behalf of female applicants, who had alleged that they had been systematically denied job opportunities at a warehouse in Wal-Mart's London, Kentucky distribution center.

Wal-Mart allegedly turned away women in favor of 18-to-25 year-old men for the positions - in direct violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Terms of the Settlement

The retail giant will have to pay $11.7 million in compensatory damages and back wages. In addition, Wal-Mart will have to pay $0.25 million in administrative fees. Finally, Wal-Mart must fill the next 50 available positions at the London, Kentucky warehouse with female applicants; subsequent to that, female hires must make up a substantial proportion (fixed by the settlement) of new hires moving forward.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell approved the settlement, which applies to all female job applicants at the London, Kentucky warehouse from 1998 through 2005. A plant administrator will oversee the dispersal of the compensation. The EEOC will adjudicate whether claimants should receive compensation or back pay.

Although Wal-Mart has often been in the news as a defendant in cases of alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, race discrimination, and harassment, the giant retailer is not the only large company to come under the gun for these and other employment discrimination allegations.

If you or a co-worker has experienced employment discrimination - whether you work at a boutique New York firm or a large corporation in America's heartland, the experienced attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can be of service. Please connect with our professional litigators at www.jhllp.com or (866) 348-7394 for a confidential and free consultation.

New York sexual harassment and gender discrimination are prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as by New York State's own anti-harassment laws. This article will explore the concept of NY sexual harassment and introduce you to some generally accepted strategies for preventing it and ending it at the workplace.

The legal definition of "sexual harassment" is purposefully ambiguous. In general, any workplace conduct or sexual advance that is not welcome or that turns the work environment into a hostile or intimidating place to be can be construed as harassment. The line between appropriate and inappropriate conduct depends closely on context.

What might be acceptably flirtatious at one job might be inappropriate harassment at another. To illustrate the concept further, let's take a look at some real world examples of what would likely be construed as NYC sexual harassment:

• A sales manager demeans female customers to his subordinates by insulting or mocking their figures and style of dress.
• A bus boy gropes a waitress - pitching her buttocks or grabbing at her chest.
• A boss posts sexually explicit cartoons on his subordinate's desk as a joke.
• An employee forwards a lewd email around to co-workers that contains sexually explicit pictures or language.
• A secretary at an accounting firm becomes uncomfortable when her supervisors spend half an hour exchanging dirty jokes in the break room.

While most victims of sexual harassment are women; men can suffer harassment as well:

• For a fictitious example of female-to-male sexual harassment, see the 2009 Sandra Bullock movie, "The Proposal."
• For a real world example of NYC male-to-male sexual harassment, see the allegations recently filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Sparks Restaurant in NYC.

Preventing harassment is an ongoing challenge for employers and employees alike.

One good place to start is a clear and well publicized policy. Employers and direct supervisors should know this policy inside and out and should convey it effectively to subordinates. Policy must be reasonable, regularly reviewed, and unambiguous.

Effective training and retraining can also prevent the spread of sexual harassment in workplaces. Unfortunately, office cultures can get corrupted by the "meme" of New York City sexual harassment. This social virus (if you will) then causes problems. For instance, some Wall Street companies are notorious for cultivating chauvinistic, if not outright, misogynistic atmospheres. Workers and supervisors who learn in this kind of environment may come to believe that it's socially acceptable to sexually harass co-workers, tell dirty jokes, and so forth.

To fix sexual harassment problems endemic to certain companies, therefore, entire office cultures may need to be re-engineered. That's no small task.

If you have been a victim of NYC sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or retaliation - or if you know a co-worker who needs help - the legal experts of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help. Call us at (866) 348-7394, or connect with us through our website: www.jhllp.com. We can make a real difference and help you get compensation for lost wages or other problems you have suffered.

It seems like every day in the news we read about new cases of ferociously unfair workplace discrimination in New York, as well as harassment, wage and hour violations, and retaliation. Unfortunately, by the time that independent parties are brought in to resolve workplace frustrations, it is often too late to avoid lawsuits and litigation. But could there be a simpler way to preserve employee rights and protect the business interests of employers?

Perhaps.

One new method has shown startlingly positive results in a number of industries. It can be summed up in single word: Awareness.

