Another way, was to require that employees who were alleging workplace sexual harassment fight their claims in mandatory secret arbitration, instead of publicly in court. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses a new law passed by Congress which addresses these forced arbitrations.

Since the beginning of the #MeToo movement’s growing publicity, lawmakers have worked to take away employer’s tools for silencing sexual harassment victims. Federally, Congress altered the tax code to prohibit payments to sexual harassment victims from being categorized as a deductible business expense when the employer requires confidentiality about the payment, as a term for payment. Arguably, the goal was to make employers re-consider whether payments should be confidential and to provide incentive for employers to remove confidentiality terms from settlement agreements. F&W would argue that this is not effective.

In New York, lawmakers responded slightly more aggressively but making at least two changes to the law. First, New York expanded the coverage of its workplace discrimination laws to remove some hurdles that victims have faced in court in order to prove their sexual harassment claims. Second, New York outright prohibits discrimination case settlements (including sexual harassment) from being confidential, unless it is the “preference” of the victim to maintain the confidentiality of the agreement.

Indeed, some victims truly want confidentiality for a number of reasons. But, more often, employers are the ones who want to the confidentiality and so, implicit in any deal to settle a sexual harassment case, is that the victim will “prefer” that the agreement be confidential. F&W has many criticisms of this law, which will be saved for another blog.

These federal and state changes to discrimination laws left available to employers one powerful weapon to silence victims of sexual harassment. Arbitration is a method of “alternative dispute resolution.” In plain English, arbitration is a way for parties to resolve conflicts, including legal conflicts, in a private setting, without having to go to court. The TV show “The People’s Court,” is an example of arbitration, though obviously, that is a very public way. More frequently, arbitration involves the parties going to a private company where a neutral party, usually a lawyer or retired judge, will the hear the dispute and make a decision about how the dispute should be resolved.

In court, sexual harassment victims file a complaint, which is a document detailing the allegations of the sexual harassment. Filings in court are public, and indeed, most if not all filings these days in federal and New York state court, are made via online databases which are able to be viewed by anyone in the public. Thus, once a complaint is filed, the world can know about the victim’s allegations. Further, generally, trials are open to the public so everyone can see and hear the evidence.

In contrast, arbitration takes place behind closed doors. Though the process is similar to court, in that the parties exchange documents and an arbitrator, acting like a judge, may decide motions, hear evidence, and decide the case, all of that happens in private. Moreover, arbitration does not provide for jury trials and the rules of discovery and evidence may be different in court. For these reasons, and others, arbitration is usually disfavored by victims.

But, for the reasons, and others, employers and defendants like arbitration. In particular, employers like that arbitrations are private. Employers like arbitration so much, that many employers require, as a condition of employment, that employees agree to arbitrate any legal claims that may arise in the course of their employment, including sexual harassment. Until recently, this forced arbitration term was legal.

On February 10, 2022, Congress passed a law prohibiting forced arbitration in sexual abuse and sexual harassment cases. In an usual showing these days, the law passed with wide bi-partisan support, 335 to 97 in the House of Representatives, and the Senate similarly voted in bi-partisan fashion, with the bill being sponsored by a prominent Democrat and Republican Senator.

The bill defines sexual assault the same as in the criminal code and sexual harassment nearly similarly to civil claims, with some broader differences. The law prohibits arbitration agreements which precludes a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment from filing a lawsuit against the alleged wrongdoer. In other words, victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment can file claims in court now.

The law does not address what happens when a victim alleges different types of workplace discrimination, including sexual harassment. For example, if a victim alleges sexual harassment, but also harassment based on age and disability, does an arbitration agreement require that the age and disability claim be filed in arbitration and that the sexual harassment must proceed in court? The outcome is not yet clear.

In sum, the new federal law prohibiting forced arbitration in sexual harassment cases is a step in the right direction. Notably, the law does not prohibit sexual harassment victims from using arbitration if they desire. Indeed, at F&W, many of our sexual harassment victim clients prefer to pursue resolutions which allow for privacy. Arbitration is one way to do that. Mediation is another way. The law does not preclude victims from freely choosing one of these alternative methods.

