The Curious Case of Pilot Andrea Ratfield

By Sarah Hammel/The Landing

It’s the summer of 2020, and Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian is drafting an epic memo outlining the company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Bastian promises clarity and transparency throughout the $27.5-billion company’s journey to a less white, less male leadership. He writes that he is “committed to correcting our course as we become a more just, equal and anti-racist company.”

Meanwhile, up north in Delta’s “second home” of Minneapolis, Captain Andrea Ratfield is doing some writing of her own.

It’s June 26, a Friday. At her wits’ end, Ratfield composes an email to high-ranking Delta executives, including Bastian.

A skilled pilot with an exemplary flying record, Ratfield launched her career at Delta as a flight attendant in 1999 before joining the airline’s three percent of women pilots in 2007.

In the summer of 2020, Ratfield is balancing a full life as a commercial airline pilot, activist, mother of two young boys with special needs, and trauma survivor. Making life even more challenging: In the midst of it all, she’s been routinely sexually harassed and assaulted at work. Despite reporting the incidents to her bosses, the male pilot perpetrators are never disciplined.

In her email, Ratfield reminds the executives what she’s been through—likely touching on a few examples in a laundry list that includes a male instructor pilot coming to her hotel room at 2 a.m. for “a drink” and another grabbing her breasts—and outlines again the retaliation she’s endured since reporting the abhorrent behavior.

She closes out the letter with a request that she not be forced to work any longer with the male pilots she says are retaliating against her. She names Captain Scott Monjeau, First Officer Warren Mowry and Captain Ray Baltera.

She hits send.

On July 14, Bastian goes on CNN to tout his airline’s diversity and equity plan.

Delta’s top man talks a good game. The 6’ 3” bespectacled CEO with slicked-back salt-and-pepper hair is duly somber as CNN’s presenter pushes him on the airline’s poor record of minorities in leadership positions.

Bastian admits he’s heard Black employees speak of being left out of the “broader” discussion, and says that “…minorities of all varieties, women, are all really important…[we need to] ensure that we’re doing our very best to promote opportunity and equality.”

He adds, “They’re family. They’re my family…I have a responsibility to do a better job.”

On August 11, 2020, Ed Bastian’s diversity memo blasts out to staff and media worldwide. The subject: Taking Action.

Read the full article from The Landing here.

Major Changes on the Horizon for New York’s Laws on Non-Competition Agreements

By Brendan Klein

Crucial protections for New York workers’ economic freedom are just over the horizon. On June 20th,2023, the State Legislature passed a bill that, if enacted, will ban the use of almost all post-employment non-competition (“non-compete”) agreements in New York. The bill now awaits the decision of Governor Kathy Hochul, who has already expressed her support for similar legislation. If the Governor signs the bill into law, it will become effective 30 days later and would amend New York Labor Law to make any non-compete agreement signed or modified after the bill’s effective date unlawful. 

Specifically, the bill prohibits an employer or its agents from seeking, requiring, demanding, or accepting a non-compete from any covered individual and voids “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind” created or modified after the law goes into effect. 

The bill defines a non-compete as any agreement or clause between an employer and a covered individual that prohibits or restricts such covered individual from obtaining employment after the conclusion of employment with the employer included as a party to the agreement. Covered individuals include employees, independent contractors, and any other person who performs services for another person to whom the individual is “economically dependent” or “obligated to perform duties for”. 

The law would only apply to agreements entered into or modified on or after its effective date. It would not affect the following: 

  • Agreements with a covered individual that demand an employee to not work for a fixed period of time term, typically after the employee resigns or is terminated. Employees will often be paid as an employee during that time period (allowing certain types of “garden leave” agreements)
  • Agreements that prohibit the disclosure of trade secrets or confidential and proprietary client information (“non-disclosure agreements”)
  • Agreements that prohibit the solicitation of clients of the employer that the covered individual learned about during employment (“client non-solicitation agreements”)

The law would provide covered individuals with the right to bring a civil action against an employer or person alleged to have violated the law. A covered individual may bring such an action within two years of 1) when the prohibited non-compete was signed; 2) when the covered individual learned of the non-compete agreement; 3) when the employment or contractual relationship is terminated; or 4) when the employer takes any step to enforce the non-compete agreement, whichever date occurs latest. 