Simply put, when workers become more aware of one another's concerns, sensitivities, and proclivities, uncomfortable situations seem easier to resolve. This may sound like common sense, but it is common sense uncommonly practiced.

How might increased awareness of others lead to problem resolution?

1) Awareness leads to empathy.

Often, in workplace situations, people have a 'me against the world' mentality. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- after all, we live in a capitalistic culture that has generated amazing results. But when the pursuit of wealth and power becomes the singular objective of workers and bosses alike, it can lead to insensitivities that can corrupt institutions and ultimately drag down efficiency. For instance, suppose a manager at a bank ruthlessly pursues policies to squash his subordinates and better his peers for the sole purpose of climbing the corporate ladder. He might ultimately get promoted. But his behavior diminishes his corporation. As a result, everybody loses in the end. Moreover, this ruthless pursuit of power blinds him to legitimate concerns that his subordinates may have, including concerns about untoward harassment and discrimination.

Conversely, consider a manager who cultivates awareness of his coworkers and subordinates. He may develop 'win-win' solutions to common on-the-job problems. As a result, he will likely be more sensitive to concerns about harassment and discrimination, be faster at resolving these situations and therefore be more effective at advancing not only his interests but also the interests of his colleagues and his organization.

2) Greater awareness breeds greater mutual trust.

In modern corporations, depersonalization of employees is almost always a big problem. But by practicing awareness of those around you, you can identify problems proactively and nip them in the bud.

3) Awareness reduces stress.

A plethora of studies shows that mindfulness can reduce stress. This in turn can lead to a cascade of health benefits, including reduced cortisone levels, a higher level of fulfillment and satisfaction, and a greater sense of control and perspective. An ancillary benefit of practicing awareness of your moods and concerns -- and the moods and concerns of others -- is that you should be more alert at identifying office discrimination, harassment, and other misbehaviors before they become major problems.

For legal help resolving difficult or even intractable-seeming hostile workplace problems, contact the lawyers here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP at www.jhllp.com or dial us toll free at (866) 348 7394.

New York employment discrimination and retaliation cases drain millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours every year. What about the Big Apple makes some employees particularly vulnerable to being discriminated against on the job?

Here is some speculation:

1. To live well in New York City, one typically needs a lot of money.

New York City is notorious for being an incredibly expensive place to live -- particularly if you want to rent or buy in Manhattan or in the nicer neighborhoods of Brooklyn. Moreover, the city serves as the financial hub for the entire continent of North America.

With so much pressure to earn more, it's unsurprising that many workers "put up with" more discomforts and inconveniences than do their counterparts in Small Town USA.

2. Quality labor abounds.

Unlike in small towns, where good labor may be hard to come by, in New York City, great workers typically abound. When you feel like "just a number" -- and when your coworkers and bosses and clients see you as "just a number" as well -- this depersonalization sets the stage for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

3. Company policies often confuse.

Different anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies exist in different NY industries. If you switch companies (or divisions), you may have to adjust to new standards for what constitutes appropriate behavior, dress, and decorum. This buzzing confusion can lead to a misreading of signals and body language which in turn can lead to the committing of interpersonal offenses, including harassment and discrimination.

4. New York City's diversity has pluses and minuses.

For over a century, New York has constituted a melting pot. People from hundreds of different ethnicities mingle in the streets and work shoulder to shoulder. While this co-mingling no doubt diffuses certain racial and ethnic tensions, it also ironically has the capacity to increase tensions under certain circumstances and in the minds of some people.

Consider: Say your boss once had a terrible encounter with a Bangladeshi years ago on the NYC streets. If you also happen to be Bangladeshi, chances are that your boss may associate you with that sour encounter, and he may unconsciously thus become biased against you. This bias in turn can lead to racial discrimination.

5. The city can be difficult to navigate for older workers and disabled workers.

New York disability discrimination and age discrimination problems can emerge when a work environment presents physical challenges. A company that operates on the 11th floor of a building that has no elevator, for instance, may be loathe to hire a disabled worker who would otherwise be qualified, even if that decision violates the law. 

In other words, New York business owners and bosses can be tempted to subtly discriminate to gain what they might perceive to be a competitive edge.

6. The stress of the city can bleed into the workplace.

Honking taxicabs, smog, flashing billboards, and general hustle and bustle can raise cortisol levels and lead to more easily frayed nerves, which in turn can create conditions in which sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation can flourish.

