Safe Leave Laws Gain Momentum At State Level

By Amanda Ottaway/Law 360

While a new bill in Congress that would provide paid leave for workers who’ve experienced domestic violence or sexual assault may be unlikely to pass this go-round, states and cities have already enacted paid safe leave policies that require employers’ attention, experts said.

States With Paid Safe Leave for Survivors of Violence
As Congress mulls a bill that would require paid safe leave nationwide for survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, many states have already codified it.
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Source: A Better Balance, April 2024


The SAFE for Survivors Act was introduced Sept. 19, ahead of Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., and Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis. It would require 10 paid days of leave and 40 days total of job-protected leave for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault. Though experts acknowledged the bill would have a tough road toward passage in a contentious election year, they said it’s likely to get people talking and raise awareness both of the issues survivors face in the workplace and the rights they already have in many states.

“I think it’s a topic that is important to discuss, and I think that having this come up as a piece of federal legislation for discussion gets the conversation going on something that can otherwise be not talked about as much as it should,” said Dan Schwartz, a partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP who represents employers. “So if it’s a small, modest step to ensuring that victims of domestic violence can get more assistance and protection from their employers, it seems like it’s worthy of the discussion.”

Minor Adjustment with a Big Impact

Schwartz practices in Connecticut, which has a paid safe leave requirement. It’s one of many states that have already picked up the baton: According to worker advocacy group A Better Balance, 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus 13 cities and two counties, have passed paid sick time laws that include a safe leave requirement as of April.

The federal bill would also require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to help employees who are survivors of violence, as well as bar discrimination against them. Workers can use the time to seek safety following an instance of domestic violence, report the violence to authorities, attend a court date or receive medical care. Some states additionally include sexual assault and stalking as qualifying acts of violence covered by these laws.

“The reality is that when someone’s going through a trauma like this, psychologically being able to focus on anything else is really tough, right? So the ability to not have to go to work, but not have to lose your job, is really important,” said worker-side lawyer Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini.

The statistics that underpin SAFE for Survivors Act are sobering: One in four U.S. women and one in seven men experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives, and one in four women say they have been raped. Nearly half of both women and men experience “psychological aggression” by an intimate partner, according to the bill and the federal lawmakers who introduced it.

Experts on both the worker-advocate and management sides said a federal standard enshrining paid leave protections for survivors of such violence makes sense. Schwartz noted that multistate employers tend to have a hard time when state laws are passed on a patchwork basis.

The federal bill would also require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to help employees who are survivors of violence, as well as bar discrimination against them. Schwartz said compliance with Connecticut’s law hasn’t been a “dramatic shift” for employers, largely because most don’t tend to come across these kinds of issues. That’s likely in part because of the stigma around domestic violence, he said.

“I do think that when the issue has come up, employers may not be aware, necessarily, of the protections that are out there. So I think it’s a learning curve more than anything else,” he said, adding, “It’s not particularly onerous because the protections are fairly modest in nature.”

Employers benefit from being able to keep somebody connected to their job as they seek safety and deal with the aftermath of domestic or sexual violence, said Jared Make, a vice president at A Better Balance, which endorsed the bill. Having to hire and train a replacement employee takes time and money, he pointed out.

“There’s also a reality that employees who experience domestic violence or sexual assault often are already taking time off, and this is really just meeting a demand and allowing what, increasingly, is a basic right to paid leave to be used for this purpose as well,” he said.

‘Sky Has Not Fallen’ in States With Paid Leave

States have had protections on the books for domestic violence survivors for some time that allow them to take job-protected, unpaid leave. But in the last decade or so, paid leave is catching on as a requirement, Make said. In some places, like New York, it’s bundled as a “paid sick and safe leave”
requirement.

The other states with paid safe leave laws on the books are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to ABB. Most of them also allow the leave to be used to take care of a family member or loved one experiencing this kind of violence, Make said, another key feature.

“Having evidence of how the growing number of state and local paid safe leave protections are working has only increased the conversation federally, and I think brings a lot of momentum into this year’s introduction,” Make said.

“What we’ve just seen in practice is it’s working well,” he added. “The sky has not fallen in the states that have paid leave laws on the books.”

Kane practices in New York, whose paid sick and safe leave law requires employers to provide up to 56 hours per year of paid leave. A federal law would allow workers nationwide “to then take that beat that they need to — not fix the situation, because that’s not necessarily going to give them that time — but to at least address their needs, their immediate needs in that moment.”

