Worker Settles Overtime Suit Against Home Remodeler

By Caleb Drickey/Law360 · 2023-10-16 19:49:04 -0400 ·  Listen to article

A worker who accused a home remodeling firm of misclassifying him as an overtime-exempt, salaried employee asked a New York federal court Monday to sign off on an individual settlement to his wage action.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati, ex-PHRG Management LLC remodeling consultant Sean Wachter said that a proposed $11,500 settlement to individual age claims would make him whole for withheld back wages and was a fair resolution to disputed claims.

The total settlement equates to more than 100% of what the plaintiff could have recovered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, Wachter said, adding: “The proposed settlement agreement is both fair and reasonable.”

Under the terms of the deal, Wachter would receive approximately $6,500 after the payment of attorney fees and expenses. That sum, the worker said, outpaced the roughly $2,400 unpaid overtime wage bill he racked up during his tenure at the company and amounted to roughly 55% of his total potential damages figure.

That return was fair, Wachter said, in light of the risks of further litigation. The worker noted that his former employer maintained its belief that he had been properly classified as an overtime-exempt outside sales worker and contested the number of overtime hours he worked.

“The settlement alleviates plaintiff’s risk of a lower recovery or no recovery at all,” the worker said.

Wachter’s attorneys, meanwhile, would receive an above-benchmark 40% cut of the total settlement fund, plus roughly $230 in expenses, for a total of approximately $4,700. Although Wachter noted that the Eastern District of New York generally limits attorney awards to 33% of a worker’s return, he said that the Second Circuit dissuaded district courts from placing ceilings on fee awards in 2020’s Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. 

He also argued that the proposed fee sat below a nearly $9,500 lodestar figure and was thus reasonable on its face.

Wachter accused the company of violating the FLSA and NYLL in a proposed class and collective action filed in November 2022. In his complaint, he alleged that he should have received time-and-a-half overtime wages instead of a flat, $1,000-per-week salary to compensate him for his up-to-60-hour workweeks.

Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Wachter is represented by Alexander White of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.

PHRG is represented by Anthony Mingione of Blank Rome LLP.

The case is Wachter v. PHRG Management LLC, case number 2:22-cv-07155, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

–Additional reporting by Isaac Monterose. Editing by Nick Petruncio.

See the article from Law360 here.

Employment Discrimination-Know Your Rights

Discrimination in the workplace may be difficult to define but when it occurs, you should be aware and ready to take action. Under no circumstance is employment discrimination okay. It is important to know what qualifies as unfair and what factors you should consider before filing a lawsuit against an employer. Understanding employment discrimination in the workplace is vital when it comes to knowing what you must do if it ever happens to you.
So What Exactly is Employment Discrimination?
Employment discrimination occurs when a job seeker or an employee is treated unfavorably or unfairly because of his/her race, skin color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, genetic information etc. Workplace discrimination also extends beyond hiring and firing, for example, suggesting preferred candidates in a job ad, denying certain employees benefits or compensation, and discrimination while issuing promotions and lay-offs. There are many more different forms of employment discrimination and laws to protect employees. Listed below are some of the most common cases:
Racial Discrimination – Racial Discrimination takes place when a potential employee, employee or a group of employees are treated differently or unfairly based on their race or because of characteristics associated with race including facial features, hair, or color of their skin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race as well as color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Age Discrimination – Age Discrimination comes about when an employee is treated in an unfair manner because of their age, for example, being treated poorly because you are ‘too old’. The Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees who are 40 years old and older. In addition, under the NYHRL, Section 3-a, it states that it is unlawful for any employer to refuse employment or compensation to any person 18 years old and older because of their age.
Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Hostile Workplace Discrimination

  • Equal Pay-Gender discrimination includes sexual discrimination and/or sex-based discrimination. This occurs when any employer treats an employee in an unfair way or inequitable manner based merely on gender. This includes equal pay for men and women which is federally protected under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
  • Sexual Orientation-Sexual Orientation discrimination also falls under this category when being homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or trans gendered impacts the way you are treated in the workplace or during the recruiting process. This kind of discrimination is protected under the Civil Rights Act and would be further be protected in a bill that is still awaiting passage by congress called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
  • Sex/Hostile Work Environment– Also protected under the Civil Rights Act, Sex/Hostile Work Environment is discrimination based in a sexual hostile environment. The “hostile environment” law also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.

