Employment Lawyer Blog

Deshon Marman, a football player for the University of New Mexico, recently boarded a U.S. Airways flight out of San Francisco, probably expecting a mundane trip. But a surprising series of turns placed Marman at the center of a provocative racial discrimination case...

According to an Associated Press report, Marman had been wearing "saggy pants." Airline officials asked him to pull up his pants, since he allegedly was "exposing a body part." Marman refused, repeatedly. Ultimately, the U.S. Airways captain ordered Marman to leave the flight. He refused. The airline called the authorities. Marman was arrested and charged with "trespassing, battery of a police officer and obstruction." Prosecutors later dropped the charges.

That could easily have been the end of the story, in which case we probably would not be blogging about it. However, Marman wanted revenge. His lawyers have now accused U.S. Airways of racial discrimination: an accusation that's stirred up fire and brimstone in the blogosphere. Consider these anonymous reader comments from www.wowt.com:

• "Debbie" wrote: "there should be a law enforcing these little thugs to pull up their pants. I am sick of the indecent exposure when out with my family."

• "Andy" said: "there is plenty of white thug wannabes running around wearing saggy pants. No racial discrimination there."

• "I Am Black, Too" wrote: "anything to get a few bucks from the airlines!!!"

It may be possible to find supportive comments (from Marman's perspective) online. But the general point here is that, when we read stories about racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and workplace mistreatment, we tend to have very visceral reactions. We "know in our guts" what's just and what's not. We also enjoy freely dispensing this wisdom.

Our impressions about the case might be right. Or they might not be. And this can lead us into dangerous territory. If we guess "right" about a situation, no harm done.

But if we guess wrong -- leap to the wrong judgment and become deaf and blind to evidence to the contrary -- the consequences can be surprisingly unpleasant.

Here's an example of how this kind of "I already know the truth, so don't confuse me with facts" thinking can create problems. Let's say your boss harasses you. You complain. But the boss cleverly responds by concocting a story that makes you sound like a whiner, embellisher, or even flat out liar. The facts don't support this, obviously. But if someone in H.R. buys into the boss's argument and then refuses to hear your counterargument ("I already know the truth, so don't confuse me with facts!"), you may hesitate to seek a quick and just resolution to your problem and have trouble getting the behavior to stop.

All of this is to say that you need to protect yourself by getting smart, ethical representation as quickly as possible to preserve your rights, reputation, and peace of mind. Set up a free consultation with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum by visiting www.jhllp.com or by calling us at 866-348-7394.

Bravo's Real Housewives of New York City is a crucible of un-pretty human emotions and interactions. And now one of the stars of the cast, Cindy Barshop, has been hit with a racial discrimination lawsuit. Barshop is an entrepreneur who owns Completely Bare spas. Altovise Collier, one of her employees (and also a costar on Real Housewives), has leveled accusations that "she was tormented [at work] and then wrongfully terminated because she is black."

Reality TV Magazine summarized the situation this way: "Collier says that Barshop underpaid her, only giving her half the $700 a week salary and paying her in cash. Without a paystub, Altovise claims that she was unable to lease or rent an apartment, leaving her to rely on friends who let her sleep on their couches." Collier also claimed that the employees at Completely Bare joked that she had been hired simply to "inject some color" into the staff and was essentially hazed "like I was in some sort of sorority." Collier approached Barshop about the alleged mistreatment; one week later, she was fired. The mom of two has so far denied Ms. Collier's claims and insists that she fired the aesthetician "because of the quality of her work."

As is often the case in heated battles over allegations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, wage and hour violations, and retaliation, this debate boils down to a "he said, she said" type argument. If you or a coworker or a family member has been mistreated at work - whether you work at a fancy restaurant, beauty parlor, or machining shop - the more evidence you can collect and protect, the better.

For instance, say someone sent you a harassing email: print out that email and store it in a safe place - like your home safe deposit box. Or, say a coworker made harassing comments to you: write down exactly what that person said, including the context, location, etc. The longer you wait to record eyewitness testimony or your own recollections of an event, the more difficult it may be to use that evidence to leverage compensation and justice.

It may also behoove you to connect with an experienced employment lawyer. The team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, LLP can provide a free and confidential case evaluation. Call the firm toll free at 866-348-7394, or learn more about your potential options at www.jhllp.com.

Victims of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and other workplace violations often feel fairly confident that the perpetrators "knew what they were doing." A boss, for instance, who makes lascivious suggestions to a secretary, clearly understands that he is engaging in illegal or at the very least untoward behavior. A plant manager who intentionally demotes (or fails to promote) an African-American might not admit out loud that he is "racially discriminating" - but in his heart of hearts, he is clearly aware of what he's doing - and that it's wrong.

Right?

Perhaps... but perhaps not.

Clearly, many cases are cut and dry. Some superiors who mistreat their workers just don't care, or they think they can "get away with it." But others may simply be running unconscious scripts or deferring to what they perceive to be the normal culture of their industry. The unconscious forces that play on all of us - employers and employees alike - are quite profound.