Paid family and medical leave programs in a handful of states also provide more extended time off, Make noted. These laws in places like Colorado, New Jersey, Connecticut and Oregon cover everything from bonding with a new child to, increasingly, recovering from domestic violence and sexual assault, he said.

Kane said more time makes sense.

“It makes sense if you think about it — if somebody’s trying to get out of a horrible situation, or they’re in the middle of a crisis, a day or two’s not going to cut it,” she said.

Chipping Away at Stigma

Schwartz said he works with employers sporadically on how to handle a situation where a worker might be experiencing domestic violence of some kind. While it tends to not come up often, that’s not necessarily because it’s not happening, he said.

“I think part of that is the sort of stigma that still gets attached to domestic violence,” he said, adding, “It is swept under the rug, unfortunately, and employees feel very timid about asking for the benefits that they’re entitled to under the law.”

“It will typically come up, not necessarily with an employee asking for it, but an employer who is conscious about what is happening with a particular employee and offering that extra hand,” he said.

For example, human resources or the employee’s manager might notice that she’s running late to work a lot or that her spouse keeps calling the office.
In that case, the employer could approach the employee and remind them that if they need help, there are certain benefits available to them, including sick and safe time.

“But again, that’s still far too rare in the workplace,” Schwartz said.

And it’s a tricky line for employers too — they can’t force their employee to do anything or make any assumptions about what might be happening.

“A manager can say, ‘Look, my understanding is, you’ve been out. Is there anything we need to know? There are job protections for certain leave requirements,'” he said.

That kind of conversation could go many different ways, Schwartz acknowledged; it could cause employees to open up or shut down.

Another consideration for employers is that documentation requirements — what proof employers can ask for of a worker’s need for the time off — also vary under these laws.

ABB’s Make said the organization works closely with coalitions of survivor advocates in order to help ensure workers can invoke their rights to leave while maintaining some level of discretion with their employer.

“Almost every law, when documentation can be required by an employer, they can’t require an employee to go into detail. So there are important parameters that I think need to be established,” he said.

Make also emphasized the importance of ensuring these kinds of benefits consistently. The workers who already most lack access to paid leave are people in low-wage jobs, especially workers of color and LGBTQ workers.

“Domestic violence and sexual assault can happen to anybody, but there are clear disparities in who has access to the supports at work and the ability to take time off,” he said. “And so you really see those realities collide.”

–Editing by Aaron Pelc and Emma Brauer.

Read the article from Law360 here.

Understanding New York’s Sick Leave Laws: What You Need to Know

By Di Tian

New York State has implemented a comprehensive sick leave law to ensure that private sector employees have access to paid or unpaid sick leave. Here’s a detailed look at how these regulations affect workers and employers.

Who is Eligible for Sick Leave?

In New York State, all private sector employees are entitled to sick leave. This includes employees of non-profit organizations, private schools, and charter schools. However, it does not cover federal, state, or local government employees.

Accrual of Sick Leave

Under New York State law, employees accrue sick leave at a minimum rate of one hour for every thirty hours worked. This accrual began on September 30, 2020, or from the date of employment, whichever is later.

Some employers may provide the full amount of sick leave—40 or 56 hours—at the beginning of each year. If they do this, they cannot reduce the amount based on the actual hours worked by the employee.

Paid vs. Unpaid Sick Leave

The type of sick leave an employee receives depends on the size of the company:

  • Companies with 4 or fewer employees: Only unpaid sick leave is required.
  • Companies with 5 or more employees: Must provide paid sick leave.
  • Companies with 4 or fewer employees but with a net income of more than $1 million in the previous tax year: Must provide paid sick leave.

Pay Rate for Sick Leave

Employees are entitled to their regular rate of pay for paid sick leave. However, tips are not included in the sick leave pay.

Maximum Accrual Limits

The maximum number of sick leave hours an employee can accrue annually varies by company size:

  • 0-4 employees: Up to 40 hours (unpaid).
  • 5-99 employees: Up to 40 hours.
  • 100+ employees: Up to 56 hours.
  • 4 or fewer employees but net income is greater than $1 million: Up to 40 hours.

Unused sick leave accrues from year to year, though employers may limit the amount of leave used each year according to company policy.

Checking Sick Leave Balance

Employers are required to maintain records of sick leave accrual and usage for at least 6 years. Employees can request this information, and employers must provide it within 3 business days.

Usage of Sick Leave

Sick leave can be used for various reasons:

  • Sick Leave: For personal or family illness, preventive care, or medical diagnosis.
  • Safe Leave: If the employee or their family member is a victim of domestic violence or related offenses.
  • Prenatal Leave: Starting in 2025, New York will mandate 20 hours of paid prenatal leave for pregnant employees for related medical care.