For help dealing with your New York City employment discrimination situation, get in touch with the lawyers of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP at once by dialing (866) 348-7394 or by checking out our online resources at www.jhllp.com.

On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, the Salt Lake City, Utah City Council passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and housing. The seven member Council unanimously passed the ordinance, which makes it illegal for employers or landlords to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. Given that the Church of Latter-Day Saints' (LDS) elders eagerly backed California's Proposition 8 last November -- which banned gay marriage in California -- the sudden support for gay rights has been viewed as a shocking turnaround.

Although progressive activists in California and Utah alike hailed the Church's support of these anti-discrimination measures, some have wondered whether the shifting stance reflects a change of a philosophy or a calculated political decision designed to appease moderates who were turned off by the Church's anti-gay marriage crusade in 2008.

The ordinance only applies to Salt Lake City -- and not to the state of Utah as a whole -- but it reflects similar ordinances passed in dozens of cities across the nation. It may portend a growing intolerance of discrimination towards gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals. The ordinance will go into effect in April 2010.

Likely, the Church's decision reflects a kind of split thinking that many conservatives have about the subject of equality for people of different sexual orientations. On the one hand, the LDS and other conservative groups remain unified in their opposition to gay marriage: witness the recent defeat of a pro gay marriage bill in Maine in the November 2009 elections, and consider the Church's statement reaffirming its commitment to 'defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.'

On the other hand, there simultaneously appears to be a trend towards recognizing the unfairness of employment, harassment and housing discrimination against gays and lesbians. How this cognitive dissonance plays out remains to be seen.

If you believe that you or a friend or a loved one has been the victim of discrimination based on sexual orientation, the attorneys here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, and Kirschenbaum can help. Connect with our legal associates right now by dialing (866) 348-7394, or learn more about our firm at www.jhllp.com.

Prior to filing an employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim, a claimant must assemble a strong evidence-based case. Thus, it's useful to review precisely what constitutes a violation of workplace law and what's just annoying behavior.

Federal law prohibits discrimination based on a variety of factors, including religion, race, sex, national origin, age, and sexual orientation. However, the law does not prohibit all forms of unpleasant behavior or speech. For instance, the annoying contact has to be 'pervasive' and it has to be significant enough to be construed as creating a hostile work environment.

What kinds of actions might be impermissible?

• Coworker repeatedly sends you sexually suggestive emails or pictures after you've requested him to stop.
• New boss makes racist or sexist remarks to subordinates; and uses "loaded" terms to describe someone's ethnicity, gender identity or ancestry.
• A coworker inappropriately touches or threatens to touch you.

Isolated incidents may not be actionable. Not all teasing will be considered harassment. Certain casual but offensive comments -- which are not intended to be heard by others -- may also not be actionable. Private remarks made on blogs or on social network sites like MySpace and Facebook may or may not constitute a problem.

Legal scholars hotly debate many of these issues. At precisely what point do free speech and privacy rights trump the rights of employees to work in an environment free of teasing, tormenting, and gossip?

Harassing contact must be 'unwelcomed.' For instance, if your boss flirts with you; and you respond by returning the flirtation and perhaps even initiating a relationship, that may not be considered harassment, although the legal issues that can crop up when a boss and subordinate start dating can get quite complicated.

If you or a family member or friend has been victimized by harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other problems stemming from a hostile work environment, and you want sound advice about whether or not legal action may be a solid option, connect today with the attorneys here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Your consultation with us is free and confidential, and you can call us any time at our toll free hotline, (866) 348-7394, or visit us online at www.jhllp.com.

Sexual harassment is a serious problem at many American workplaces. Here are six solutions for how to deal with harassment or discrimination if and when it arises.

1. Understand what constitutes sexual harassment.

Any number of acts can be construed to be sexual harassment, including:

• Unwelcome sexual advances at work
• Implicit or explicit tying of terms of your employment to your response to sexual advances
• An employer or colleague cultivating a hostile or intimidating environment

Not only do you have the right to work in an environment in which you won't be sexually harassed, but you also have the right to claim damages if your employer retaliates against you in any way for complaining about harassment.