As a remedy, a court may void the non-compete agreement and provide “all other appropriate relief” including enjoining the employer’s conduct, ordering payment of liquidated damages, or awarding lost compensation, other damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. The statute sets a $10,000 limit on liquidated damages but permits the court to award such damages to every covered individual affected by the prohibited non-compete agreement. 

This law would clearly fortify workers’ right to seek advantageous economic opportunities without undue restraint. Still, the language of the potential statute raises a few questions. First, although the bill explicitly permits the continued use of client non-solicitation agreements, it is unclear whether employee non-solicitation agreements (that is, agreements restricting a covered individual’s ability to hire former colleagues) are permitted. Second, the statute as written appears to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements as part of the sale of a business. However, a business owner may fail to meet the statute’s definition of a “covered individual”, which would place non-compete agreements in this context outside the scope of the law. Hopefully, the New York Department of Labor will provide clarity on these matters if the bill is passed. 

Until the law passes, non-compete agreements in New York remain subject to a rule of reasonableness. Reasonableness dictates that an employer only use a non-compete to protect her legitimate business interests and must not impose an “undue hardship” on her employees. Lawful non-competes must also specify a reasonable time period and geographic scope for their application. If you believe you have been subjected to an unreasonable or unlawful non-competition agreement, please consult with a New York-registered employment law attorney. 

The case of Jimmy John’s, a national sandwich franchise, helps illustrate what an unreasonable non-compete agreement under the current law looks like. Non-confidential Jimmy John’s employees including delivery drivers, sandwich makers, and cashiers were asked to sign non-competes that prohibited them from working within two miles of any Jimmy John’s location for any employer that made more than ten percent of its revenue from sandwiches for a period of two years after the end of their employment. In 2014, in response to a lawsuit brought by the attorney general of New York, the company agreed to stop providing the agreements to New York employees and advised its franchisees to void any such signed non-compete agreements. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for companies to use the threat of non-competition agreements to deter employees from seeking employment opportunities with competitors or to coerce them to continue working in an undesirable position. 

If New York passes the non-compete bill, it will join the handful of states who have stepped up to protect their workers from unreasonable and coercive non-compete agreements. At present only four states – California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and most recently Minnesota, have prohibited non-competes. However, since Oregon set a $62,000 salary threshold for non-compete agreements in 2007, more than ten states including Colorado, Illinois, and Maine have implemented significant restrictions on the use of non-compete agreements by setting minimum wage thresholds, advance notification requirements, and demanding that employers provide compensation for employees who consent to their non-compete agreements.As New York prepares to join them, workers, employers, and attorneys would do well to keep an eye out for new developments. 

Can I Bring a Hostile Work Environment Claim on the Basis of Disability in New York? 

By Brendan Klein

Employees with disabilities are protected under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Additionally in New York State,  employees also have protections under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and New York City employers are duly responsible to abide by New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).  All three laws prohibit discrimination against employees with disabilities in the terms, as conditions, or privileges of their employment. However, the key question in many employment discrimination cases is what, exactly, fits within a legal definition of discrimination.

You may have heard the phrase “hostile work environment” used in connection with allegations of discrimination and harassment in employment. In Meritor v. Vinson (1986), the Supreme Court recognized that an employee could be harassed so severely or persistently on the basis of Title VII protected characteristic (race, color, religion, sex, national origin) that it would alter the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment, creating the basis for a discrimination claim. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never recognized such a claim on the basis of disability under the ADA.