If you have questions about sexual harassment claims, sexual abuse claims, or arbitration, contact an experienced New York employment lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC. Our phone number is 631-352-0050. More information about employment law is available on our website at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

Law Prohibits Forced Arbitration in Sexual Harassment Cases

The New York State Human Rights law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of, among many other factors, sex. Discrimination can include creating a hostile work environment based on sex. Further, the New York State Human Rights law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose or complain about unlawful discrimination in the workplace.

In this case, F&W’s client alleged she faced ongoing, persistent sexual harassment while working for the defendant corporation. Some of the conduct included supervisors and co-workers suggesting that they wanted to perform sex acts on the plaintiff, talking about her body, and suggesting that she participate in a wet t-shirt contest at work. After the plaintiff complained about these acts, the owner first reduced her work hours, then terminated her entirely.

F&W first filed a charge of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division is the New York State agency charged with investigating workplace discrimination. The defendant corporation initially appeared and defended itself. But, after the Division issued a finding of probable cause believing that the corporation may have violated the law, the defendants disappeared. Indeed, the case proceeded to a public hearing before an administrative law judge, but the defendants did not attend. Accordingly, F&W asked the judge to dismiss the case and annul the election remedies so that the case could be filed in court. The administrative law judge granted the request and the case was filed Supreme Court.

Again, in Supreme Court the defendants did not make an appearance or defend themselves. So, F&W filed a motion for a default judgment on liability. Justice Pastoressa granted the motion and scheduled a date for an inquest, to hear evidence about damages.

On September 12, 2019, Long Island employment lawyer Matt Weinick appeared in Supreme Court with the client. Weinick delivered an opening statement and called the plaintiff to testify. The plaintiff bravely took the stand and in response to direct questioning by Weinick, she told the judge about the disgusting and abusive sex based conduct to which she was subjected while at work. Further, the plaintiff showed the judge documentary evidence supporting her account, including a shocking sticky note left on her computer one day:

Exhibit 2 offered at inquest on sexual harassment case

The plaintiff also testified about the emotional damages she incurred, including how the conduct affected her relationship with her boyfriend and her self-esteem. The powerful and emotional testimony clearly moved everyone in the courtroom.

At the conclusion of the evidence, Weinick offered legal arguments to the judge supporting the range of appropriate awards for a case such as this one. In real time, the judge reviewed the cases cited by Weinick, on his computer from the bench. With no hesitation, the judge awarded emotional damages of $200,000, noting the award was more than adequately supported by the testimony and evidence. Further, the judge awarded back pay for the short time that the plaintiff was out of work after being fired. Finally, after post-trial briefing, the court awarded F&W attorneys’ fees for its work on the case and reimbursement for costs incurred.

We are so proud of our client for courageously walking into a courtroom, taking the stand, and testifying about the horrible conditions she faced at work. The judgment will not alleviate her suffering, but it is a symbol that justice has prevailed.

If you have questions about discrimination or retaliation, or if you believe you are facing sexual harassment in the workplace, contact a Long Island employment lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC. More information about workplace discrimination is available on our website at http://linycemploymentlaw.com. We can be reached by telephone at 631-352-0050.

Judgment in sexual harassment case

1. Sexual Harassment Training in New York

As of October 9, 2019, all employers in New York, regardless of size, must have completed sexual harassment training for all employees. The training must include an explanation of what sexual harassment is, it must provide examples of sexual harassment, it must discuss available remedies for victims of sexual harassment, and it must discuss how victims can bring complaints of sexual harassment.

The training must be interactive. Employers can use online trainings, but employees must be able to ask questions and otherwise interact. Employers have a variety of options available to provide the training. Employers can hire an employment law firm, such as Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, employers can use the tools and resources provided by the New York State Department of Labor, or employers can hire a human resources company. In addition, the New York City Commission of Human Rights has an online training program which is approved for use as a training for compliance with New York State’s laws.

