Employment Lawyer Blog

On May 25th, the New York Times reported that former Arabic language school principal Debbie Almontaser will not file a New York national origin discrimination case against the Department of Education (D.O.E.), despite a Federal Commission's ruling early this year that the D.O.E. had discriminated against her in 2007 by forcing her to resign from her position.

As this blog reported several months ago, Ms. Almontaser had come under fire from the D.O.E. after allegations emerged that she provided support to a group of Arabic women who sold shirts featuring the slogan "Intifada NYC." Ms. Almontaser defended herself in an interview with the New York Post, but the Post allegedly misrepresented what she said in that interview, and the distorted article catalyzed the D.O.E. to take action against her. The Federal Commission found that Ms. Almontaser (who is of Yemeni descent) fell victim to "the very bias that the creation of her school was intended to dispel."

Although many New York national origin discrimination analysts have argued that the ex-principal would have substantial grounds to sue the D.O.E., the former principal decided after consulting with her attorney to forego a suit because, per the New York Times, "there would be too much emotional pain to pursue it." Ms. Almontaser released a public statement: "...additional litigation of the discrimination claim would mean reliving the unfortunate and painful events...it was time for me to move on in my professional and personal life."

Ms. Almontaser's treatment by the press and the D.O.E. sparked an avalanche of hotheaded debate in the media and blogosphere, in part because New York collectively is still trying to work through the emotional fallout of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001.

If you or a person about whom you care has been discriminated against at work on the basis of national origin, race or any other factor, you may have substantial legal recourse to stop inappropriate behavior and seek compensatory damages, including wages lost and opportunities for promotion illegally taken away.

How do you know whether you have a case? The best way is to consult with a results-proven, reliable New York City employment rights attorney. Call the lawyers of Joseph, Hertzfield, Hester & Kirschenbaum ASAP at 866-348-7394, or visit us on the web at www.jhllp.com, to explore your legal options to find a better solution and peace of mind.

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

Religious discrimination against Muslim women wearing a traditional headscarf known as the hijab is a perennial problem, according to officials at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which reports that in the first three months of 2010, more than 40 women in separate incidences complained about discrimination as a result of their wearing hijabs.

For instance, a 19-year old named Naseehah Barlaskar claims that she was denied a job at a local McDonald's in Michigan because she insisted on wearing what her prospective manager called "that thing." In response to this allegation, a McDonald's spokesman issued the following statement: "McDonald's has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination. These allegations are not consistent with our policies."

In San Francisco, a college student named Hani Khan sued a San Francisco clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch. Khan alleges that her supervisors told her to remove her hijab in order to work at the store. She refused the instructions and was subsequently fired. Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to disputes about racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and other employment discrimination. In 2004, A&F had to pay out $50 million to a class of people who brought action via the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Although employment discrimination claims constitute the bulk of hijab-related discrimination complaints, the problem seems to be even broader in scope. For instance, CAIR reports that the Delaware DMV had to apologize to a 16-year-old driver's license applicant after a DMV clerk (inaccurately) told her that she could not wear her hijab in her driver's license photo.

Have you or a family member been victimized by religious or national origin discrimination while on a job interview or at work? If so, get a free and confidential consultation with the expert lawyers at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Go to www.jhllp.com to learn more about the firm, or dial (866)-348-7349 (toll free) to discuss your situation in confidence with a veteran employment discrimination attorney.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has weighed in on touchy, high profile allegations of New York religious employment discrimination related to the case of Debbie Almontaser, a former Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, an Arabic-language public school.

The case has a complex back story, so put your reading glasses on and settle in:

Ms. Almontaser took over as principal of the dual language academy in 2007. Shortly after she took the helm, however, conservative opponents began to brand her as a militant Islamist. She denied the allegations, and independent sources confirmed her moderate political temperament. Nevertheless, a group called Stop the Madrassa Coalition formed and claimed that she was linked to a campaign to sell shirts bearing the slogan "Intifada NYC" -- a reference to a militant Islamic point of view.

Concerned, the Department of Education urged her to do an interview with the New York Post to put the allegations to rest. But the Post took Ms. Almontaser's interview out of context and quoted her "incorrectly and misleadingly" (according to federal judges who later ruled on a lawsuit she brought against The Post for doing this).

