Employment Lawyer Blog

The Washington Examiner reports that a jury has weighed in favor of the claimants in a profound racial discrimination and retaliation case involving five black police officers in Washington D.C. The $900,000 verdict aims to compensate the officers, who worked for the First District's Focus Mission Unit - a top level vice squad. Their commanding officer, Lieutenant Wilkins, allegedly engaged in racial discrimination back in 2006. On June 16, 2006 the five officers got together and wrote a letter complaining about what was going on in their department. Several months later, the officers got targeted - transferred to lower positions and taken out of their unit.

More disturbingly, their commanders allegedly did not tell the 5 officers about armed robbery suspects around them and also withheld info about critical observation posts. In addition to demoting/transferring the elite officers out of their unit, the upper echelon of the force moved Wilkins into "a more prestigious position," according to the Examiner.

The jury believed the claimants' argument that retaliation occurred in response to the anonymous letter (and follow-up official complaint) of racial discrimination. That said, a spokeswoman for the D.C. police told the Examiner that the department will likely appeal the decision.

As this story shows, racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation can rear its head even in institutions designed specifically to protect the public interest. If you or a loved one or co-worker has experienced something like this - such as being demoted or fired for complaining about unfair treatment at work or hostile comments from your boss - you may be entitled to significant compensation and other legal remedies.

The attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you explore your rights. For a free and zero-obligation consultation, dial 1-866-348-7394 right now, or review www.jhllp.com for more info about the attorneys and firm's philosophy.

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

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.

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.

An EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) racial discrimination lawsuit leveled against the Albertsons grocery chain has resulted in an $8.9 million payout to nearly 170 Hispanic and African American plaintiffs who had alleged that they had been taunted based on their ethnicity and forced to look at racist graffiti plastered all over company restrooms.

All told, three lawsuits were leveled against the Denver based grocery chain. According to a December 16th AP article, the distribution of moneys will depend on the severity of the racial discrimination/retaliation, the number of years worked, and other factors. Payouts will range from $4,500 to hundreds of thousand of dollars.

The EEOC alleged that Albertsons supervisors not only did not stop the taunting or clean up the racially insensitive graffiti -- which included swastikas and comments about lynching -- but they also actively 'participated in it.' Although a spokesman for the company disputed many of the EEOC's allegations, the company opted to make the settlement 'to put an end to continued costly and disruptive litigation.'

Often, individuals who work in environments that are permissive of racial discrimination and harassment may not realize that they have resources to combat unfair practices and take legal action, if need be. If you or a friend, family member or co-worker has experienced discrimination similar to the discrimination alleged by the 168 Albertson plaintiffs, connect today with the firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP at www.jhllp.com, or discuss your matter in confidence at (866) 348 7394.

Workplace harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims can drain the time and energy of small business owners. No employer wants to deal with a contentious lawsuit. But when owners and managers don't understand their legal responsibilities, problems can emerge and compromise even healthy and functional workplaces. So what are some behaviors to avoid when cultivating a respectful, harmonious work environment?

1. Distributing workload unfairly among employees. Favoritism can leave 'unfavored' workers feeling frustrated, out of the loop, and marginalized. Conversely, a favored employee may likewise feel uncomfortable, particularly if the favoritism could be construed as unwanted flirtation.

2. Not respecting the privacy of employees. For a good primer about how NOT to behave as a manager of a small business, watch the antics of the fictional employer Michael Scott on NBC's The Office. Scott regularly engages in behaviors that would - in the real world - be construed as creating a hostile work environment.

3. Failing to document events. If an employee complains to you about the behavior of a colleague, for instance, take notes and keep these notes on file. If you are confused about how to process a complaint, contact your human resources department or even a government agency such as the EEOC. By keeping careful track of complaints and official company responses, you can hopefully resolve employee issues faster and more efficiently and thus protect everyone's rights.

4. Maintaining a biased promotion and firing policy. Whether the economy expands or contracts, employers must constantly reshuffle their human resources decks. To avoid giving the appearance of impropriety to any hiring or firing decision, maintain clear, realistic, and legal policies regarding your HR decisions. Your employees should understand your decision-making criteria. Above all, practice empathy!

5. Failing to pay attention to the demeanor of employees and to the general attitude of your workers. Gauge the esprit d'corps of your employees carefully and methodically. If even one person on your team seems uncomfortable, investigate carefully and mindfully. Be on the look out for signs of bullying, intimidation, inappropriate humor, and illegal behaviors (like drug use at work).