Fortunately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals – which includes districts within New York, Connecticut and Vermont – did recognize such a claim for the first time in Fox v. Costco Wholesale (2019). The Court had previously assumed that such claims were valid, but in that case it joined the handful of other circuits which have explicitly held that hostile work environment claims can be brought under the ADA. Like the other Circuits, the Court acknowledged that Title VII and the ADA have substantial similarities in language and purpose, and so found that, like employees protected by Title VII, employees with disabilities should be able to assert hostile work environment claims under the ADA.

Small, sporadic incidents of harassment on the basis of disability do not establish a hostile work environment. As in Title VII cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment. In Fox, the Court took pains to note that “teasing in the workplace is not uncommon”, and is usually not actionable. Mimicking a stutter, calling overweight people names, or laughing about someone’s acne, baldness, or height may be cruel, but do not themselves create a hostile work environment. For example, in Hawkins-El v. New York City Transit Authority (2021), an employee with hearing loss brought a hostile work environment claim after his supervisor “yelled and cursed at him” about his hearing difficulties. The court found that this isolated incident was not severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. In Murphy v. BeavEx, Inc. (2008), an employee with multiple sclerosis complained that his coworkers had created a hostile work environment by stealing his cane and drawing offensive cartoons of him, among other things. The court found that these incidents were insufficiently “severe and pervasive” to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of Murphy’s employment. 

Unlike the ADA, the NYSHRL explicitly protects employees from harassment on the basis of disability when such harassment subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. However, the Second Circuit analyzes hostile work environment claims under state and federal law using identical standards, so it is not easier for a plaintiff to prevail on such a claim on the basis of disability under the NYSHRL than the ADA.

On the other hand, a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL is assessed separately and independently from claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. The Second Circuit construes such claims “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs” and does not require that the alleged conduct be “severe or pervasive”. The plaintiff only needs to show that she was treated “less well” than others because of his or her disability. Thus, with a single set of facts, a plaintiff could lose a hostile work environment claim under the ADA or NYSHRL, but succeed under NYCHRL. For example, in Kugel v. Queens Nassau Nursing Home Inc. (2021) a plaintiff alleged that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her disability, because the defendants had been obstinate and insensitive to her repeated requests for accommodation. Her communications with the defendants were “sporadic” (not sufficiently pervasive), and her claim was dismissed under the NYSHRL. However, the defendant’s emails contained indifference and disdain for the plaintiff’s health concerns. The Court found that the plaintiff was indeed treated less well than other employees due to her disability, and so refused to dismiss her claim under the NYCHRL.

In conclusion, these broad protections against disability discrimination are firmly established under federal and New York state law. If you perceive differential treatment or suspect discrimination on the basis of your disability, it’s important to consult with a New York-registered employment law attorney. 

Homeowners Say NY Courts Defy Law On Foreclosure Aid

By Marco Poggio | June 7, 2023, 4:43 PM EDT ·  

Two Brooklyn homeowners accused New York’s court administrators and justices of the state’s Supreme Court in Brooklyn of failing to implement a state law requiring courts to assess if homeowners who are facing foreclosure and cannot afford an attorney should be given free legal representation, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a proposed class action on behalf of Carl Fanfair and Gloria Antoine, two Black homeowners who are going through foreclosure after falling behind on their mortgage payments during the COVID-19 pandemic

In their class petition, Fanfair and Antoine alleged that the housing court judges dealing with their cases failed to comply with Rule 3408 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, which requires courts to provide additional protections and foreclosure prevention opportunities to homeowners at risk of losing their homes.

Under the rule, which state legislators enacted in the midst of the 2008 foreclosure crisis, judges must, at the beginning of every residential foreclosure case, convene a settlement conference to determine whether the debtor and the creditor can come to a resolution.

If the homeowner appears at the settlement hearing without an attorney, the court should interpret it as a motion to proceed as “a poor person.” In that case, the presiding judge has an obligation to determine whether the homeowner can continue through the foreclosure process unrepresented, or if the court should appoint a lawyer.