Nevertheless, the principal's connection with the Intifada tee-shirts sparked a wave of outrage that eventually led to her ouster as principal. She was moved to a subordinate position, which eventually disappeared. She sought legal action against the New York Department of Education for religious discrimination, and now that the EEOC has finally weighed in, this case could become even more newsworthy. The EEOC ruled that the DOE "succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel" and called for a resolution for Ms. Almontaser to get her job back as well as get $300,000 along with back pay and compensation for legal fees.

If you or a family member or friend has been on the receiving end of religious discrimination at the workplace, you may benefit from the counsel of an experienced employment discrimination attorney. Call (866) 348-7394 or visit www.jhllp.com to connect with the attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum. Our attorneys are experienced in labor law, and we've successfully handled many matters related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage & hour violations.

An EEOC-championed national origin discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart has left the Bentonville, Arkansas-based megastore reeling. According to a February 8th story in the New York Times, a group of West African men allege that a Wal-Mart store in Avon, Colorado fired them because of their race and African heritage.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allegations say that, in January 2009, a new manager took over the Wal-Mart store in Avon and promptly called a meeting of the staff -- many of whom happened to be West African. The manager allegedly said, "I don't like some of the faces I see here. There are people in Eagle County who need jobs." He also allegedly remarked, "Wow, there are a lot of Africans, and I don't like some of the faces I see here."

Subsequent to this manager's takeover, many West African employees were reportedly subject to extra criticism and stiffer workloads. One 61-year old man exhausted himself stacking boxes -- he was not physically capable of doing the work. West African employees also reported that Hispanic and white Wal-Mart associates got to take cigarette breaks, even though they were disallowed short prayer breaks.

A long time assistant night manager was quoted in the New York Times saying that the managers "were trying to get most of the Africans out... a lot of them have been there for a long time. They weren't being treated right."

Wal-Mart is no stranger to employment discrimination lawsuits. The company is currently embroiled in the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of the U.S. The case involves over 1.5 million female employees who currently (or used to) work for the retailer. In 2009, Wal-Mart paid out over $17 million in a separate class action lawsuit brought on behalf of African-American truck drivers.

If you or a co-worker or family member has suffered national origin discrimination on the job, help is a click or a phone call away. The New York City national origin discrimination law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide immediate assistance for your employment-related issue. Head to our website, www.jhllp.com, for lots of free resources about discrimination topics, or call us for a free consultation at (866) 348-7394.

A long smoldering New York race discrimination allegation against the NYC Fire Department has ignited a firestorm of commentary. Judge Nicolas G. Garaufis ruled on January 14th that the NYC Fire Department had intentionally discriminated against applicants based on their race, and that the city must take immediate corrective actions.

The Vulcan Society (an organization of black New York City firefighters) applauded Judge Garaufis' decision to order the city to compensate minority firefighter applicants who applied for positions from the years 1989 to 2002. This would cover around 7,400 applicants, of whom the city is now required to hire 293. These candidates must be black or Hispanic, and some of them must be granted retroactive seniority.

Judge Garaufis stopped short of ordering the Fire Department to install a quota system for hiring minority applicants; instead, he urged all parties to work together to resolve any disputes that might arise in the execution of his orders. Judge Garaufis was quoted in the New York Times: "Achieving these basic aims [ensuring that qualified, diverse individuals come to be accepted as New York City firefighters] will require ongoing oversight, attention to many details and resolution of disputes among the parties." (New York Times; January 21st, 2010).

Allegations of discriminatory testing for firefighters are not unique to New York City. In the reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. New Haven nineteen city firefighters (seventeen of whom are white and two of whom are Hispanic) alleged that the city of New Haven discriminated against them and denied them promotions because of their race--a form of racial discrimination. All had passed a test for promotions to management but city officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who passed the exam had scored high enough to be considered for promotions. The Supreme Court decided (5-4) that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This New Haven case captured the nation's attention last summer when one of the presiding Judges, Sonia Sotomayor, got nominated by President Obama to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you or a loved one has been victimized by racial discrimination, national origin discrimination, or retaliation, legal options abound. To explore your rights and possibilities for recompense, connect with the expert team here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at (866) 348-7394, or send us an email at www.jhllp.com to initiate a free and confidential consultation with one of our top caliber attorneys.

