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.
Unveiling of the Portrait of Ambassador Andrew Young
VKV was honored to be invited and attend the unveiling of the Portrait of Ambassador Andrew Young at the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. Sara Kane is pictured here with Ambassador Young, Martin Luther King, III and Rev. Peter Johnson and wife Delores. Ambassador Young is a champion of the Civil Rights Movement and has served as the Mayor of Atlanta, a Congressman, and United States Ambassador to the United Nations. He has also received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Ambassador Young was a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the Civil Rights Movement and was a friend and supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination and Your Rights as an Expecting Mother
Women shouldn’t
have to fear for their jobs when starting a family. But, we hear about pregnancy discrimination in the workplace all the time. Companies frequently do not abide by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 or the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family Medical Leave Act. Women are too often subject to unlawful actions made by employers because of pregnancy.
There are many different forms of pregnancy discrimination. The majority include: reassignment to a department out of your career path or a lower paying position, refusal of medical health care benefits that are available to other employees, or cutting your hours and pay during pregnancy.
Here are some things you should know about the laws protecting women, and the action you should take if you believe you have been discriminated against.
U.S. Department of Labor’s Family Medical Leave Act
Under this act, employers with 50 or more employees must give up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to employees that have worked for the company for at least 12 months and have clocked a minimum of 1,250 hours of service. The FMLA regulates leave of absences that are necessary for one of the following reasons:
- Childbirth and infant care of the employee’s newborn
- Adoption or foster care placement with the employee
- A serious health condition of an immediate family member that requires care
- A serious health condition of the employee
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 provides guidelines that employees and employers must follow during pregnancy to ensure that there are no discriminatory actions.
- An employer cannot refuse to hire you because of your pregnancy as long as you can complete the functions of the job
- If you are temporarily incapable of completing the tasks of your job because of your pregnancy, your employer must modify tasks and assignments (as done with other temporarily disabled employees).
- You must be permitted to work as long as you can complete the functions of your job.
- If you are provided with health insurance by your employer, the insurance must cover pregnancy-related expenses as it would for other medical conditions
- When crediting seniority, vacation time, pay increases or other benefits, you must be treated the same as other temporarily disabled employees.
If you feel you have been discriminated against, take these steps:
- Document any discriminatory conversations or occurrences. Detail the time and place, as well as participants and witnesses.
- Continue to perform your tasks and assignments, but start documenting how well you are performing.
- Compile a record of previous performance reviews to keep as evidence.
- Consider contacting your human resources department to file a complaint, and document your complaint within your own files.
- Contact an attorney to discuss your options
To prove you have been discriminated against, you must fit this criteria:
- Be a member of a protected class (as a woman, you are protected)
- Meet the expectations of your job and your performance was up to par with your employer’s demands (this can be proven with your performance reviews, raises, promotions and your own documentation of such material)
- Be fired, demoted, passed over for a promotion, not hired for a position, or suffered any other form of adverse action.
- Be treated differently or less favorably than other employees with similar circumstances who were not a member of a protected class.
In court, your employer must provide a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. You must show that the employer’s reason is a pre-text (a false reason used to conceal the discriminatory action). If you are able to prove their rationale is pre-textual, you have a chance of winning in front of a judge or jury.
Contact an attorney to discuss your circumstances and further explore your legal options.
Your Cheat Sheet to Understanding the ADA Amendment Act of 2008
The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted to protect workers across the U.S. from discrimi
nation against disability. Congress has recently amended the definition of disability within the ADA by instating the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008. The March 25, 2011 ruling made significant changes to the ADA, making it easier for individuals to prove they are disabled under the ADAAA’s guidelines.
The changes appear minimal, but will have a sizable impact on the number of citizens classified as disabled. The Amendment is one of the most significant changes in the fight for equality among disabled citizens. It finally provides the disabled an opportunity for protection against unjust discrimination, and implements the necessary change for equality.