But in housing courts in Brooklyn and around the state, courts have failed to implement the rule, the plaintiffs argued in their suit, filed against the New York State Office of Court Administration and Justices Lawrence Knipel and Cenceria P. Edwards in their official capacities.

“When homeowners appear unrepresented at settlement conferences, courts do not deem them to have made poor-person motions and do not determine whether they should be appointed counsel,” the petition says. “Instead, courts press ahead with the proceedings, leaving the homeowners to fend for themselves as they face the loss of their homes.”

The plaintiffs also accused the administrators’ office of flouting Rule 3408’s requirement to provide pro se homeowners notice that they have a right to an appointment-of-counsel determination, and of failing to comply with the state law’s directive to train the court-appointed referees overseeing settlement conferences under the rule.

Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the state courts, declined to comment on the suit’s allegations.

“Courts are putting vulnerable families at risk of exploitation and permanent displacement from their homes and communities,” Terry Ding, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement announcing the class action. “Having an attorney can make a significant difference for homeowners facing foreclosure. With this lawsuit, we want to ensure New Yorkers have a fighting chance to save their homes.”

Read the full article from Law360 here.

Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions

By Kellie Hand

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the way many businesses operate, and the realm of employment decisions is no exception. AI tools are increasingly being utilized to streamline and automate aspects of the hiring process. For instance, In February 2022, the Society of Human Resources Management found that 79% of employers use Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or automation for recruiting and hiring. Although AI and automation can significantly reduce bias when implemented correctly, AI algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on. As a result, if an AI tool incorporates biased information or reflects historical disparities, the AI tool may inadvertently perpetuate those biases, leading to workplace discrimination. 

In October 2021, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Charlotte A. Burrows announced the Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative, an agency-wide initiative to ensure that the use of software, including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other emerging technologies used in hiring and other employment decisions comply with the federal civil rights laws that the EEOC enforces. On May 18, 2023, the EEOC released a technical assistance document, “Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” wherein it affirmed that if an employer administers a selection procedure, it may be responsible under Title VII if the procedure discriminates on a basis prohibited by Title VII, even if the test was developed by an outside vendor. Additionally, employers may be held responsible for the actions of their agents, which may include entities such as software vendors, if the employer has given them authority to act on the employer’s behalf. However, in most cases, it can be impossible for an employee to know whether an employer is using a discriminatory AI selection procedure. 

In 2021, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP” or “Department”) sought to increase transparency by implementing new legislation regarding automated employment decision tools (“AEDT”). Local Law 144 of 2021, which will go into effect on July 5, 2023, “prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool, information about the bias audit is publicly available, and certain notices have been provided to employees or job candidates” who reside in New York City. The law defines an “employment decision” as the act of screening “candidates for employment or employees for promotion within [New York City].” 

A bias audit of an AEDT must calculate the selection rate for each race/ethnicity and sex category (i.e., how often individuals in each race/ethnicity and sex category are chosen by the tool) and compare the selection rates to the most selected category to determine an impact ratio. The impact ratio shows if there is a significant difference in selection rates between groups. A large difference may indicate that the tool is biased.

To comply with the Code, an employer or employment agency may provide notice to a candidate for employment or promotion who resides in New York City by doing any of the following: 

(1) Provide notice on the employment section of its website in a clear and conspicuous manner at least 10 business days before the use of an AEDT; 

(2) Provide notice in a job posting at least 10 business days before use of an AEDT; or 

(3) Provide notice to candidates for employment via U.S. mail or e-mail at least 10 business days before the use of an AEDT. 

Additionally, Local Law 144 requires that employers provide instructions for how an individual can request an alternative selection process or a reasonable accommodation under other laws, if available. 

*It is important to note that while the law covers bias regarding race, ethnicity, and sex, it does NOT apply to older or disabled workers. 