How does race discrimination impact New York City job applicants? Two researchers at Princeton University's Department of Sociology, Devah Pager and Bruce Western, tackled this subject in a new paper entitled Race at Work: Realities of Race and Criminal Record in the NYC Job Market.

Opinion polls indicate that the majority of Americans believe we're living in a land of equal opportunity; a recent Gallop Poll showed that around 75 percent of Americans believes that whites and blacks are treated as equals on the job market.

The authors investigated this belief by following nearly 1,500 entry-level job applicants in New York for nearly a year to determine whether their race/ethnicity would impact their prospects on the job market.

Unfortunately, the study dramatically contradicted the common assumptions. The authors found that African American and Hispanic applicants were 'channeled down.' In other words, they applied for high-level jobs like sales and promotions positions and were shunted to lower-level jobs such as busboys, runners, and dishwashers. White applicants who had a criminal record were also 'channeled down.'

Meanwhile, white applicants who had no criminal record were 'channeled up' -- in other words, offered positions that were higher-level than the positions they applied for.

A clear racial divide emerged. Black applicants were two thirds as successful as their Latino counterparts and only half as successful as white applicants.

This study -- and others like it -- suggests that racial barriers and stereotypes continue to play a profound and pervasive role in American society. From a policy perspective, it suggests that employers and lawmakers should pay extra attention to hidden biases to avoid unfair job channeling, discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

If you or a colleague has been the victim of employment discrimination in New York or retaliation, the firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP may be able to help. Dial us for a free consultation today at (866) 348 7394, or explore our free online resources at www.jhllp.com.

On July 22, a federal judge ruled in a prominent race discrimination case that the New York City Fire Department's old written examinations were biased against minority applicants. Judge Nicolas Garaufis agreed with the Department of Justice, which argued that the exams given by the City from 1999 through 2007 were unfairly biased towards white candidates. The lawsuit bears striking similarities to the reverse discrimination lawsuit filed by New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci against the city of New Haven, Connecticut which captured national media attention due to the fact that one of the appellate judges to rule on the matter, Sonia Sotomayor, was selected as President Obama's first U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

Although the NYFD changed its employment practices in 2007 to recruit more minorities -- indeed, the City spent over $2 million on a recruitment campaign to swell the numbers of minorities in the Fire Department -- representatives of a Black Firefighters Association, the New York Vulcan Society, appeared less than impressed with the attempted fixing of racial discrimination within the ranks. According to a CNN report, the President of the Vulcan Society said of the Fire Department's recent increases in diversity: "If you have abysmal numbers and you increase them slightly, don't applaud yourself like you've done a great job."

In the 21st century, cases of racial discrimination and retaliation on the job can lead to incredible social, moral, and legal complexities. That's why it's so important for potential claimants to retain the services of top-tier attorneys, like the representatives here at Joesph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. To find out more about the firm's extensive and highly successful record at bringing racial discrimination and retaliation cases, head to www.jhllp.com or phone 1-866-348-7394 for immediate assistance.

A chain of nursing homes will pay up to $450,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it punished Hispanic employees for speaking Spanish in the workplace. According to an April 16 article in the Los Angeles Times, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit said Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. enforced its English-only rule with Spanish-speakers but not with those who spoke other languages. This created different terms and conditions of employment for employees of Hispanic origin, a form of illegal national origin employment discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act.

The lead plaintiff, Jose Zazueta, was fired after he warned a co-worker in Spanish to be careful on wet floors he had just mopped. Zazueta, a janitor, speaks only Spanish and could not promise a supervisor that he would speak English at work. Other Spanish-speaking employees complained that they were punished or threatened with punishment for speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking residents of the homes, or for speaking Spanish in the parking lot during breaks. Employees who spoke Tagalog and other languages were not punished. An attorney for the firm denies that it had an English-only rule and said managers encouraged employees to speak any language residents preferred.

Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. reached a settlement with the EEOC that includes a consent decree. Under the terms of the decree, the firm will pay at least $180,000 to 53 current and former employees, provide English classes, conduct annual anti-discrimination training and designate someone to monitor future discrimination complaints.

