Category: Employment Law

New York Employment Discrimination

New York Employment Discrimination Law Now Covers Everyone

Late in the night of June 19, 2019, the New York Legislature radically expanded the state’s employment discrimination laws. The legislation amends nearly every component of the New York State Human Rights Law regarding employment discrimination. Although no additional protected characteristics were added, the changes affect which employers and workers are subject to the law, the standards for proving or disproving a claim, and the penalties available to victims. Frankly, it’s hard to imagine how they could have gone further to promote discrimination claims against employers.

Note: At the time of the initial publication of this article, Governor Cuomo had not signed the new laws into effect. However, he has expressed support for the legislation and his intent to enact it.

No Worker Left Behind

For many years, the State’s employment discrimination laws only applied to employers with at least 4 employees. In 2016, this threshold dropped to 1 employee for sexual harassment claims only. Last year, the State extended the sexual harassment protections to all workers in a workplace, not just employees. This added coverage for independent contractors, vendors, consultants, etc.

With these amendments, the New York Human Rights Law will now apply to all employers of all sizes for all employment discrimination claims. This includes not only sexual harassment, but all forms of harassment based on other protected characteristics (age, race, etc.). It also includes non-harassment claims such as those alleging wrongful termination, discriminatory hiring, and failure to promote.

More “Harassment” Is Illegal

Historically, employees needed to show that workplace harassment was “severe or pervasive” to win a harassment case. This legislation expressly eliminates that requirement.

The Human Rights Law still doesn’t exactly define the term harassment. But it now sort of describes what it is:

First, to be illegal (as always) the harassment must be based on one of the numerous protected characteristics established by the law. In addition to sexual harassment, this includes harassment because of a person’s age, race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, among others.

Second, “harassment” now becomes illegal “when it subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s membership in one or more of these protected categories.” That seemingly is what employees must show to prevail on a harassment claim.

Third, the legislation states that it will not be “determinative” that the worker hadn’t previously complained about harassment.

Fourth, the amendments specifically provide that workers complaining of harassment don’t need to point to any other workers for comparison purposes to prove their claims.

Fifth, an employer can only defeat harassment claims under these amendments to New York employment discrimination law if they prove that “the harassing conduct does not rise above the level of what a reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristic would consider petty slights or trivial inconveniences.”

On the whole, these amendments undeniably and certainly intentionally institute monumental expansion of the State’s anti-harassment protections.

Punitive Damages Now Available

Unlike some similar federal statutes, the New York employment discrimination law previously did not allow victims to recover punitive damages. This is additional money beyond what the discrimination cost the victim. These damages serve to punish and deter employers from engaging in further discrimination.

Significantly, unlike most federal discrimination laws, the New York legislation does not place any cap on the amount of punitive damages that juries can award.

Pay the Lawyers Too

The attorneys of employees who win their cases under New York employment discrimination law will now have their fees paid by the employer.

If an employer wins, disproving the plaintiff’s case, they will only receive their attorneys’ fees if they convince the court that the claim was frivolous. Realistically, such awards are likely to be few and far between.

Barrier to Confidentiality

In case you might want to settle a New York employment discrimination case, you might not get a confidentiality provision. At least, you’ll have to jump through more hoops if you want to.

The biggest hurdle is that you must be able to demonstrate that the “condition of confidentiality is the complainant’s preference.”

The Legislature added this restriction last year for sexual harassment claims only. It now applies to all discrimination claims.

Among other details, the complainant must have 21 days to consider the written terms of any such confidentiality or non-disclosure provision. Then, if the complainant signs off, they still have another 7 days to change their mind.

No More Arbitration?

As the Legislature enacted last year specifically for sexual harassment cases, this year’s amendments prohibit mandatory arbitration provisions with respect to all forms of employment discrimination.

However, there’s still an open question whether federal law (and its broad protection of arbitration) invalidates the New York law on this issue.

And Those Sexual Harassment Policies . . .

Most of the amendments apply to all forms of employment discrimination. But the legislation also adds to the still new sexual harassment policy and training requirements.

Every employer will have to not only train employees annually, but also give all employees a copy of their sexual harassment policy at each annual training. And now employees must receive both the training and the policy in their primary language if the State has prepared a model policy and training program in the language.