If you take a look at some of Abraham Lincoln's statements about African-Americans -- even just a few years before the Civil War, you might be shocked at how "racist" Lincoln comes across. Here's a real quote from the 16th President:

"While [blacks and whites] do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Remember: this is the man who literally put his life and his country on the line to liberate African-Americans from their shackles. The cultural influences on the way Lincoln thought about race were so powerful that they locked him into a certain way of thinking.

We often tend to demonize the people who do the harassing or discrimination as monsters and uncaring and evil people. And their actions and comments - intentional or not, conscious or not - can certainly have monstrous effects. But as the eminent psychologist Dr. Marshall Rosenberg -- Founder of a school of thought known as Nonviolent Communication (NVC) -- puts it, we are often so blinded by the "enemy images" we have of one another that we fail to see the broader pathologies at work in any given situation.

For instance, say your boss screams at you every morning if you make her coffee even slightly wrong. You might be tempted to think that the woman is crazy - or that she is harassing you or discriminating against you. And, indeed, she may be. But once you get away from the "enemy images" you have of her, you may see that she is concurrently responding to pressures from her superiors or she is simply imitating cultural norms of her industry. For instance, as the Kevin Spacey movie Swimming With Sharks illustrates, executives in the entertainment industry can often adopt terrifying and dictatorial personas - not because these people are intrinsically dictatorial but because they are, for whatever reason, attempting to mimic an archetypal "Hollywood exec" persona.

A quality, experienced law firm, such as Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can work with you to identify and put an end to workplace misbehavior and mistreatment. For a free consultation today, call 866-348-7394, or review the firm's resources at www.jhllp.com.

According to an April 25th article in the Hartford Courant, last year, employees filed nearly 100,000 complaints of workplace discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) - "an all-time high."

More than 33,000 complaints were specifically for retaliation, which has now surpassed "racial discrimination" as the number one EEOC complaint. The EEOC also received high numbers of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, disability and national origin, and religious discrimination complaints last year.

A spokesperson for Connecticut's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), Jim O'Neill, blamed the spike on the recession: "The economy is bad and people are desperate not to lose their jobs, so they are filing complaints they would not necessarily have made in the past."

The Courant, however, also quotes an EEOC spokesperson, James Ryan, who cautioned analysts not to over-interpret the spike: "The fiscal year charge data can tell us a lot, but it does not tell us why there was an increase in a given charge or about the cause for the filing of particular charges."

The Courant's analyst speculates that the rise in retaliation filings could be attributable to "shifting legal strategies by plaintiffs' lawyers."

The swelling number of complaints has some policymakers alarmed. Will all this legal action help employees and make the system fairer? Or will it simply glut the court systems and create an unnecessary burden on employers who are already struggling with a tough economy?

It's difficult to answer these questions objectively, since one's perspective will color one's read of the data. For instance, if you're an advocate for workers' rights, you may look at the spike in EEOC filings and conclude that employers are giving their workers short shrift and cutting corners to survive in the troubled economy. On the other hand, the data could be read differently. Perhaps employers are acting like they always did... but workers are now (for whatever reason) far less tolerant of bad behavior or mistreatment than they had been in the past.

Pulling back from the policy debate and regardless of whether there are more or less issues being reported, it's important to ground this in practical terms if you or someone you care about has been victimized by racial discrimination, retaliation, or any other workplace violation. The legal team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide high-caliber assistance in such matters. Connect today for a free and confidential consultation at www.jhllp.com or (866) 348-7394.

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, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that McFadden's Restaurant & Salon has resolved a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by bartender Michael Bolden.

Bolden started working at the bar in 2007 while studying law at Temple University. After noticing what he believed to be discriminatory policies - he alleged that the bar made a push to cater specifically to white patrons starting in August 2010 - Bolden got entangled in unsavory email and text message exchanges with his managers. One manager, Walt Wyrsta, sent several inflammatory messages, including one that read: "We don't want black people, we are a white bar!" Upon internal investigation, McFadden's fired Wyrsta.

According to the terms of the settlement, McFadden's will hire an HR consultant to enforce nondiscrimination policies and establish a confidential hotline for workers to report future complaints of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation. McFadden's also must report on its progress to the court every quarter for a full year.

Bolden, who now serves as a lawyer for Community Legal Services, a local non-profit that gives legal services to the poor, elected not to receive any compensation as part of the settlement. He said: "My goal is to effectuate changes at McFadden's that will positively impact race relations." McFadden's majority shareholder issued a statement of thanks to Bolden for alerting the company to the discrimination and said "race discrimination at McFadden's 3rd Street is not acceptable and will not be tolerated."

Often, cases of racial discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation can fester for months if not years. Victims may feel like that their rights have been compromised and that no one can end the tyrannical policies or punish offenders. Fortunately, victims of on-the-job mistreatment have a key resource, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Learn more about what JHLLP can do for you at www.jhllp.com, or schedule a free consultation by calling 866-348-7394.