Class Action Lawsuit: Courts Denying Brooklyn Homeowners Facing Foreclosure Opportunity For Legal Representation

BROOKLYN – Today, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Yolande I. Nicholson, P.C., Mehri & Skalet PLLC, and Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against the Office of Court Administration and justices of the Kings County Supreme Court for failing to implement a state law requiring courts to assess if homeowners who are facing foreclosure and cannot afford an attorney should be appointed free legal representation.

In 2017, homeowners of color in New York City were more than twice as likely to receive pre-foreclosure notices—the first step in foreclosure proceedings.

“Courts are putting vulnerable families at risk of exploitation and permanent displacement from their homes and communities,” said Terry Ding, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Having an attorney can mae a significant difference for homeowners facing foreclosure. With this lawsuit, we want to ensure New Yorkers have a fighting chance to save their homes. Because New Yorkers of color have long been the targets of housing discrimination, including redlining and predatory lending practices, they are overrepresented in foreclosure cases. Enforcing legal protections for homeowners in foreclosure proceedings is a racial justice imperative.”

Read the full article from Black Star News.

VKV Partner Robert Barravecchio recognized for highest level of service by peers

Martindale-Hubbell, part of the Martindale-Avvo family, is proud to announce that the following attorneys have achieved a Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating, awarded to only those lawyers who have the highest ethical standards, legal knowledge, and professional ability. This rating signifies a large number of the lawyer’s peers have assessed their professional ability in a specific area of practice via a secure online survey.

Congratulations to the following for garnering the highest honor, the AV Preeminent (alphabetical by last name of attorney):

A

Mary Clift Abdalla, Attorney at Forman Watkins & Krutz
Reginald W. Abrams, Member at Law Office of Reginald Abrams, Sr., L.L.C.
James P. Alder, Attorney at Alder Law Group

B

Robert Barravecchio, Partner at Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP
Michael S. Bender, Member at Kaye Bender Rembaum
James Thomas Bennett, Member at Bennett Law Firm, LLP
Richard Bolger, Managing Member at Bolger Law Firm
Fred Bowers, Principal at Bowers Law Office 
Jonathan Braaten, Attorney at Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, P.C., L.L.O. 
Brian Britt, Member at Kopesky, Britt & Norton, LLC
W. Mark Broadwell, Partner at Broadwell Law

Federal jury awards woman $25.1 million in sex discrimination case against Omni Hotels and Resorts

DALLAS — A former Omni Hotels employee gained a $25.1 million jury award for wage discrimination in Dallas federal court following an eight-year-long legal battle.

“It’s overwhelming. I feel I have a little bit of self-respect back. I feel that it’s healing and I can hold my head up a little high again,” Sarah Lindsley, 48, told WFAA following a federal district jury trial.

“I was just continually blocked along the way,” Lindsley said. “I was put down as a woman. I was disrespected as a woman, as being a single mother. I just put my head down, tried to work harder, tried to prove myself for years and years.”

Lindsley worked at Omni locations in Tucson, Arizona and Corpus Christi, Texas. Although she worked her way up from a server to one of just four female food & beverage directors among Omni’s fifty-plus properties, she claimed she was “paid less than men who had the same title and did the same work,” her suit said.

The lawsuit alleged that it was part of the “’boys club’ culture that permeated Omni’s Food & Beverage Division.”

“I had gone to HR countless times,” Lindsley recalled. “I had gone to my managers countless times, I tried to follow the chain of command the entire time I was there. Nothing was done, and I felt trapped as if I didn’t have a choice.”

The jury award is against Omni Hotels & Resorts and TRT Holdings, Inc.

In a statement, Omni Hotels and Resorts tells WFAA, “The proceedings remain ongoing and there is no judgment yet in this case. Accordingly, we are unable to comment on the specifics. However, we vigorously deny these claims and affirm that Omni Hotels & Resorts does not stand for discrimination in any way. We have every confidence that we will prevail as the judicial process plays out.”

