Workplace Discrimination? Get that Complaint Filed!

Employees in this country have protections against workplace discrimination and harassment. These include protection from sexual or racial harassment, national origin, religion, age, disability, and gender (including sexual orientation) discrimination. These forms of harassment and discrimination are spelled out under Title VII, and its amendments, which is the statute enacted as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Workplace Discrimination? Get that Complaint Filed!
Prior to that time, there had been other federal statutes such as §1981 and §1983 which address primarily race and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation. These sections, however, did not include gender, religion, disability, or age discrimination. As a result of the civil rights movement, the Civil Rights Act was passed, which was designed to specifically address workplace discrimination and expanded protections for employees subjected to these additional types of discrimination.
The Title VII statute empowered what is known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and created that faction of the government whose job it is to survey and take complaints of workplace discrimination. Anyone wanting to bring a complaint and go into Federal court under those claims has to first go through the EEOC administrative process. As a federal statute, it is the same in every state and any employer who has 15 employees or more is subject to the statute.
The EEOC Filing Deadline
Title VII sets a complaint filing deadline of 180 calendar days. However, it also provides that in any state where there is a similar employment discrimination statute, such as New York, the deadline may be expanded to 300 days. With the exception of a few states like New Mexico and Georgia, every state in this country has a state-level statute against workplace discrimination. In those states that do not, the filing period is limited to the 180 days.
A complaint must be initiated when the harm takes place. You can’t have something happen two years earlier and then wait, worrying whether you are going to lose your job. That is certainly a legitimate worry, but if you choose to wait and try to raise that complaint after the 180-300 days have passed, it will be considered untimely because the statute requires you to make that complaint within 180-300 days of the occurrence of discrimination.
However, certain claims trigger the 180-300 day filing requirement after the last occurrence of discrimination where the discrimination takes place over a period of time. This type of discrimination is known as a “continuous violation.” For example, if you are a victim of sexual harassment and you were subjected to repeated, unwanted sexual advances or comments over a period of months, the clock starts running from the last act of harassment, not the first. Most employees do not know this.
If you believe you have a legitimate complaint, it is extremely important that you make use of resources like the EEOC’s website, or contact a lawyer like us to ask for information about what to do, even if you choose not to act on it at that time. Failing to act in many states leaves you high and dry, without any other protection, because either there is no state statute, or in more conservative jurisdictions like Texas, for example, the states only adopt the same 180-day rule as Title VII.
Paying attention to the EEOC deadlines is an important issue because an employee may have a very strong legal claim but if they do not act within a certain period of time, or get the information to act within a certain period of time, their claim may be completely barred leaving you with no avenue for justice.

James A. Vagnini
Partner
email: [email protected]

Kudo v. Panda Express

This action was instituted to address a failure to pay overtime to General Managers of Panda Express Restaurants nationwide. The complaint alleges that General Managers across the country were required to work in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime pay. The complaint further alleges that Panda Express misclassified these managers as exempt based on their titles alone and required them to perform the tasks of hourly workers such as ringing registers, serving food and cleaning the restaurant.
Downloads:

  1. Panda Express Overtime Complaint
  2. Court Order Conditionally Certifying Overtime Class
  3. Notice to join Panda Express Lawsuit (English)
  4. Notice to join Panda Express Lawsuit (Chinese)

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.

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:

  1. YRC Race Discrimination Complaint

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

Johnson v. Nassau County Social Services

This action was instituted to address the County of Nassau’s policy of not paying employees with less than ten years of tenure for their overtime hours which were banked over the course of their employment. These hours were banked for overtime worked, vacation days or sick days which were not used. Essentially, these workers were required to work overtime without compensation at all.
Downloads:

  1. Nassau County Social Services Overtime Complaint
  2. Court Order Conditionally Certifying Overtime Class

Gambino v. Harvard Protection (Security Guards)

This action was instituted to address Harvard Protection’s failure to pay security guards proper overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Rather, guards received a single paycheck denoting the first forty hours as straight time and were compensated at two thirds their regular rate for the second forty hours, essentially compensating them with straight time for all hours worked.
Downloads:

  1. Court Approved Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Sue to all Harvard Security Guards and Fire Safety Directors employed from February 8, 2007 to the present.
  2. Gambino Amended Complaint
  3. Court Order Granting Conditional Certification of Harvard Protection Security Guard and-or Fire Safety Director Collective Class