6. Allowing the office to get messy. A work environment that's not clean, tidy and attractive can corrode morale. This can create stresses between co-workers and even contaminate relationships with clients. Ensure that the physical space in which you and your employees inhabit meets strong standards of hygiene.

For help assessing whether you may have a legally actionable employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation case, talk to the accomplished lawyers here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at (866) 348-7394 (you can also find out more at www.jhllp.com). Our expert litigators can help you determine your next actions. Call today to get the help you deserve.

When it comes to employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, prevention is often the best strategy. Employees harmed by workplace age, race, or sexual discrimination have options to get compensation and stop any unfair practices. But ideally, one should just enjoy working in a stress free, harassment free zone.

When job hunting, watch for the following red flags that could indicate a less than harmonious working environment.

1. Sloppy office/ poorly maintained premises. As the adage goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. If a place of potential employment is a pigsty beset by hazards such as litter, slippery floors, or even just a permeating bad smell, trust your gut and get out of there!

2. Erratic, depressed, or anxious feeling pervading workplace. Do the people in the office seem excited and energized to be there? Or do they appear anxious, depressed, extremely stressed out, fatigued, or crabby? Obviously, everyone has good and bad days - and this is true for highly functional offices as well. But the mood of a place of business can give you strong hints about its managerial practices.

3. Public complaints about the business. Obviously, not every "sour grapes" story you hear through the grapevine is true. But if you note a pattern among complaints - particularly if they relate to a boss you may have to work for - pay attention.

4. Past employees/ associates speak badly about their experiences. Ex-employees/associates can offer a solid, candid perspective on a business. Be aware, however, that many factors can influence job satisfaction -- including personal factors that can unfairly color perspective.

5. The company has been accused in the past of creating or abiding a hostile work environment. You can consult the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for information about certain past hostile workplace complaints.

6. Boss is demanding - even before you begin to work there. If you interview with a potential superior and that person begins grilling you and treating you like you are already a subordinate, this could indicate that your future boss might be a control freak.

If, however, you're already in an undesirable workplace situation, get help navigating the complex legal issues concerning employment discrimination, hostile work environments, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Turn to the experts here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Our renowned and reputable lawyers have demonstrated success time and gain - and we can provide a free, no obligation consultation regarding your workplace issues. Call us or email us now.

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.

Two female Houston firefighters, Paula Keys and Jane Draycott, came forward on Thursday July, 9th with allegations of sexual and racial harassment at their workplace. Their claims have prompted a formal Federal Justice Department investigation and have the potential to bring down Houston's fire chief.

The firefighters alleged that their peers (the majority of whom are white and male) have harassed them for years. According to the claimants' attorney, perpetrators in the department turned off the water in the women's showers and set off firecrackers in their bathroom. This already egregious and illegal harassment was child's play compared with the latest, horrific incident, in which as-yet-unidentified perpetrators defaced and vandalized the women's lockers. Someone scrawled the word "die" on firefighter Jane Draycott's face and scrawled the word "dead" on a picture of her deceased teenage daughter. That this kind of sociopathic behavior could flourish could spell serious political problems for key leadership figures in the fire department.

In fact, the head of the Houston Black Firefighters Association excoriated the HFD for failing to provide "strong leadership" amidst the crisis. On the other hand, the head of the Houston Professional Firefighters Association has come out tentatively in support of the chief. Some in the regional media have noted parallels between this gender and race harassment case and the case of firefighter Frank Ricci of New Haven. In the Ricci case - which has recently become famous thanks to its association with President Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor -- the plaintiffs alleged so-called "reverse" discrimination. In the Houston firefighters' case, the matter involves more "traditional" discrimination against minorities and women. However this matter turns out, it will no doubt yield significant implications for racial and gender politics in the Houston region.

If you've been subjected to harassment, threats, or retaliation at the workplace, the law provides you with significant recourse. Explore your avenues to seek justice and compensation today by getting in touch with the attorneys here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP.

On June 22nd, a Federal District Judge decreed that the Hickory Hills Country Club in Illinois would have to pay a total of $690,000 to claimants in an ongoing dispute that includes charges of gender and race discrimination as well as retaliation. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought the suit against Hickory Hills on behalf of a class of claimants, including female employees and African-American job applicants who have been denied employment (allegedly) due to their race.