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has filed a religious discrimination suit on behalf of Christopher Woodson, a Rastafarian who allegedly did not get hired as a mover because of his long dreadlocked Rastafarian hair.

According to an AP article, Woodson applied to work for Lawrence Transportation Systems in May 2008. But the company denied him a chance to be a loader because of their "grooming policies." According to a statement provided by the company's lawyer, "[Woodson's] hair was down to the middle of his back, and he was asked to get it cut to about shirt collar length." The attorney said that, since loaders work closely with customers, the official policy stipulates "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed." Hiring someone who looks like Woodson, in other words, would cause the company "undue hardship" and a loss of business.

The EEOC has counter-argued that Rastafarians "view growing their hair unbridled as a tenet of their religion." Therefore, the company's decision not to hire Woodson violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC wants Lawrence Transportation to pay for Woodson's back pay as well as pay punitive damages and recalibrate its hiring policies.

As this story illustrates nicely, cases of religious discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, and retaliation can get quite complex. The law is full of nuances. And cases which may seem to be "straightforward" examples of employment discrimination or harassment may be far more layered than they initial appear to be in media reports.

To that end, if someone in your life has experienced workplace religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or another kind of mistreatment, it's worth your while to get an objective legal opinion about whether you have a case -- and, if so, about how you should proceed. Connect with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum today for a free consultation - dial 866-348-7394, or visit www.jhllp.com.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released a report on 2009 Muslim-American religious employment discrimination complaints: the agency found a disturbing trend. According to the data, in 2009, Muslims filed nearly 1,490 job-related discrimination complaints - marking the fifth consecutive year that this number has increased. Mark Benjamin, a reporter for Salon.com, talked to Arab-American Anti Discrimination Community Director Abed Ayoub about the trend line. Per Ayoub: "I am not the least bit surprised... the data just reaffirms what we see... employment discrimination is a priority issue."

In the Salon.com article, Benjamin points out that the EEOC's complaint numbers (from Muslims, regarding employment discrimination) spiked from 2000 to 2002, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They went from just 557 in 2000 to nearly 1,500 in 2002. But after 2002, the number of complaints dropped precipitously, reaching a low in 2004 of 694.

So what can account for the near doubling in complaints from 2004 to 2009? Some analysts suggest that, perhaps, more victims of religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation are feeling more comfortable making allegations. Other experts suggest that a wave of recent xenophobic sentiment may be driving the trend. In other words, perhaps de facto religious discrimination is on the rise in American workplaces.

Still other analysts believe that the trend may be tied into general economic malaise. For instance, social psychology studies show that when societies go through severe economic downturns (e.g. recessions, depressions, etc), xenophobia in said societies tends to increase. The most obvious explanation for this is that the disempowered workforce uses scapegoating as a means of deflecting feelings of frustration, anger and disempowerment.

In any event, if you or someone you care about has been the victim of religious discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or any other kind of workplace mistreatment, you deserve solid legal input. Trust the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum to provide a confidential and no obligation consultation. Visit www.jhllp.com to learn more, or call the firm at 866-348-7394 to schedule your consultation now.

A three-year battle over New York racial discrimination has finally come to a close, as a US District Court Judge awarded current and former African-American employees of Elmer W. Davis Inc., (a Rochester, NY based roofing company) $1 million pursuant to charges that African-American employees had been singled out for mistreatment over many years.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit back in 2007 after Samuel Crenshaw, a former roofer, came forward with allegations that Elmer Davis employees had made threats against him and called him racial slurs. Other African-American employees also complained about mistreatment. Dilanjan Jackson, another ex-employee, was quoted saying: "I was called a Hebrew, the N-word, and a drug dealer." When Jackson reported these problems to supervisor, the manager "laughed at my face and I was laid off." Another employee, Phil Byford, alleged that his supervisor had sprayed him with tar.

Elmer W. Davis Inc. is the biggest New York roofing contractor with revenues approaching $30 million annually. In response to the verdict, the company maintained that the allegations of racial discrimination were untrue. CEO Jeff Davis said that the firm capitulated to the EEOC settlement because "we simply do not have the unlimited resources and deep pockets that the federal government has to continue litigating."

In addition to having to pay out $1 million to African-American employees, Davis Inc. has agreed to (per the AP) "use seniority as the basis for layoffs and employees recalls, to make a good faith effort to hire qualified African-American for foremen and supervisory positions, and to provide anti-discrimination training to employees."

Overcoming racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation can be challenging, even if you know that wrongdoing has been perpetrated against you and/or your coworkers. Fortunately, there are great resources available to help you fight back. For a free and confidential consultation about your potential New York workplace discrimination case, get in touch with attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum by dialing 866-348-7349 or emailing the firm through its official website, www.jhllp.com.

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.