National Origin & Religion Discrimination – Our country is widely mixed with people from different parts around the globe. National Origin discrimination occurs when an employee is ignored and/or treated poorly because of his or her accent, nationality, or ethnicity. Companies are required to fairly accommodate an employee’s religious and cultural beliefs as long as they don’t negatively interfere with the workplace environment. This act of discrimination is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Disability Discrimination- The Disability Discrimination Act focuses on the specific needs of the blind, partially blind, physically or mentally handicapped or people with disabilities. Disability is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as a physical or mental impairment that considerably limits a major life activity. Discrimination includes denying employment opportunities to people who are disabled but qualify for the position or not accommodating the known physical/mental limitations of disabled employees
Pregnancy Discrimination-There are laws that protect pregnant women and people with disabilities under the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions. Additional rights are available to women and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
If you feel you may be a victim of employment discrimination, let us help you protect your rights. Call the Law Offices of Valli Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

Babb v. Wilkie – The ADEA and Federal Employees Over Forty

Babb v. Wilkie - The ADEA and Federal Employees Over FortyBy Shaloni Pinto and Aimee Christianson
{Read in 4 minutes}  Ms. Norris Babb alleges that her employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs, denied her advancement opportunities due to her age and gender, and retaliated against her after she filed complaints about the issue. If Ms. Babb was an employee in the private sector, she would have to test these allegations against the tried-and-true standards set by court precedent. Ms. Babb, however, is a federal employee, and the courts do not have a clear standard about how she can prove her age discrimination claim.
The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), states that any personnel actions which affect agency employees forty or older must be free from age discrimination. The “free from” wording within the law is unique to the provisions of the federal sector. The Court will answer whether a federal employee has to prove that an action was discriminatory but for her age.
Unlike public employers, private employers cannot make decisions “because of” an employee’s protected class. Both Congress and the courts have deliberated and set precedents on the standard a plaintiff must use to have a valid claim of employment discrimination. Employees in the private sector can either use the “but-for” standard or the motivating factor standard to confirm their allegations of employment discrimination. A motivating factor standard is lenient; it only requires the plaintiff to show that bias relating to their protected class influenced their employers.
Let’s examine Ms. Babb’s case to illustrate the difference between the “but-for” and “motivating factor” standard.

  • If the Court holds that federal employees under the ADEA must use the “but-for” standard, then Ms. Babb will have to prove that she would have been promoted, if not for her age. 
  • Whereas if Ms. Babb used the motivating factor standard, she would have to prove that her age was a factor within a list of other factors that the employer used to deny her opportunities for advancement.

The “but-for” standard is stricter because Ms. Babb (as a plaintiff) must investigate the motivations of the employer and put forth an explanation that ties the other party’s decision-making to the age factor.
While the federal government has argued for the stricter “but-for” interpretation, Plaintiff Babb argues that the motivating factor standard should extend to federal employees. Now, the Court must decide whether federal employees have to abide by the stricter “but-for” standard or whether a motivating factor standard is permissible.
The circuit courts have given conflicting rulings on the issue. The DC Court of Appeals has held that the motivating factor is a valid standard for federal employees. Agencies like The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged to enforce the ADEA, have followed this precedent. Yet, other federal appeals courts like the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit have adhered to a stricter standard, holding that the “but-for” causation is the only way to allege age discrimination as a federal sector employee. Thus, this decision by the Supreme Court will resolve the conflicts among the circuit court of appeals and decide whether federal employees over forty need to adhere to a strict standard when alleging age discrimination. 
Reference: Babb v. Wilkie, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4444

The Job Search and Discrimination by Age

justice, discrimination, law, lawyer, new york
When employers shut you out because you exceed some arbitrary age limit, this can be exceedingly frustrating. Not only is the employer perpetrating an obvious injustice, in many cases, it may be clear that you are best candidate for the position. There are laws prohibiting many types of discrimination. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces these laws. It behooves an employer to know the relevant laws and regulations. Age is one of the areas of discrimination covered by laws.
Employers are not to treat job applicants or existing employees less favorably because of their age. Current law, covered by Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), applies to employees and job candidates equally. The law applies to people age forty and over. Employers can favor an older employee over a younger employee but not the other way around. The law applies even if both employees are over forty. In other words you cannot hire a 45 year old worker over a 55 year old employee due to age.
Work Contexts and Age Discrimination
age discrimination, age, workplaceThe law covers discrimination in many aspects including hiring, termination, pay level and pay raises, work assignments, promotions, layoffs, benefits, training and general working conditions.
 