We have compiled the most important things you should know about the new ADA Amendment Act. The ADAAA does the following things:
- Provides an interpretation of the word “disability” that is applicable to many impairments that were previously unprotected. The definition of disability remains the same, “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.” However, the ADAAA encourages that the terms in the definition should be interpreted broadly.
- Supplies guidelines for determining if the disability is “substantially limiting”. A substantially limiting disability is one that makes a person ”significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which a major life activity can be performed, in comparison to the average person or to most people.” The ADAAA also encourages this term to be interpreted broadly, but further develops the law to include guidelines for future court cases.
- Broad construction- The narrow interpretation of the words “impairment” and “substantially limiting” was changed to provide a broader spectrum of the definitions.
- Comparison to general population– The disability can be substantially limiting if the person cannot perform a major life activity in comparison to the general population.
- Primary issue is compliance, not substantial limitation– Court cases should focus on if the employer was in compliance with the law, rather than focusing on if the disability was, in fact, substantially limiting.
- Individualized assessment– all impairments that are alleged to be substantially limiting must be determined on an individual basis.
- No requirement for scientific analysis- when the performance of a major life activity by the disabled person is compared to the general population, no scientific, medical or statistical analysis is needed.
- No consideration of mitigating measures– when determining if a disability is substantially limiting, mitigating measures (other than ordinary eye glasses or contact lenses) may not be considered.
- Episodic impairments or conditions in remission– episodic impairments are still regarded as disabilities when in remission as long as the disability would limit a major life activity when active.
- One substantial limitation is sufficient– one determination of a limitation of a major life function is enough to classify an impairment as a protected disability.
If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of your disability, contact an attorney to discuss your options.
Workplace Bullying Cases are Hard to Prove
Workplace bullying can be found in offices across America, but few laws regulate or protect workers from such verbal abuse or mistreatment. Workplace bullying is defined by the Workplace Bullying Institute as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment…in one or more of the following forms: verbal abuse, threatening, humiliating or offensive behavior/actions, work interference, sabotage which prevents work from getting done”.
Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws protect workers if they belong to a specific protected class based on race, gender, national origin, age, and other characteristics. However, if you cannot establish that workplace bullying is based on one the protected classes covered by laws against discrimination, Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws will not prove useful. This leaves other majority groups virtually unprotected from workplace bullying.
Why has the U.S. not enacted a federal workplace bullying law? There are many objections to bullying regulations. First, it is hard to classify certain actions as bullying, as American workers are regularly subject to criticism and high demands. Second, the context of bullying varies from industry to industry. For example, a resident at a hospital may be subject to more pressure and intensity than other occupations because of the nature of the work.
There is an effective method to determine workplace bullying in the court system, but the terms of the system are susceptible to the interpretations of the court. The Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim provides the groundwork to prove that certain workplace bullying may be intentional and causes extreme emotional distress. The plaintiff must prove four elements of IIED in order to win in court:
- Intentional or Reckless Conduct
- Extreme and Outrageous conduct
- The actions of the wrongdoer caused the plaintiff emotional distress
- Emotional distress must be severe
The second element of the IIED claim is the most difficult to prove. Many cases of workplace bullying do not fall under this category, because harassment or verbal abuse is not often considered as outrageous. If it is determined that the conduct is outrageous, it must also be proven that severe emotional distress was the result. The plaintiff
must also establish that emotional distress is so vast they suffered a compensable injury.
If you feel that you have suffered emotional distress based upon bullying in the workplace, consult an attorney to discuss a potential suit. Although many cases are not severe enough for court, an attorney may provide advice based upon your circumstances and conditions.
The Dangers of Signing Severance Agreements at Termination
Although America’s economy is slowly recovering, Americans are still in fear of mass layoffs or company 
downsizing. Some companies provide their employees the safety net of severance pay when they are laid off, but there are no U.S. laws that require companies to provide compensation as an unemployment benefit. Most severance agreements must be signed by the employee and require that the employee give up their right to take any legal action against their employer for any wrongdoing that may have occurred during their employment.