Plus More Time to File Sexual Harassment Cases

Despite many measures expanding protections for all protected characteristics, sexual harassment claims will still get special treatment in one area. Workers will now have up to 3 years to file sexual harassment claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights. All other New York employment discrimination claims can only be filed with the state agency for 1 year. Regardless, all New York employment discrimination claims can be filed in court for up to 3 years.

What Should Employers Do?

Probably, move out of New York. Otherwise, prepare to redouble efforts to avoid any hint of harassment. New York employment discrimination litigation will definitely increase as a result of this legislation.

We’ll follow up with more commentary and insight on the potential impact once the Governor acts on the bill. To receive updates on this and other topics of importance to New York employers, sign up for our free email newsletter.

Pregnant Employee

Calling Your Employment Lawyer — Pregnant Employee

I’ve been counseling employers for almost 14 years. One thing that’s become clear over that time is that no one wants to have to call their employment lawyer! But the truth is many companies would be better off if they called more often. It’s usually much cheaper to find out the law and best approach to an employment situation before it leads to litigation or other disputes. This is definitely true when you’re dealing with a complex scenario involving a pregnant employee, for example.

So, what does a call with an employment lawyer sound like?

My actual conversations with clients are confidential, of course. But I can summarize the tone from 1000s I’ve had over the years by way of example. The facts and circumstances of this scenario involving a pregnant employee are purely hypothetical and should not be followed as guidance for any actual situation. Most likely, I would have more background information about the employer before taking this call. Local and state laws also vary and could alter any legal considerations.

“We Have This Employee. . . .”

Client: “Hi, Scott.”

Lawyer: “Hi. How are you? Oh, I know, you’d be better off if you weren’t calling me.”

Client: “Well, nothing personal.”

Lawyer: “No, I get it. None of my clients ever want to be speaking to me about work. It’s the nature of my business. Anyway, how can I help?

Client: “We have this employee. She’s not really working out. She’d had performance issues for a while, and we’d like to move on . . . . But . . . .”

Lawyer: “Yeah, there’s always a ‘But’!”

“She’s Pregnant”

Client: “Afraid so, or I wouldn’t be calling. Before we had a chance to do anything about her performance issues, she told us last week she’s pregnant.”

Lawyer: “I see, well congratulations to her, but you’re worried about trying to let a pregnant employee go?”

Client: “Yes, but, that’s not everything. She had also filed a harassment claim against a co-worker a few months back. And she’s still angry that we didn’t fire the guy she filed it against.”

Lawyer: “Alright. Let’s try to work through this. First, how long has she been working there?”

Client: “Only nine months. She’s our receptionist and also does some of our social media.”

Lawyer: “So, she’s not FMLA eligible yet, but might be eligible for New York Paid Family Leave. Is she full-time?

Client: “Yeah, she works 40 hours. At least, she’s supposed to be working. She spends most of her time on Facebook.”

Lawyer: “You mean doing personal things, not managing the company’s social media.”

Client: “Right. But that’s not the real problem. We should do a better job of policing that and re-directing her. But the bigger problem is that she also answers phones and greets people who come into the office. But her personality is hit or miss. She’s not rude, exactly, but not always friendly either. Plus, she gets messages wrong, forgets to pass them along, etc. We’ve had a few complaints since she started.”

Lawyer: “Has she said when the baby is due?”

Client: “About 3 months from now.”

Lawyer: “So, at that point, she might be eligible for FMLA leave too. Did she get the paperwork on that?”

Client: “Not yet, but that’s one thing we needed direction on. As you know, we have over 50 employees, so we do have people eligible for FMLA. But since she hasn’t been here a year yet, we didn’t know how to handle it.”

Lawyer: “If the leave will begin after she has been there for a year and she meets the other requirements–so if she will have worked 1,250 hours over the past year when her leave starts–then she would qualify for FMLA leave. So you should probably at least give her the FMLA paperwork at this point to avoid a technical violation there.”

Client: “Does that mean we have to keep her on until after her 12 weeks expires?”

Lawyer: “Not necessarily. Even if she becomes eligible for FMLA leave, you don’t have to retain her if you have other legitimate grounds to end her employment. But, of course, it can’t be because of her pregnancy or leave. And even if it isn’t, she could claim it is discriminatory to let her go.”

Client: “So, are we better of waiting until she has the baby and then fire her after she comes back?”