“There were multiple times along the way where there were opportunities to resolve this case, opportunities for the parties to move on,” said Jay Ellwanger, Lindsley’s attorney at Ellwanger Henderson. “And time and time and time again, Omni just wasn’t interested and they didn’t want to talk, and they just wanted to try to prove a point through continuing to litigate with us.”

“And having a client that, like Ms. Lindsley, (who) was willing to persevere for eight years through all of those ups and downs,” Ellwanger said. “It’s really a unique situation and I think it speaks to how brave she is.”

Read more from WFAA here.

Residents with disabilities sue New York City over Open Streets program

By Linda Schmidt

Published April 27, 2023 7:38AM

BROOKLYN – Mill Jonakait, 77, is suing New York City. 

“The Open Streets is very troublesome,” Jonakait said. “I think they haven’t thought through what it means to people like me.”

Jonakait lives in Fort Greene, Brooklyn and walks with a limp. She was born without a femur in her right leg, making it 10 inches shorter than her left leg.  

Mill Jonakait was born without a femur in her right leg, making it 10 inches shorter than her left leg.

Expand

Jonakait and 11 other city residents with disabilities are suing the city, hoping to modify the Open Streets program.

What is the Open Streets program?

About 300 city blocks across the five boroughs are closed off to traffic so pedestrians and cyclists can use the open space. The program started during the pandemic, but it limits the amount of available parking. Jonakait is able to drive, but parking is an obstacle. 

“I usually walk with a walker around here because it’s difficult, and when I have to walk blocks, three, four, five blocks from my parked car to here. It’s a challenge to me,” Jonakait said.

About 300 city blocks across the five boroughs are closed off to traffic so pedestrians and cyclists can use the open space.

The federal lawsuit filed against the city says the Open Streets program violates the Americans With Disabilities Act.  

“It’s a real challenge and tragedy for people who are more disabled than I who can’t get their Access-A-Ride,” Jonakait said. “They can’t catch an Uber where they want to.”

“They have a right to participate in their daily life with dignity and independence.”— Attorney Matthew Berman

Attorney Matthew Berman represents the 12 plaintiffs in the case.

“They have a right to participate in their daily life with dignity and independence and not be converted into shut-ins by the fact that this program has locked down huge swaths of the city,” Berman said.

The New York City Department of Transportation oversees the program.

Spokesperson Scott Gastel issued a statement, saying, “Open Streets enhances safety, accessibility, and equity for a large number of New Yorkers using the roads including seniors and people with disabilities. The City will review the case.”

Read the full article and see the video segment on Fox 5 News New York.

Being Treated “Less Well” vs. Adverse Employment Action

By Brendan Carman

In a recent decision, a New York Supreme Court appellate judge held that under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), a plaintiff only has to demonstrate they were treated “less well” than those outside their protected class to establish a claim of gender discrimination. The plaintiff does not have to show that they suffered an adverse employment action.  

An adverse employment action generally refers to an employer decision that impacts you negatively in a concrete way, i.e., a pay cut, a reduction in benefits, or termination. This is a higher burden than simply proving that you were treated “less well” than someone outside of your protected class.  

In Bond v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., the plaintiff raised claims of gender discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because the plaintiff did not show that her employer performed an adverse employment action against her.

The First Department of the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision. The court noted that the plaintiff had provided a substantial amount of proof showing that after she denied her supervisor’s sexual advances, she “was unjustifiably criticized for her work product and attendance by her supervisors and stripped of her assignments.” Even if this did not amount to an “adverse employment action,” it was enough to show that she was treated “less well” on account of her gender.

The court also clarified that, unlike federal law, the NYCHRL does not differentiate between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination. Rather, sexual harassment is merely a “species” of gender discrimination under the NYCHRL. Therefore, plaintiffs with sexual harassment claims only have to prove they were treated less well, too.

This decision highlights the broad protections against discrimination under the NYCHRL. If you believe you are being treated differently based on your gender, you should speak with a New York-registered employment law attorney.