Harassment and Age Discrimination

Law forbids harassment due to age. Examples of such harassment could include offensive remarks about a workers age. Harassment is not everyday good-humored banter or an isolated remark. However, if the banter and remarks become so severe and frequent that it creates a work environment that is hostile or offensive, that is harassment and prohibited by law. If the adverse treatment due to age results in negative employment decisions, such as termination, that is considered harassment and prohibited by law. It will be considered harassment if it is the victim’s manager or supervisor, a coworker or even someone who is not an employee such as client or vendor.
Policies, Practices and Age Discrimination
 Policies and practices implemented by an employer need to be applied to everyone without regard to age. When applied, policies and practices can be illegal if they can be shown to have harmed or impacted negatively employees forty year old or older due to their age. Areas commonly effected include:
work, policy

  • Training and apprenticeship programs.
  • Want ads and job notices.
  • Employment inquiries.
  • Benefits and retirement policies.

Any employer with more than twenty employees is subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It also applies to all government agencies, federal, state and local.

Retaliation – Employees Should Not Fear Reporting Discrimination –

Employees who have been discriminated or harassed against in the workplace should not be hesitant to report these claims.  Retaliation laws are in place to protect the employee from being harassed or targeted after they exercise their right to report discrimination.  When an employee reports discriminatory acts to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, their respective state equivalent, the Department of Labor, or even internally to their employer, retaliation laws are in place to stop the employer from taking adverse action against the wronged employee.
 
Retaliation laws protect against all forms of retaliation.  Retaliatory actions include, but are not limited to:
–          Disparate Hiring Practices
–          Unwarranted Firing
–          Pay Reductions
–          Change in Job Assignments
–          Promotion Discrepancies
–          Layoffs
–          Unwarranted Training Procedures
–          Denial of Fringe Benefits
–          Alteration of any other Term or Condition of Employment.
 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal agency in place to protect the rights of employees.  It is “an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees…because the employee has opposed any practice made unlawful employment practice by Title VII.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).  EEOC Retaliation laws bar the employer from exercising any retaliatory acts, even retroactively, against an employee after they file an EEOC Charge of Discrimination.  Employees should not fear reporting discrimination because the EEOC is an agency to rectify these wrongs.
 
Most states have a functional state equivalent to the EEOC and this is another avenue for discriminated employees to use to remedy the harassment they have endured.  In New York specifically, New York Labor Law Article 20-C § 740 is in place to forbid an employer from taking retaliatory actions against an employee who reports discrimination in the work place.  New York employees have protection at both the Federal and State level when exercising their right to be free of discriminatory actions taken by their employer.  For employees working in New York City, they even have a third layer of protection under the New York City Human Rights Law.
 
Employees do not have to report acts of discrimination to one of these agencies in order to be afforded protection under these anti-retaliation laws.  An employee is safeguarded against retaliation in any form when they complain about discrimination or harassment directly to their employer by complaining to Human Resources, management or some equivalent.  It is vital, however, when complaining directly to your employer, that the aggrieved employee document their complaint of discrimination or harassment in some manner, whether through a formal document, email, or in the presence of a trusted witness.

 
For an employee to prove they have been retaliated against, they only need to show that the retaliation has produced “an injury or harm.” Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Ry. V. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006).  The injury or harm requirement must however stem from or convey a feeling or perception of discrimination.  Employees should not be weary of reporting acts of retaliation, but should exercise their right to be free of these acts.  Retaliation can also occur if someone has been negatively affected by your report of discrimination.  The EEOC’s Retaliation laws protect the rights of third–parties, even though they have not made claims of discrimination themselves. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (2011).  For a more detailed discussion on how third-parties are protected by the law, check back to see further blog discussion on our website.