Notifying Employers and Documentation

Employees are generally required to notify their employers before taking sick leave. While employers cannot request confidential medical information, they can ask for verification for absences longer than 3 consecutive workdays.

Minimum Increment for Sick Leave

Employers can set a minimum increment for sick leave, but it cannot exceed 4 hours. This means if the minimum increment is 4 hours, employees must use at least 4 hours of sick leave per request.

Reimbursement for Unused Sick Leave

Employees are not entitled to reimbursement for unused sick leave when they leave their job.

Examples

  • Part-Time Restaurant Worker: If you work 20 hours a week at a restaurant with 11 employees, you’re eligible for paid sick leave. After 6 weeks of work, you would have accrued 4 hours of sick leave.
  • Using Sick Leave for a Physical Exam: If you use sick leave for a 30-minute annual physical exam, you’ll need to use at least 4 hours of sick leave if that’s your employer’s minimum increment.
  • Pay Rate for Sick Leave: If your regular rate is $13.35 per hour plus $6 in tips, your sick leave pay rate would be $16 per hour, which is the state minimum wage.

For more information or if you have specific questions about your sick leave rights, don’t hesitate to reach out to our office. We’re here to help you navigate these regulations and ensure your rights are protected.

Marilyn Manson Accuser Gets Trial Date for Revived Claims of ‘Horrific’ Abuse

“We are happy that the delays are behind us and that we will have an opportunity to depose [Manson] and present all the facts to a jury next year,” a lawyer for plaintiff Ashley Walters says

By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stones

THE ARTIST AND personal assistant who claims Marilyn Manson whipped her, threw plates at her and sexually assaulted her received a trial date Tuesday for her previously dismissed lawsuit that was revived on appeal.

Ashley Walters is now scheduled to face Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, at a jury trial set to begin June 2, 2025, a Los Angeles County judge ruled. The judge ordered the trial after Walters’ lawyer, James Vagnini, told the court that the parties were “not successful at resolving the case” during a mediation last December. 

“We are happy that the delays are behind us and that we will have an opportunity to depose Mr. Warner and present all the facts to a jury next year,” Walters’ lawyer James Vagnini said in a statement to Rolling Stone. “We are confident they will acknowledge the harm done to Ms. Walters and deliver a resounding message to all survivors of such terrible abuse.”

Lawyers for Warner did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. In a court filing last month, the lawyers wrote that Warner “specifically denies that he assaulted, battered, harassed, or discriminated against plaintiff.”

Read the full article from Rolling Stone here.

Protecting Privacy: New York State’s Social Media Access Law

In a world where digital presence is ubiquitous, protecting personal privacy in the workplace is paramount. Recognizing this, New York State has enacted a groundbreaking law aimed at safeguarding the privacy of employees and job applicants in the realm of social media.

As of March 12, 2024, employers in New York State are now prohibited from requesting access to an employee’s or job applicant’s social media accounts. This means employers cannot ask for usernames, passwords, or any other login information that would grant access to private social media accounts.

Moreover, individuals cannot be coerced into providing access to their social media accounts or sharing content from those accounts as a condition of employment or consideration for a job. This crucial provision ensures that individuals maintain control over their personal online presence and are not subjected to undue scrutiny or invasion of privacy by their employers.

Equally significant is the prohibition against employers penalizing or retaliating against employees or job applicants who refuse to share their social media account information. This protection ensures that individuals can assert their rights without fear of reprisal in the workplace.

However, the law does contain exceptions to accommodate legitimate employer interests. Employers are still permitted to access publicly shared content on social media platforms when investigating misconduct. Additionally, access is allowed in situations where there is a legal obligation, when employees use employer-provided social media accounts, or when access is restricted on employer-provided equipment.

Crucially, the law extends its coverage beyond traditional social media platforms to encompass any forum involving user-generated content. This includes blogs, video platforms, and other forms of user-shared media, reflecting the evolving nature of online communication and content creation.

For individuals who believe their rights under this law have been violated, legal recourse is available. Any non-compliance with the legislation on or after March 12, 2024, is actionable under state law. In such cases, seeking assistance from an employment law attorney is advisable to explore available options and remedies.

New York State’s social media access law represents a significant step forward in safeguarding privacy rights in the digital age. By establishing clear boundaries between personal and professional spheres, the law ensures fair treatment and respect for individuals’ privacy in the workplace. It sets a precedent for other jurisdictions to follow in prioritizing privacy and autonomy in an increasingly connected world.