The most frequent question we hear about the sexual harassment training requirement is about penalties. Employers want to know what is the penalty for failing to meet New York State’s sexual harassment training requirement. The answer is not easy. The law does not appear to set a penalty from the State. But, this does not mean that there is no penalty. If an employer has an Employment Practices Liability Insurance Policy (EPLI), the insurance carrier may not pay or defend claims of sexual harassment in the employer did not comply with the training requirements. Additionally, employers who have not done the training, but are sued for sexual harassment, may be hampered in defending themselves in court.

Notwithstanding, best practices dictates that employers should be providing sexual harassment training. If you’re an employer in New York State and have not yet completed sexual harassment training, you should do so immediately.

2. Does Title VII Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Transgender Status?

In a series of cases before the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court will decide whether federal law prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. By way of brief background, Title VII is the federal law which prohibits workplace discrimination. Many states, including New York, prohibit employment discrimination based on many characteristics including sex and sexual orientation, Title VII does not expressly include sexual orientation.

Federal courts, interpreting Title VII, had long ago determined that Title VII does not include protections for employees’ sexual orientation. As the issue evolved, several courts, including New York’s federal appellate court, revisited the issue and reversed prior decisions. New York’s Second Circuit decided that Title VII indeed prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. That case, and another, made it to the Supreme Court.

The Court’s decision will likely hinge on one of two points. Will the Justices rely on the meaning of the word “sex”, or will the Justices look towards Congress’s intent in passing Title VII. The Justices questions at oral argument suggested that the decision may fall predictably along ideological lines, with the ultimate outcome hinging on one or two conservative leaning Justices who seemed to be on the fence.

In New York, the decision will not have a major impact on workplace protections because New York’s discrimination law specifically protect sexual orientation. But the decision will have symbolic implications and will also extend protections to areas of the country where sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited by state law. This controversial decision will likely not be delivered until the end of the Court’s term in June. We’ll be following developments closely.

If you want to learn more about New York’s sexual harassment training requirements, or the Supreme Court cases concerning sexual orientation and transgender discrimination, contact Famighetti & Weinick PLLC at 631-352-0050. You can also read more about these issues on our employment law available at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com/blog.

Fall Employment Law Update

Moreover, most employees in New York are at-will, so employers can terminate their employment, for any reason, even for being falsely accused of sexual harassment. But, New York’s federal appellate court has recently issued a decision which enforces that accused employees enjoy some rights, including protections under anti-discrimination laws. Today’s Long Island employment law blog explores the decision in Menaker v. Hofstra University.

In 2011, the United States Department of Education issued a memo to American colleges and universities which required them to “prioritize” investigation of sexual harassment claims. This memo was made in response to prior criticisms of the way schools had been handling harassment complaints. As of 2015, Hofstra was identified as a university which the DOE was investigating for possible mishandling of sexual misconduct claims.

In 2016, Hofstra hired Jeffrey Menaker as Director of Tennis and coach of men’s and women’s tennis teams. A year later, Hofstra received a complaint from the parents of a member of the women’s tennis team alleging that Menaker had engaged in sexual harassment against the female athlete.

Soon after, Menaker attended a meeting with Hofstra’s general counsel and VP of athletics. At the meeting, Menaker saw the parent’s letter for the first time. He denied all the allegations. Menaker was told to collect communications he had with the student, that Hofstra would be investigating the matter, and it would share a report with him soon.

The Court took note that Hofstra maintains a written policy which sets forth the procedure for the school to use to investigate and resolve sexual harassment claims. The formal procedures require interviewing witnesses, allowing the accused to submit a written response, and the Hofstra investigator must produce written determination.

Over the coming months, Menaker provided Hofstra with the requested communications and he identified witnesses who could prove the falsity of allegations. Hofstra did not interview the witnesses. Then, in the fall, Hofstra fired Menaker. Menaker sued, alleging that his sex played a role in the decision to terminate him.