Job Applications: What are your rights and how to handle a discriminatory question.

Preparing for a new job and the application process is often nerve-wracking and stressful.  Do you ever wonder what the employer will ask you, or what qualifications you should emphasize,  to show that you are capable of performing the tasks of the job?  Preparing to answer questions such as “What can you do for our team?” or “What’s your greatest weakness?” is crucial.  But imagine your potential employer asking you “How old are you?” or, “Are you planning on having kids soon?” The interview process has changed quickly from innocent to illegal.  Before going to your next job interview, brush up on your rights as an applicant.
There are many things an employer cannot ask you on your application.  These are certain questions that violate your civil rights, such as:

  • Age/Date of birth. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects applicants from disclosing their age during the hiring process to prevent age discrimination.  If the applicant is less than 18 years of age, asking for the date of birth is permissible because of children’s labor laws.  After being hired, the company may ask for birth certificates or licenses to verify date of birth for pension purposes, but they may not ask for these before hiring you.
  • Race, Religion, National Origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires that covered employers consider people of all nationalities and color.  Each application should state that the company is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and at no point should you answer a question like “Where were you born”, “What is your ancestry”, or “What religious beliefs do you follow?”  There are I-9 forms that can be used to determine the status of citizenship of an applicant.  These questions do not belong on an application.
  • Physical traits, disabilities. Unless height and weight are directly related to job performance, these questions should not be on the application. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits general inquiries about disabilities, health problems, and medical conditions. The employer may ask if you are capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job, but they may not ask you if you have disabilities or health problems.

There are many other restrictions on the application and interview process, which should be explored by everyone looking for employment.  While most employers do not have discriminatory intentions and are attempting to find the right “fit for the job,” you may find yourself in a situation where you are asked a question that is unlawful.

What should you do when this problem arises?  First, consider the intent of the question and how it was phrased.  It is important that you understand the employer’s reason for asking the question and their method of assessment, rather than assuming they have discriminatory intentions.
There are many ways to creatively answer questions without disclosing unlawful information.  For example, if you are asked “How old are you?” the best answer is to refer the question back to the job you are applying for.  “I am of legal working age” is a fit answer.  If you are asked “What religion are you?” it is okay to answer with “My religious practices will not hinder my potential to successfully perform the tasks of this position.”  Keep in mind that your application becomes a permanent part of your file.  If you choose to be untruthful on your application, that only provides the employer a potentially valid reason to terminate you down the road.
There are times, however, that witty answers may not be enough for the prying interviewer.  If this is the case, you may follow these steps:

  1. Inform the employer that the question is illegal.  While most people wouldn’t dare correct an interviewer, it can be tactfully stated in a non-accusing way.
  2. Answer the question.  Now that you have informed them of the question being illegal, the employer would be in violation of your civil rights if the information is used against you.
  3. If you are offended, you can file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office.

Be aware that taking this stance for your civil rights is courageous and may cost you the opportunity for employment.  However, if an employer is left in the dark ages and has no qualms about violating your rights, it might be best to seek employment elsewhere.

Sweeney v. United States Postal Service (Mail Carriers)

This action was instituted by a group of Smithtown Postal workers who oppose actions by the USPS and its agencies which illegally targeted older employees in an effort to force them into retirement. In doing this, the USPS utilized various techniques including creating a hostile work environment, overly disciplining older employees, and further harassing and insulting older workers. These policies violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
Downloads:

  1. USPS Smithtown Age Discrimination Complaint

Nassau sued on retiring cops' pay cap

[gview file=”https://www.newyorkemploymentlawattorneys.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2011/02/Newsday-Article-9-4-091.pdf”]
Instead of saving millions, Nassau County’s recent cap on termination pay for retiring police officers could prove costly under a federal class-action lawsuit filed recently that claims the new limit amounts to age discrimination.
“Despite the appearance of neutrality, this policy and practice has a disparate impact on employees age 40 and is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1947,” said Garden City lawyer James Vagnini in U.S. District Court in Central Islip.