NY Courts May Have to Redo Thousands of ForeclosureHearings Over Need for Appointed Counsel

By Brian Lee/ Law.com

Thousands of foreclosure proceedings could potentially be headed for do-overs as a result of the court system settling a class-action lawsuit in which it acknowledges skipping a key initial process that mandates an assessment of homeowners’ eligibility for appointed counsel.

The New York court system recently resolved the class action by agreeing to comply with the state law, which mandates that parties in residential foreclosure cases participate in an initial settlement conference to discuss a resolution toward homeowner retention.

The assessment is required when the homeowner appears at the conference without an attorney.

Prior to Monday’s settlement, state courts routinely failed to make the assessment, plaintiffs counsel from the New York Civil Liberties Union, practitioner Yolande Nicholson, Mehri & Skalet, and Valli Kane & Vagnini said jointly.

The settlement could result in a restarting of the clock on an untold number of foreclosure proceedings.

It stipulates homeowners in active foreclosure proceedings are entitled to a redo of the conference if the case arose on or after Dec. 1, 2022, and they were unrepresented at their initial settlement conferences but didn’t receive an assessment.

The courts would then determine whether the homeowner should be appointed a lawyer.

A spokesperson for NYCLU told the Law Journal that, based on the Office of Court Administration’s 2023 reporting on foreclosures, more than 9,000 homeowners were unrepresented at their initial settlement conferences between October 2022 and October 2023. That means thousands of homeowners would possibly be entitled to do-over conferences.

Read the full article from Law.com here.

CUNY peace officers file pay discrimination suit

By Karen Juanita Carrillo/ New York Amsterdam News

In a new class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 26, five City University of New York (CUNY) peace officers allege that the state of New York is failing to pay them at the same salary rate as their counterparts at State University of New York (SUNY) schools.

New York state employs both groups of officers who, other than having different job titles, do the same work, the lawsuit claims. The only difference between the two groups is their racial composition: “The higher-paid group is about 90% white. The lower-paid group is about 90% people of color. This lawsuit challenges that pay discrimination,” the text for the lawsuit states.

Mohamed Alshami, who works as a CUNY Campus Peace Officer at Hunter College, said back in 2022 he started researching the average salaries of university law enforcement offices in New Jersey, Connecticut, and especially New York. He was shocked to see how much more other groups were getting paid. CUNY officers, who are part of Teamsters Local 237, recently reached a tentative labor agreement with the state but even this new contract doesn’t place CUNY officers close to the earnings SUNY officers receive.

“I looked at our collective bargaining agreement and I checked other agencies’ collective bargaining agreements and compared ours with theirs, and I saw a big difference,” Alshami told the Amsterdam News. “With New York SUNY, they get like double our salary and I feel like it’s unfair and we need to do something.”

CUNY peace officers are hired with a starting salary of $36,614, but SUNY police officers can start out earning as much as $82,928 if they work near New York City.

The employment discrimination law firms Valli Kane & Vagnini and Mehri & Skalet, PLLC who are representing Alshami and four other plaintiffs say they’ve determined that most CUNY Officers are people of color. As of 2022, 48.9% of CUNY officers were Black, 24.9% were Latinx, 13.6% were Asian, 11.1 % were white and 1.4% were classified as other. Meanwhile, the statistics on SUNY police officers found that in 2021, 89% were white, 7% were Black, and 4% were Latinx or Asian.

The pay difference between CUNY and SUNY officers is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the officers in their class action suit said.

Read the full article from New York Amsterdam News here.

Customer Service Reps Get Narrow Collective Cert. In OT Suit

By Abby Wargo/Law360

A Texas federal judge agreed Tuesday to certify a collective of customer service representatives alleging that a medical technologies corporation failed to pay them for off-the-clock work, finding they were all subject to the same policies while declining to toll the statute of limitations and extend the class period.

In an opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle granted Angelita Floyd’s motion to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective of customer service representatives at Stryker Corp.’s Flower Mound, Texas, facility who did not receive time-and-a-half overtime premiums for hours worked over 40.

However, Judge Boyle would not toll the statute of limitations from Nov. 1, 2022, through April 3, 2023, ruling that there were no outstanding circumstances warranting equitable tolling and limiting the class period to Jan. 2, 2021, to the present. She ordered a 60-day notice period for Floyd to communicate with potential collective members.