If presented with a severance agreement, your employer should give you ample time to seek legal advice. Given that most severance agreements will require you to waive your legal rights, you should always consult an attorney if you have doubts about giving up your rights. These agreements can be complex or impose other legal restrictions on you such as Non-Competition clauses, so speaking to an attorney is advisable.
Although the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not regulate severance p
ay, there are laws that can function as severance pay laws. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) requires certain employers to provide 60 days notice of layoffs, and stipulates that employees must be paid for the 60 days regardless if they were required to work or not. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) monitors companies that maintain severance pay policies and ensures that plans are executed fairly and honestly.
Discrimination laws may also stand-in as severance pay laws. If the employee feels that he or she was denied severance pay on account of a discriminatory factor such as age, race, disability or gender, the employee may have grounds for an employment discrimination claim.
Written contracts that provide for severance pay may provide a legal basis for a claim if severance pay is promised and then reneged upon. Similarly, if an employer historically offers severance pay to its termin
ated employees and denies you severance pay upon termination without good cause, you may have a breach of implied contract claim, even if severance pay is not provided for in a written contract.
It is always important to consult an attorney when proposed with a severance pay agreement. Seeking legal advice can prevent you from losing your rights as an American worker.
"Civil rights law is their passion" – Newsday
As most lawyers know, civil rights cases are not where the real money is in the legal profession. But one Long Island law firm has barreled into discrimination cases in the South in the past few years, citing a passion for such work.
“We do the old-fashioned civil rights work,” saidJames Vagnini, one of the three partners at Garden City-based Valli Kane & Vagnini. “If I didn’t make a nickel, I’d be just as happy. I’ve learned a lot. I wanted to do law in a way that I could sleep at night.”
The firm is making money, the partners say. But the cases have taken them into some parts of the Lone Star State where media reports indicate race relations have reached a low point in recent years.
The firm was recently in Paris, Texas, where the town’s largest employer is pipe-manufacturer Turner Industries. Black employees have said that hangman’s nooses, Confederate flags and racist graffiti have appeared at the workplace.
Last week, Valli Kane obtained from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission a “reasonable cause” letter, saying the federal agency believes discrimination has occurred at Turner and asking the company and its black employees to sit down and discuss the matter.
In response, Turner said it has formed an employee task force “to assist in promoting and maintaining a workplace that is free of harassment or discrimination.” Turner said it has “zero tolerance” for any discrimination in the workplace.
In 2008, Valli Kane took another case to the EEOC, this one in Dallas involving Allied Aviation Services Inc., which agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle a harassment lawsuit filed on behalf of black and Hispanic workers.
The law firm was formed about two years ago. The three met when they worked together at Leeds, Morelli & Brown, a law firm in Carle Place.
Previously, Vagnini had worked for the New York City Human Rights Commission while a law student at Hofstra University in Hempstead. Robert Valli Jr. had been a Queens assistant district attorney, and Sara Kane was an assistant attorney at the New York City Corporation Counsel.
The firm also handles criminal and real estate cases, but Vagnini said more than 75 percent of its work is civil rights or discrimination cases.
“We have a passion for this,” Kane said.
Stuckey v. Yellow-Roadway Corporation
This action was instituted by various hourly employees to address nationwide discrimination by the Yellow-Roadway Corporation and their Unions. Instances of discrimination include the creation of a hostile work environment and open bigotry by employees who felt empowered by their union and supervisors who joined in on treating Black employees as less than White employees. The complaint also alleges that the Union discriminated against its Black members by failing to advocate for their rights in a manner equal to those of their White counterparts.
Downloads:
Turner Industries to face lawsuit for discrimination
BATON ROUGE, La (NBC33) – Civil rights leaders announced today that Baton Rouge-based Turner Industries is being sued for discrimination by several of its employees.