2. Speak up.

One great way to protect yourself - legally and emotionally - from harassment is to express your feelings to colleagues and supervisors. If a co-worker harasses you (for instance, by sending you sexually explicit e-mails or telling raunchy jokes), tell your supervisor. If a boss harasses you, contact someone in the HR department. If your HR board doesn't help (or doesn't exist), contact your city's labor board.

3. Write things down.

After a disturbing incident, the last thing most of us want to do is dwell on what happened. Write down your account right after an incident occurs. After all, memory can distort over time, and the longer you wait to write down details, the less weight your story may ultimately have. To that end, time and date stamp your journal. And don't leave the journal at work where whoever is harassing you may be able to find and destroy it.

4. Get corroborating evidence, if possible.

If a co-worker saw you being harassed, ask him or her to write down his/her account. If your harasser sent you a weird e-mail or left a disturbing voice message, archive that evidence. The more physical manifestations of the inappropriate behavior you can produce, the stronger your potential case.

5. Let go of self blame.

Often, victims of harassment or discrimination blame themselves. A harasser may make fun of your clothes, your looks, or your character and hit close to home. As a result, you may come to believe that the harasser is partially justified. Remember: hostile, offensive, or intimidating remarks or actions are not legal and are not your fault.

6. Get help from sexual harassment and discrimination specialists.

Don't fight this battle on your own. Resources abound for victims of harassment and discrimination. The National Women's Law Center (202-588-5180), the U.S Department of Labor Women's Bureau (1-800-827-5335), the National Association of Working Women (1-800-522-0925), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1-800-669-4000) all provide ample resources.

If you need legal assistance, consider the firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Our attorneys focus on sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation law, and we have won numerous landmark decisions. Find out more about our firm at www.jhllp.com, or dial (866) 348-7394 to schedule a free confidential consultation.

Dell Inc., the second largest computer manufacturer on earth, has settled a massive gender discrimination class action suit for $9.1 million, according to recently released reports.

Origins of the Suit

The legal action commenced in October 2008, when Jill Hubley, a human resources manager at one of Dell's offices, alleged that the company discriminated against its female employees in terms of its promotion strategies and compensation packages. An AP report noted that another HR manager, Laura Guenther, subsequently joined Hubley in the lawsuit. According to the terms of the settlement, $5.6 million will be paid out to the claimants to cover damages and legal fees. The rest of the money -- $3.5 million -- will be passed along to female employees at Dell to raise their base pay rate to be equal to that of their male co-workers. In addition, the company will look to outside consultants to review its hiring and promotion practices and will audit all relevant employee salaries. Any woman who was employed -- even for a day -- by Dell between February 14, 2007 and December 31, 2008 may be eligible for settlement money.

Identifying and challenging gender discrimination can be emotionally taxing and logistically difficult, even if you're facing a relatively small and legally unprepared adversary. When you're battling against a company like Dell or another giant corporation, the odds may be stacked against you even more. However, with sound and principled legal counsel, you may be able to collect damages for the discrimination and/or retaliation. Look to the firm of Joesph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum to advise you. Our firm boasts extensive experience in the domains of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and we offer free and confidential consultations for prospective claimants. Call us now at 1-866-348-7394, or visit us at www.jhllp.com.

New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg answered another round of questions on Monday pertaining to a 2007 class action suit against his former company, Bloomberg LP, for gender discrimination. The class action involves more than 80 women who claim that they were discriminated against for being pregnant. Although Mayor Bloomberg has no active involvement in the day-to-day management of the company, he maintains an 85% ownership stake.

Due to the power of his public office, the Mayor has been closely scrutinized by the press and by women's groups about this gender discrimination matter. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) deposed him for about the three and a half hours on Monday -- a full hour less than he had been deposed previously. Case observers believe this will be the last time the Mayor will make on-record statements about the discrimination matter. A spokesman for the EEOC appeared disappointed and described Mr. Bloomberg's testimony as "dismissive and disinterested."

If you or a family member has experienced gender discrimination or harassment at your place of employment -- be it in New York City or elsewhere across the country -- you can turn to the highly regarded law firm of Joesph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Please find out more about our reputation for client service and results at www.jhllp.com, or call one of our representatives at 1-866-348-7394 ASAP to book a free and confidential consultation.