Floyd showed that the customer service representatives were all subjected to the same productivity requirements, under the same supervisory umbrella and paid the same $20 hourly rate, regardless of whether they held a senior role or not, the judge found.

Stryker had argued that senior representatives and nonsenior representatives had different job duties and that more senior workers had additional responsibilities, but the judge said the workers do not have to prove they are identically situated and only need to show that they had some commonalities.

Floyd sued in May 2022, alleging that she and other customer service representatives worked off-the-clock without pay for Stryker. Since then, 10 opt-in plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit, records show.

Customer service representatives were all hourly paid and scheduled to work 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday, but Floyd said they often had to work after-hours to keep up with the volume of customer orders, as they were required to process after-hours orders before 10 a.m. the next day. If they failed to do so on time, Stryker would reprimand them and threaten to place them on a performance improvement plan, thus pressuring them into performing unpaid work, Floyd alleged.

A medical technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Stryker opened its customer service department in Flower Mound in 2020, records show.

Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, who is representing the workers, told Law360 the judge’s decision was well-reasoned and thorough. 

“We agree with the court’s decision to credit plaintiffs’ argument that the type of work performed is a more appropriate factor than an employee’s title, when deciding a FLSA motion for certification,” Valli said. 

Counsel for Stryker did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The workers are represented by Alexander M. White and Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.

Stryker is represented by Amanda E. Brown, Joseph J. Mammone Jr. and Paulo B. McKeeby of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Floyd v. Stryker Corp., case number 3:22-cv-01131, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

–Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

Read the article from Law360 here.

Park co-naming expected for 2024

Lawsuit says Open Streets program for green space projects violates the ADA

By Naeisha Rose/Queens Chronicle

The grassroots effort to formalize the reclamation of public space for an Open Streets program on a stretch of 26 blocks in Jackson Heights is taking shape.

Last Wednesday, 46 members of the City Council approved the renaming of the corridor along 34th Avenue from 69th Street to Junction Boulevard to Paseo Park, a nod to the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, as paseo means stroll or promenade in Spanish.

Five councilmembers were absent, on medical leave or abstained from voting.

Leading the charge for the co-naming, which is expected to take place spring 2024 if Mayor Adams signs the bill, is Councilman Shekar Krishnan (D-Jackson Heights), the prime sponsor of Intro. 1278.

“… Paseo Park is the incredible story of a community coming together during a crisis to create new open space, filling it with families, music, and joy,” Krishnan, chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation, said in a statement. “Our entire community is grateful for the tireless work of the 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition and Alliance for Paseo Park …”

The Alliance for Paseo Park and 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition are two groups that were formed in spring 2020, the height of the spread of the Covid-19 virus. Both organizations wanted to address the lack of green space in Jackson Heights as the neighborhood ranks last in the city for per capita park space, while also being in the eighth-most densely populated ZIP Code, 11372, in the United States.

Paseo Park would create up to 7.5 acres of green space, quadrupling the park space available in Jackson Heights. Since the city’s pandemic Open Streets program there three year ago, crashes in the area decreased 42 percent, the space was improved with new surfacing and planters and approximately 7,000 children from seven public schools, a private school and three universal pre-K institutions are able to travel through the park, according to Krishnan’s office.

While Paseo Park is being touted as the “gold standard” for the city’s Open Streets program, some detractors of it, as well as of similar projects throughout the city, do not consider it a jewel in their eyes.

A complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York by 11 people — a 12th person dropped out of the lawsuit — claims that the Open Streets initiative, which takes away roadway for public parks and pedestrian plazas, is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, along with city and state Human Rights laws.

Matthew Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said his clients are not challenging the entire citywide program, but specific Open Streets projects.

“… although changes to these particular streets may result in broader changes,” Berman said.

Berman added that the ADA and the Rehabilitation acts require equal access to streets and sidewalks for the disabled, especially for programs using federal funds.

“The upshot is that the city is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled so that they have equal access and the city has failed to do that,” he said.

Open Streets programs are expensive and resource–intensive, and despite grants from the city, they also rely on the availability of federal and state funding, according to neighborhoodcommons.nyc.

The Chronicle reached out to Krishnan’s office about the lawsuit, but he was not available for comment.

UPDATE: This story was updated to say that the attorney’s name is Matthew Berman.

Read the article from Queens Chronicle here.

5 Notable Workplace Bias Verdicts From 2023

By Anne Cullen/Law 360

Law360 (December 15, 2023, 6:32 PM EST) — A $36 million jury verdict that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission secured in September on behalf of a deaf truck driver marked one of many eight-digit damages awards that workers won in discrimination battles this past year.