Turner Industries released a statement denying any discriminatory actions, but one employee tells a much different story.
“All the years of frustration and pain that I went through,” Yvonne Turner, former employee at Turner Industries, said a press conference held in Baton Rouge. “I’m tired and it’s time for me to speak up.”
For more on this story, watch NBC33 News at 10 p.m.
Original Article: https://www.nbc33tv.com/news/crimetracker/turner-industries-to-face-lawsuit-for-discrimination
By Brix Fowler – Reporter NBC
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Workers sue Baton Rouge company for discrimination
By Tyana Williams – bio | email
BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) – O
ver 200 African-American employees at Turner Industries in Baton Rouge say for years, they’ve been discriminated against and harassed while on the job.
According to lawyers for the employees, documents show last March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found Turner Industries violated the rights of several black workers. Attorneys say they filed suit because the company failed to address the EEOC’s findings.
For two years, Turner employees say they’ve been keeping track of what they call discrimination and harassment at work. Tuesday at a rally, attorney James Vagnini showed racially-charged photos he says came from those employees who work in Paris, Texas to Lake Charles, Louisiana and here in Baton Rouge.
“I have a woman standing behind me that came back to her workplace, her slick suit had been stuffed with plastic and they hung it from a noose and sprayed her name across front of it,” said Vagnini.
Vagnini filed the lawsuit in Texas on behalf of 230 Turner employees from Texas and Louisiana.
The 300 page lawsuit alleges black employees witnessed hangman’s nooses at work, faced segregation in the workplace and during the 2008 presidential election were told they could have November 5 off to go vote, even though the election was November 4.
The suit also alleges some workers were bussed to another plant for work, where a white supervisor separated them by race. The suit says the supervisor hired the white workers and told the black employees to leave.
“I work hard all my life and I can say I know I didn’t deserve that,” said Ethel Jones. Jones says she was one of 13 black workers told to leave.
She says several times she was told if the racial graffiti in the bathrooms offended her, paint over it.
“Draw pictures of black ladies and say this is a black woman with your legs spread open,” Jones said.
Vagnini says Turner owes its black employees more than an apology. But he says now the court will decide.
“It is the sentiment this company has toward minorities and it must change,” Vagnini said.
In a written statement, Turner Industries denies it has unlawfully harassed or discriminated against employees because of race. They say some workers named in the lawsuit have never or no longer work for the company.
Turner Industries released the following statement:
Turner Industries denies that it has unlawfully harassed or discriminated against any employees because of their race or any other criteria.
Roland Toups, Turner Industries’ Chairman and CEO stated, “Make no mistake, Turner Industries stands for diversity and inclusion for all. Our record supports that. We intend to defend our company and the jobs of our 15,000 employees who are employed in various divisions of the company. We also assure our customers that our 50 years in the business and our commitments to them shall remain strong and true.”
This suit was filed following a lengthy campaign by plaintiffs’ attorneys from New York and Texas to encourage individuals to file claims against the company. Some of the individuals named in the suit have never worked for Turner Industries. Most are no longer employed with the company. Furthermore, many of the claimants who had filed charges raised claims during periods in which they were not even employed with the company. Many have also returned to work for Turner Industries several times. Records show that relatively few actually reported complaints of discrimination or harassment to the company.
Toups continued: “We have asked every Turner Industries employee to stay focused on safely performing their jobs. We also have asked them to support the company by making sure that our workplace is compliant with the company’s equal employment opportunity and anti-harassment policies. If there is a problem, we want to know about it so that it can be addressed.”
Last year, Turner Industries addressed racial claims arising at its Paris, Texas pipe fabrication facility. Most of the named plaintiffs in the current lawsuit never worked in Paris.
Turner Industries intends to aggressively defend the allegations in this suit as well as its record of providing excellent employment opportunities for residents nation-wide. We will remain committed to providing excellent jobs and employment opportunities for all qualified applicants without regard to race. That will never change.
Original Article: https://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=13951136