Unlike employment discrimination based on race, rules about which languages an employee may speak on the job are not always illegal. However, those rules must serve a business purpose, and they must apply equally to all employees. From the description of Skilled Healthcare's conduct in the article, the alleged English-only rule served neither. If nursing home residents feel most comfortable in Spanish, it only makes sense to allow employees to speak with them in that language. And by allegedly singling out Spanish-speakers above other groups that spoke different languages, the firm raised disturbing questions about its motivations.

The Los Angeles Times reported that complaints about national origin discrimination on the job are on the rise, with EEOC filings up 13% between 2007 and 2008. Complaints about English-only rules were only a small part of the national origin discrimination complaints, but still rose about 60% between 2006 and 2008. At Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, we specialize in fighting all types of discrimination and other mistreatment of employees. If you believe you or a loved one may be a victim, please contact us to learn more about how we can help.

Manhattan Supreme Court will hear the case of a latina waitress named Melody Morales, who has accused the Hawaiian Tropic Zone Restaurant of race-based job discrimination. Morales claims that her application for employment was turned down -- despite her "ample" qualifications in the looks department -- due to the fact that she is Puerto Rican and Dominican in ethnicity.

Morales's suit is not the first discrimination or harassment suit to be brought against the Hawaiian Tropic Zone. In a separate matter, four female employees have also sued the restaurant. In their Federal Court case, they're seeking over half a billion dollars in damages. These women claim that the management of the restaurant allowed a chronic and pervasive atmosphere of sexual harassment and discrimination to flourish.

The cases of Melody Morales and these four women force one to conjure up interesting questions of law, ethics, and even feminist theory. On the one hand, Morales and the other four women who've sued the Hawaiian Tropic Zone all ostensibly didn't mind exploiting their bodily assets to earn money. On the other hand, these women refused to endure harassment and bullying without putting up a fight. So their roles as feminist icons (or antifeminist icons, as it were) are complicated and not subject to easy analysis.

What's not complicated is the fact that sexual harassment and race-based discrimination cases like Morales's appear to be a problem endemic to many restaurants. With better legal protections in place for women and minorities -- and better education for managers and owners -- hopefully we will see the number of these types of discrimination suits dwindle.

A new book published by Harvard historian and sociologist William Julius Wilson, entitled "More Than Just Race," has stirred the always-tempestuous cauldron that is our "national discussion about race." Wilson's politically unique prospective offers new insights into the origins of race-based job discrimination. His book examines the legacy of racism in the US from multiple perspectives and comes to a constellation of complex conclusions. Whereas liberal scholars have tended to blame societal racism for impeding the upward mobility of African Americans and other minorities; and conservatives have blamed degenerative "ghetto culture" for impeding employment opportunities for minorities; Wilson takes a broader view.

According to Wilson's philosophy, both demographic and social cultural trends have influenced the trajectory of America's minority communities. In other words, Wilson rejects neither the conservative nor the liberal view. Instead, he synthesizes them into a more unified theory. The result is a fascinating multi-pronged analysis that defies easy stereotyping.

Wilson opines that socioeconomic status can be much more important than race in determining destiny. He acknowledges the many successes of the Civil Rights movement but suggests that those victories may have accidentally (and ironically) made life tougher for very low income African Americans. The so-called "white flight" of upwardly mobile white Americans out of the inner city wasn't purely "white." The exodus included many of the African American community's most promising leaders, businesses, and educators and left the inner city even more "ghetto-ized" than before the Civil Rights movement.

As a result of his contrarian tactics, Wilson has taken flak from intellectuals on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. His non-polemical prose may leave leaders hungry for "red meat" disappointed. But his scholarly analysis of the depth and breadth of inequality in the US cannot be undersold. Some have even compared his work to a book published in the 1960's by the controversial politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who -- at the time -- received tremendous flak for voicing views counter to those held by mainstream liberal theory.

There seem at first glance to be few practical implications for job discrimination and race based employment discrimination theory in Wilson's work. But perhaps deeper analysis will yield more real world applications. At the very least, if he can influence the field of jurisprudence to view job and race discrimination cases in a more historically-grounded light, we will all be the better for his efforts.