Trials held all over the country yielded eye-popping wins for workers. Jurors in Nebraska handed down the EEOC’s trial victory in the trucking case, while a jury in Texas slapped Omni Hotels & Resorts with a $25 million damages bill in an equal pay suit in March.

Later that month, a Massachusetts jury awarded a Thermo Fisher Scientific subsidiary executive a $24 million win in her case alleging she was ousted because she suffered from anxiety.

Sarah N. Turner, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP who advises employers, said the big jury awards are increasingly originating beyond states where they are typically expected.

“The large jury verdicts are no longer isolated to large politically liberal-leaning cities, i.e. New York, Los Angeles,” Turner said. “Large jury verdicts in excess of a million dollars are becoming more common in smaller cities, i.e. Portland, Oregon, and more conservative jurisdictions, i.e. Houston.”

While some of these awards will be cut down — due to statutory caps or employer appeals — McDermott Will & Emery LLP employment partner Jeremy White said these results emphasize the legwork that businesses facing a workplace bias claim must do before jurors are impaneled.

“These jury verdicts exemplify the uncertainty of going to trial,” said White, who is a management-side attorney. “They also show that employers need to win these cases in the trenches, during depositions, which will require additional investment at the discovery phase of litigation.”

Here’s a look at five major trial victories for workers in the past 12 months.

Jury Slaps Luxury Hotel Chain With $25.1M Damages

In March, after three days of trial, a Texas jury found that Dallas-based luxury hotel company Omni Hotels & Resorts violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act when it underpaid a food and beverage director because she’s a woman.

Sarah Lindsley, who worked for Omni for about 16 years, had risen from a part-time server to food and beverage director at the chain’s Corpus Christi location, according to case filings. However, she said that despite her hard work, she was consistently paid less than her male peers.

Lindsley also alleged the company ignored the multiple complaints she said she made about the inequity. A jury found Omni had violated federal laws by undercutting Lindsley’s pay, and awarded her $100,000 in emotional damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

A federal judge later knocked the total award down to $300,000 because of statutory damages caps, but experts said the reward is still notable because of how high the punitive damages were compared to the rest of the award.

Deborah S. Brenneman, a management-side employment partner at Thompson Hine LLP, said this demonstrates that the jury was angry at the company. And she said this could have originated from Lindsley’s allegation that Omni didn’t take any corrective action after she complained.

“The plaintiff was able to, at least from what we’ve been able to see, paint a picture that the employer didn’t take their concerns seriously, and juries punish the companies for that,” Brenneman said.

Speaking broadly about this and other verdicts from this year, she said a key takeaway is that management has to take action when it hears concerns, and make a record of the steps that followed.

“The plaintiffs were able to tell stories that the companies just weren’t listening, and it’s a big warning to employers,” Brenneman said. “It’s a big reminder that when somebody complains about an issue, companies need to show they’re taking the concerns seriously, and document why they did or did not make any change.”

The case is Lindsley v. TRT Holdings Inc. et al, case number 3:17-cv-02942, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Explore the remaining four noteworthy employment law verdicts of 2023 as covered by Law360 here.

Marilyn Manson’s Former Assistant Wins Appeal to Revive a Previously Dismissed Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Ashley Walters claims Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall when she was his assistant in 2011.

By Daniela Avila/ PEOPLE

Marilyn Manson’s former assistant has won a critical appeal that will revive her previously dismissed lawsuit against the rocker.

On Wednesday, a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with Ashley Walters and reversed a lower court ruling — sending the case back to a judge for trial, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.

In the court filings, Walters claims that Manson (whose real name is Brian Warner) forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, pushed her into a wall, forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, offered her up sexually to friends and associates, once required her to stand on a chair for 12 hours and fed her cocaine to keep her awake among other accusations. She also claims he used threatening behavior, like blackmail, to ensure her silence.

“We believe this ruling makes clear that courts must factor in trauma induced repression into the legal reasoning why survivors often come forward years after their trauma to raise claims,” Walters’ lawyer, James Vagnini, says in a statement to PEOPLE. “This clears a path, much like many of the newly passed laws sweeping the country, allowing victims of sexual assault and harassment to raise their claims against their abusers when they are able to, not by a deadline set by statute.”

In 2021, Walters sued Manson, 54, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sex discrimination. At the time, she argued that though the alleged abuse took place during her year of employment in 2011, the two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020.

Read the full article from PEOPLE here.