Timeline of the Case:

On October 24th, 2007, three female claimants filed a private suit against their employers for sex discrimination. The women claimed that they had been harassed and had been subjected to hostile work conditions. The defendants responded by countersuing the women in Illinois court, claiming that the women had breeched fiduciary duties and destroyed the banquet hall's property. The EEOC investigated the defendant's countersuit and found that not only did it have no grounds, but that it also violated the claimants' federally protected rights to take action to combat workplace discrimination.

In September of 2008, the EEOC countersued Chateau Del Mar for retaliating against the women. The three separate cases were all brought before a US district judge as components of a related matter. Per a consent decree, the judge resolved the cases and stipulated that the claimants should receive monitory relief and that Hickory Hills and Chateau Del Mar must train their staffs in gender and race discrimination law.

If you or a coworker has been subjected to racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation, the law provides you with an array of tools to exact justice and collect compensation from your employer. To find out more about your rights and your employer's legal limitations, connect with the firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP today. We offer free, totally confidential consultations for prospective clients.

An employment discrimination case with potentially profound implications for the state of Indiana has taken a new twist. For the past 5 years, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis's largest employer (12,000 employees in the state and many more thousands elsewhere around the country) has been dogged by workplace discrimination allegations. On Tuesday, June 9th, the NAACP asked a presiding federal judge to grant class action status to more than one hundred current and past Lilly employees who claim they've been victims of racial discrimination.

Retaliation or Appropriate Termination?

The legal battle began in 2004, when a woman named Cassandra Welch complained to the company's HR department about harassment. According to Ms. Welch's account, the company did not respond appropriately. Ms. Welch subsequently found a black doll with a noose around its neck at work, and she was later fired in retaliation for complaining. The company has denied firing Welch for retaliation and has insisted that she was let go because she forged emails.

Others Complain

Shortly after Ms. Welch lost her job, workers like Joy Mason and Kelly French voiced similar complaints about harassment and race discrimination at Lilly. These women complained that they had been passed over for promotion by less qualified applicants and they had not received pay concomitant with the jobs they were doing.

How many more?

All told, more than 2,000 African Americans currently work at or have worked at Eli Lilly and Company. At least a hundred have joined in the potential class action suit. The drug manufacturer stands by its argument that the company does not tolerate and has not tolerated discrimination in any form at its workplaces and that it offers equal pay and promotion opportunities to all employees. Given the lawsuit's current size and Lilly's prominent community stature, the outcome of this case may have significant cultural and economic consequences for the city of Indianapolis.

If you believe that your company has perpetrated race based or national origin based discrimination, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP can provide guidance. Please review our site or call our team for a free consultation.

A controversial employment discrimination decision--covered by the Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum blog back in April--promises to command national attention over the next several weeks, due to the fact that the case, Ricci v. New Haven, was adjudicated by President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Ricci was brought by local New Haven firefighters, who claimed that they had been passed over for promotion due to "unfair" affirmative action. Judge Sotomayor dismissed the claims and upheld a Federal District Court ruling in favor of the city of New Haven.

Political Lightning Rod?

The titular claimant, Frank Ricci, grew up economically disadvantaged, and he suffered from a severe learning disability, dyslexia. After tremendous effort and study, Ricci scored 6th out of 77 test-takers on a critical firefighter skills exam--definitely high enough to qualify for a promotion. However, because none of the African-American firefighters who took the exam scored a passing grade, the city of New Haven threw out the results and denied promotions for Ricci and 19 others (including two Hispanics).

The Supreme Court may take up the matter this summer. Whether or not the Court agrees with the claimants that the city of New Haven practiced workplace discrimination; or whether the Court sides with Sotomayor and the Connecticut Federal District Court, the broader political ramifications for the Ricci decision will now be much more highly charged, given Sotomayor's new status as a nominee to the highest court in the land.  

Further complicating the dynamics is the fact that Judge Sotomayor would be the first female Latina Justice to preside on the Supreme Court. It's a fair bet that her proponents and detractors alike will "read the tealeaves" in her decision on Ricci for hints at her worldview and judicial philosophy--particularly as they might apply to future harassment, workplace discrimination, and retaliation cases.

If you or a friend or family member has endured workplace harassment or race-based discrimination or retaliation, you can turn to the Law Offices of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum for active and aggressive representation. Call our offices to set a free consultation.