The case ultimately reached appeal. On appeal, the Second Circuit noted that its case law includes a prohibition against universities imposing discipline where gender is a motivating factor in the decision. But, the rule arose in the context of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in education. Menaker’s case arose under Title VII which prohibits discrimination in employment. So the issue was whether the rule about discipline extends to Title VII. The Court held that all the principles which favored using the rule for Title IX, apply to Title VII, so the rules applies to Title VII.

Next, the Court determined that Menaker showed that he was fired in response to sexual harassment allegations and that Hofstra was under at least some pressure to “react more forcefully” to allegations of male sexual misconduct.

The Court, then, had to determine whether Hofstra used questionable procedures in Menaker’s case which would suggest that Hofstra was biased. The Court reviewed that procedural irregularities which could suggest bias may include, favoring one party’s version of facts over the other or accepting an unsupported version of an accusation while refusing to explore testimony which may refute those allegations.

Applying these factors to Menaker, the Court was persuaded that Hofstra deviated from its established procedures. The Court noted that Hofstra did not interview relevant witnesses identified by Menaker, that Hofstra terminated Menaker even though it knew some accusations were false and may have been a ploy, and Hofstra did not provide Menaker with the report it promised to give him.

In sum, the Court held that the procedural irregularities suggested that Hofstra terminated Menaker, at least in part, because of his sex.

The Menaker case serves as an important reminder to employers. While anti-discrimination laws are becoming stricter and employers must act to address, stop, and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, they must do so in accordance with their established procedures. Moreover, employers must not believe a female’s accusations over a male’s rebuttal of those accusations. Employers should perform a fair investigation and consider any and all evidence provided by the accused, as well of course, as that of the accuser.

Though the rights of the accused are limited, at a minimum, the accused cannot be condemned to guilt based on being male. A decision on the merits of a sexual harassment claim must be based on evidence, and not the sex of the parties involved.

If you have questions about sexual harassment in the workplace, contact a Long Island employment lawyer at 631-352-0050. More information about sexual harassment can be found on our website located at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

The rights of the accused- Menaker v. Hofstra

Personal injury law applies when employees are hurt or injured in the workplace. In New York and on Long Island, workers compensation law covers situations where employees are hurt at work. Under workers compensation, employees generally cannot sue their employers for workplace injuries. Because many people are familiar with the concept of workers compensation, they believe that the rule prohibiting lawsuits based on workplace injuries applies to all workplace matters.

But, workers compensation does not act as a prohibition against all lawsuits relating to the workplace. Even in the world of personal injury, sometimes employees can still pursue lawsuits based on injuries incurred in the workplace. For example, employees injured from construction site accidents may be able to sue the property owner or a general contractor. Further, employees injured in a car accident may be able to sue the other driver. Similarly, if a worker is injured on property which does not belong to the employer, the worker may be able to sue the property owner. Also, New York’s scaffolding law protects employees working with ladders, or otherwise working at heights. Before concluding that you cannot recover for your workplace injuries in court, it’s best to consult with an experience employment lawyer or a personal injury lawyer.

Workers compensation also does not apply to employment discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and wage and hour violations. So, for example, an employee who has faced sexual harassment in the workplace may sue her employer based on that unlawful conduct. The employee may have to first file a charge of discrimination in an administrative agency, such as the EEOC or New York State Division of Human Rights, but that requirement does not act as a complete bar to suing the employer.

In sum, the idea that employees cannot sue their employers is somewhat of a myth, although that rule does apply in some situations, usually relating to workplace injuries. But, victims of employment discrimination or retaliation may bring claims against their employers, including by suing the employer in court.

Employment law can be complex. Moreover, whether the employee’s claim is based on personal injury or employment discrimination, the claims may be subject to strict time limits which can bar the employee’s claim, altogether. Employees who believe they have a legal claim against their employer, who have been injured at work, or who have faced unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or sexual harassment, should speak with experienced employment lawyer as soon possible.

The Long Island employment lawyers of Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are available by email, phone at 631-352-0050, Facebook, and on the internet. If you have questions about employment law, workplace injuries, or other workers’ rights concerns, contact us today.