Lawyer: “Not necessarily. That could still be discriminatory or retaliatory.”

“What Should We Do?”

Client: “Okay, you’re the expert. What should we do with her?”

Lawyer: “I know you don’t want to hear it, but like so many of these situations, it depends on various factors and considerations. But it comes down to why you’ve kept her on this long and now want to let her go. If it’s at all related to the pregnancy, then you probably shouldn’t do it. Maybe she’ll take the leave and then not come back, but if she wants to come back, you’d need to let her.”

Client: “We don’t have a problem with her being pregnant. If she were doing her job, we’d be happy to let her take the leave.”

Lawyer: “Then you have to be able to explain why you’re considering letting her go now. Did anything happen recently that’s of particular concern?”

Client: “Remember I mentioned she filed a harassment complaint against a co-worker?”

Lawyer: “Yes. We needed to get back around to that too.”

Client: “Yeah. She claimed a guy who has worked here for 20 years was hitting on her whenever he walked in the building. Now, he’s a salesman who works remotely, so he’s only in a few times a month. She didn’t make any extreme allegations, just that he was too flirty. We investigated it and directed him to stop, and he has.”

Lawyer: “Okay. But has become relevant again?”

Client: “Yes. We need to promote this guy to a director of sales position where he will be in the office full-time. So he’d walk past her every day. Probably multiple times every day. But he refuses to work in the building as long as she’s the receptionist.”

Lawyer: “Is that why you want to let her go now?”

Client: “That’s not the only reason. We know we can’t fire her because the guy she complained about doesn’t want to work in the same building with her. It’s just that we have had these performance issues and they’re not getting better. Eventually, we’d have to let her go. But between the pregnancy and trying to promote the sales guy, we don’t know what the best approach is.”

Lawyer: “Right. I see you’re trying to do the right thing, but there seems like landmines in every direction.”

Client: “Pretty much. So that’s why we called you.”

“Any Alternatives?”

Lawyer: “I understand. Glad you did. Now, let’s see. . . . Just by chance, are there any other open jobs that she might be able to do without the same performance issues?”

Client: “We could try to make her an administrative assistant.”

Lawyer: “But it sounds like she’s already had problems with messages and communication. Would that be a factor in those jobs?”

Client: “Yes. It would just move her from the front desk and maybe solve the problem with the sales guy.”

Lawyer: “I don’t really want you to create new problems in trying to solve this one. If we figured out the right approach, would you consider offering her a severance package?”

Client: “We might be able to pay her a month’s pay and continue her health insurance. I guess that would become an issue for her with the baby and all.”

Lawyer: “Good point. So she’s taking the company’s insurance?”

Client: “Yes. She is. She is married, but they have family coverage through us. He might have it available at work too. I don’t know. Maybe ours is a better deal.”

Lawyer: “Sure. That could be an issue. If he has coverage, then losing yours might not be as bad. But she’s looking at some disability and PFL benefits coming up when she has the baby too if she were still employed. And if he doesn’t have insurance available, they might have to go on COBRA coverage. She would probably get unemployment.”

Client: “Yeah. We wouldn’t contest the unemployment.”

Lawyer: “Okay, how bad has her performance been? Has it gotten any worse lately?”

Client: “It’s just ongoing mistakes. No single recent incident.”

“Severance Package?”

Lawyer: “Alright, overall, I’d say there is some risk of some kind of pregnancy or even retaliation–for the harassment complaint–claim if you fire her now. But that doesn’t necessarily diminish as time goes on. Maybe it would get easier if she does something really bad, but you don’t want that either for operational reasons. Some options include putting her on a formal performance improvement plan and seeing how that plays out or just having a conversation with her now pointing out the performance problems and noting that you have to let her go but will offer a severance package. There’s no perfect solution. If she says no to the severance and you fire her, then she might make a claim.”

Client: “But if she agrees to the severance, then we’d get a release and she couldn’t sue us?”

Lawyer: “Yes, we’d make the severance contingent on her signing a release.”

Client: “Okay, I got it for now. I’ll go back and speak to the managers involved. I’ll probably be giving you another call once we decide how to handle this.”

Lawyer: “Sounds good. I’ll be here. Hopefully, there’s a way to make this work out okay for everyone.”

Client: “Hope so. Thanks.”