According to an Associate Press article dated July 9th, 2009, the federally run Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has won a $250,000 judgment in a sexual discrimination and retaliation case involving a temp agency.

According to the report, a company called Preferred Labor LLC - an employment company based out of North Carolina - had illegally catered to customer requests for male-only temps for certain jobs. One woman alleged that, after she complained about the company's gender discrimination tactics, her superiors punished her -- in direct violation of federal prohibitions against employer retaliation.

Preferred Labor is no longer in business, and it has sold off its component parts to an outside employment agency. If the company wished to start up again, it would have to pay for and conduct manager and employee training in anti-discrimination.

Unfortunately, many temporary employees -- like the Worcester women who suffered both discrimination and retaliation in this case -- are only dimly aware of their rights under employment law. Even temporary hires and independent contractors cannot be subjected to harassment or discrimination on the job. To find out more about your legal rights or to press for liability against your employer or former employer, connect with the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP today.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided May 18 that women may not sue over retirement benefits that reflect their companies' history of pregnancy discrimination, the Associated Press reported May 18. The case pits four women retired from AT&T whose benefits are lowered because they took pregnancy leave before federal law required pregnancy leave to be treated like other temporary disabilities. The seven-justice majority agreed with AT&T that because the plan was legal during the plaintiffs' leaves, the lowered benefits do not violate the law.

The four plaintiffs in the pregnancy discrimination lawsuit took maternity leave between 1968 and 1972, at a time when AT&T did not credit maternity leave toward pensions. In 1979, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires companies to treat pregnancy leave like other temporary disability leaves. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which made gender discrimination illegal. It requires employers to treat pregnancy like any other temporary disability, which means allowing the same kind of leave, the same kinds of accommodations, the same benefits and the same policy for holding jobs open. Employers also cannot make hiring or firing decisions based solely on pregnancy. And as with other employment rights laws, employers may not retaliate against workers for exercising their rights under the Act, or supporting others who did so.

Under that law, the maternity leaves would have counted toward the plaintiffs' pensions. The plaintiffs argued that the pre-1979 discrimination was covered by the law because they are receiving pensions now, well after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act took effect.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The language of the Act did not make it retroactive, the majority wrote, nor does it apply to rules that are still in effect but were set before the Act. The two dissenters wrote that the majority misunderstood what Congress intended with the law. Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- the court's only woman -- wrote that Congress did not intend any further pay discrimination against pregnant women when it passed the law.

The pregnancy discrimination attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP are disappointed by this ruling, which allows the effects of discrimination to continue 30 years after the discrimination itself was made illegal. After all, AT&T could have recalculated pension benefits for formerly pregnant workers anytime during the last three decades. The ruling means that millions of retiring Baby Boomers, many of whom had children before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, must rely on their employers to do the right thing when they retire.

Victims of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation have the right to file a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit claiming compensation for unpaid wages, benefits and other financial losses. If you believe you were treated unfairly at work because of a pregnancy, we would like to help. For a consultation with the national pregnancy discrimination attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, please contact us through the Internet or call toll-free at 1-866-348-7394 from anywhere in the United States.

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a sex discrimination lawsuit by a Maine woman who claims she was denied a promotion after supervisors found out that she has four children. The lawsuit was filed by Laurie Chadwick, an employee of health insurer Anthem Health Plans of Maine (formerly Wellpoint). According to the Wall Street Journal, court papers say Chadwick had worked for Anthem for nine years, with good reviews, and been promoted once before the incident.

When another promotion became available, Chadwick applied. However, the WSJ wrote, the hiring manager discovered shortly before deciding that Chadwick had four children -- an 11-year-old and six-year-old triplets. The promotion went to another candidate, one with less experience and lower scores on performance evaluations. The hiring manager allegedly told Chadwick that "It was nothing you did or didn't do. It was just that you're going to school, you have the kids and you just have a lot on your plate right now." Chadwick filed a gender discrimination lawsuit, which was thrown out by a federal district court in Maine but reinstated by the federal appeals court. Anthem denies that there was any discrimination.