 

Some of these calls lead to a straightforward solution. Others, like this hypothetical one, involve balancing risky alternatives. But understanding the risks better allows better decisionmaking and helps avoid obvious missteps.

 

To receive our employment law updates and free webinar announcements by email, click here to sign up for our email newsletter.

Employment Law Remedies

Federal Employment Law Remedies

You’ve probably read news stories where employees win incredible amounts of money by suing their employer.  The good news is lawsuits like those are rare. And most lawsuits end in settlement, where each side ends up compromising. However, if both parties have extremely different views and high confidence of winning, they might go to court. What employees have a chance of getting from lawsuits varies depending on not only the facts of the case, but also what laws they sue under.  Here are the primary employment law remedies under several significant federal statutes.

Types of Employment Law Remedies

If courts find employers liable, they are responsible for paying damages to the employee. There are three main types of remedies: lost pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Courts award employees lost pay and compensatory damages to make them “whole”. “Making whole” refers to placing the employee back in the position as if the employer hadn’t violated the law. This theoretically includes reinstatement to the employee’s former position, but more often lost pay and benefits. Reinstatement is rare. Courts will not reinstate an employee if they find the employee/employer relationship has become too hostile or the position is no longer available. By the time litigation reaches a verdict, much time has usually passed, with significant negative feelings between the parties. This makes reinstatement untenable in most cases.

Backpay and Front Pay

Lost pay can include backpay and front pay.

Backpay generally begins at the start of the adverse treatment and lasts until the judgment date or until the employee finds comparable employment. Backpay is calculated by factoring in salary or wages, interest, overtime, shift differentials, lost benefits, and potentially even raises the employee would have received. The court usually offsets the award by what the employee was able to or should have been able to earn through reasonable effort in alternative employment.

When reinstatement isn’t possible, courts might award “front pay” to compensate for future lost wages. Similar to backpay, front pay also includes compensation for lost benefits.

Compensatory Damages

“Compensatory damages” include additional monetary awards for out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., medical bills), as well as “pain and suffering” or “emotional distress.”

Under most federal employment laws, losing employers must also pay the employee’s attorney fees and litigation costs.

Punitive Damages

Sometimes courts can award punitive damages when they find the employer’s actions were especially malicious or offensive. Punitive damages seek to deter employers beyond the limits of compensatory relief.

Liquidated Damages

Liquidated damages serve a similar purpose. Where applicable, employees might receive a specific amount in addition to their lost pay as a further deterrence to employers. Often this results in employees receiving twice what they actually lost.

Employment Law Remedies under Specific Statutes

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It limits employees’ compensatory and punitive damages based on the size of their employer’s workforce.

Employer SizeCombined Damage Cap
15-100 employees$50,000
101-200 employees$100,000
201-500 employees$200,000
Over 500 employees$300,000

These caps do not apply to backpay and front pay awards.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The ADA forbids employers from discriminating against employees with disabilities. It also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities in some cases.

These caps on compensatory and punitive damages also apply to the ADA.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act

The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against employees age 40 or over.

Damages available under the ADEA are similar to those of Title VII and the ADA, except that employees cannot receive any compensatory or punitive damages. Instead, they can recover liquidated damages equal to the amount of backpay.

Equal Pay Act

The EPA prohibits employers from discriminating in compensation based on sex. Similar to the ADEA, the EPA allows recovery of lost pay and an equal amount of liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act

The FLSA sets the federal minimum wage, currently at $7.25 per hour. It also sets overtime pay requirements after 40 hours in a workweek for nonexempt employees.

Under the FLSA, employees can recover underpaid minimum wage and overtime, plus an additional amount of liquidated damages.

National Labor Relations Act

The NLRA establishes the right for employees of non-government companies to form unions. It also provides employees, whether unionized or not, the right to engage in concerted activity.

The NLRA only permits make-whole remedies. It does not allow punitive damages.

DamagesTitle VIIADAADEAEPAFLSANLRA
Backpay
Compensatory
Reinstatement or Front Pay
Liquidated
Punitive
Attorney fees

What Does This All Mean for Employers?

Most importantly, employers should try to avoid violating employment laws in the first place. Despite variations between laws, all of these federal employment statutes have an array of serious consequences. If you are concerned about whether your company is in compliance, contact an experienced employment attorney.

 

To receive regular updates on employment law developments and announcements of our free informative webinars, sign up for the Horton Law newsletter.