An April 28 story in the Boston Globe says that Chadwick's case was the first in Maine to raise the issue of sex discrimination when an employer assumes a woman will prioritize family ahead of work. However, the issue of "caregiver discrimination" -- employment discrimination against people who are responsible for taking care of a young, elderly or disabled person -- is not new. In fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued new employer guidelines in late April explaining "best practices" for employers whose workers are also caregivers. Those guidelines updated a 2007 document explaining when and how caregiver discrimination may break the law.

No federal law prohibits employment discrimination against caregivers, although the laws of individual states may. (The Maine legislature is now considering such a law.) Rather, the EEOC has written, discrimination against caregivers of any gender may constitute illegal gender discrimination or disability discrimination in the workplace, as would retaliation and creating a hostile work environment. In all cases, the prohibited behavior can be described as stereotyping. It is illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act for employers to discriminate against workers who care for disabled people because of an unfavorable stereotype -- for example, an assumption that the worker might frequently be absent because he or she cares for an aging parent.

Similarly, employers may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they make assumptions about a caregiver based on his or her gender. Like Chadwick, many women face discrimination from employers who assume that their caregiving responsibilities or pregnancy will interfere with their work performance. That's true even when, as may have been the case with Chadwick, the employer believes it's acting in the employee's best interests. Men may also be victims of this unfair gender stereotyping, often when employers assume that men are not or should not be caregivers. Men are entitled to all of the same family and medical leave granted to female employees, except pregnancy leave.

Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP specializes in representing victims of all types of job discrimination. Our gender discrimination lawyers and disability discrimination attorneys represent victims from around the United States, including victims of illegal caregiver discrimination. If you believe your job has suffered because of discrimination in the workplace, including retaliation or creation of a hostile work environment after you reported discrimination, please contact us as soon as possible to learn about your rights and your legal options.

Maya Perez, a transgendered employee of a San Francisco franchise of Burlington Coat Factory, has filed a wrongful termination suit against her employer based on an interpretation of California's 2004 Fair Employment and Housing Act.  

Perez alleges that she was wrongfully terminated from her job after complaining on several occasions of harassment directed at her by both employees and customers.  Perez--who was born a male named "Steven" but who transformed her gender identity beginning in 2001--alleges that she was the victim of pervasive and knowing harassment.  She claims fellow employees groped her, called her slurs like "faggot," and even physically assaulted her.  In addition, she claims to have been the victim of customer aggression.  In one instance, an angry customer threw a table at her; management did little to defend her. 

Even after filing formal complaints with the company's HR chief and the State's Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Perez found no relief from the harassment.  In January 2009, Burlington terminated her employment, provoking her to finally file a discrimination suit.

Perez's case is one of only of a handful of transgender employment discrimination cases currently being litigated. Since plaintiffs, defendants, and judges alike seem to be swimming in uncharted legal waters, it will be interesting to watch whether Perez's matter sets a precedent for how future transgender job discrimination cases might be handled.

In addition to seeking her job back, Perez is also asking for punitive damages, legal fees, and money to compensate for her distress and wages lost.  Perez's case is being handled by the San Francisco Legal Aid Society's Employment Law Center, which also provides legal guidance for many plaintiffs in San Francisco's gay and lesbian community.  

Especially in light of California's recent turn in the spotlight for its passage of Proposition 8 (banning homosexual marriages), this case will likely receive some serious media attention. After all, California has often been a bellwether state for antidiscrimination law; the verdict in this matter could presage how similar cases may be handed across the nation in the nest few years.

A recent court decision in the matter of Williams v. New York City Housing Authority has made it even easier for discriminated-against parties in the city of New York to sue their employers.

Even prior to the verdict in Williams, New York City's human rights law was already widely seen as far more liberal than both State and Federal guidelines. In Williams, the Court interpreted the local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 to expansively redefine the obligations of both employers and employees when it comes to on the job harassment.

The new interpretation will likely have profound consequences for corporate cultures in NYC.  For instance, a NYC employee used to be able to file a discrimination claim only after being the victim of protracted and pervasive harassment.  

Under the new guidelines, however, an employee can file a claim for practically any harassment in excess of "petty slights" and "trivial inconveniences."  Moreover, it's the employer's responsibility--not the employee's--to prove that the harassing conduct was indeed petty/trivial.

The Williams decision has already rippled through the New York City business community and led to institutional changes. Word of mouth reports, for instance, suggest that city officials have seen a marked uptick in the number of discrimination filings.