Can i sue my employer

Expansion of the New York State Human Rights Law’s Coverage

The New York State Human Rights Law is the primary source of state employment discrimination laws in New York. The HRL prevents many forms of discrimination in the workplace including discrimination based on an employees age, race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, religion, disability, or criminal conviction status. The law, however, generally applied to only employees. In other words, independent contractors, vendors, or others, may not have been protected from sexual harassment in a workplace if the individual was not an employee of that particular employer.

The 2018 changes to New York law include an amendment to the Human Rights Law so that subcontractors, vendors, consultants, and other service providers will be protected against sexual harassment.

Mandatory Training and Implementation of Policies

As of October 9, 2018, every employer in New York State, including employers in New York City, must implement a written sexual harassment policy. Among other things, the policy must: prohibit sexual harassment in accordance with New York law; provide examples of unlawful sexual harassment; provide information about remedies to victims; include a form to complain about sexual harassment; identify the procedure the employer uses to investigate sexual harassment complaints in a timely and confidential manner; and notify employees of the right to bring sexual harassment claims in court and administrative agencies; and state that retaliation is illegal.

New York State has issued a form sexual harassment policy which employers may use. Famighetti & Weinick PLLC, however, recommends that employers speak to an employment lawyer to draft or revise a comprehensive policy which covers all forms of discrimination which are illegal under federal, state, and local laws on Long Island.

In addition to the policy, employers must also train all employees on how to prevent sexual harassment. Again, employers may use their own training, but that training must comply with New York State law. The state has provided a model training for employers to use as well. The minimum requirements for the sexual harassment include: it must be interactive; it must explain what sexual harassment is in way which complies with the Department of Labor; it must discuss examples of unlawful sexual harassment; and it must discuss remedies available to victims and how can victims can bring complaints of sexual harassment.

Speak to a Long Island Employment Lawyer About Sexual Harassment Laws

The changes to New York Law concerning workplace sexual harassment are comprehensive. Employers should not take it upon themselves to determine their compliance with the law. A Long Island employment attorney can assist in drafting all the state required policies and forms and can train employees consistent with the state guidelines and laws.

If you have a question about the changes to the New York State laws concerning sexual harassment, speak to a Long Island employment lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC at 631-352-0050. On the web, we are available at http://linycemployment.com. We represent employers and employees so if you believe you are a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, we can help!

NYS Sexual Harassment Law Update

Before even getting to the question of damages, plaintiffs must always first prove liability. This means that an employment discrimination plaintiff must first prove that the employer in fact engaged in unlawful discrimination or retaliation. We often describe this step by analogizing it to baking. In a lawsuit, a plaintiff must prove certain elements. Elements are like ingredients. If, for example, we were baking a cake, we need, for simplicity purposes, four ingredients: (1) flour, (2) sugar, (3) butter, and (4) eggs. If we did not have one of these ingredients, we may make something resembling a cake, but it would not be a cake.

Similarly, in the world of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must prove four “elements” or “ingredients” to win the liability part of his or her lawsuit. In short, those elements are: (1) membership in a protected class (such as race, religion, disability, etc.), (2) being qualified for the job; (3) an adverse action (meaning something legally “bad” happened such as being fired); and (4) causation – a showing that the bad thing happened because the employee belongs to a protected class. If the plaintiff does not prove one of these elements, then the “cake” won’t reason, i.e. the plaintiff cannot prove the case and will not be entitled to any damages whatsoever.

Once a plaintiff proves his case by meeting each one of the elements, the plaintiff can prove damages. Victims of employment discrimination in New York can, generally, recover four different types of damages: (1) economic damages; (2) emotional damages; (3) punitive damages; and (4) attorneys’ fees and costs. Each of these damages are described below.

Economic damages include all out of pocket costs incurred by the discrimination victim because of the employee’s unlawful conduct. Examples include loss of pay, loss of pension or retirement payments, and health insurance costs. Victims are typically entitled to interest on awards of economic damages. The damages, however, typically are awarded only for back-pay which is damages calculated from the time of the discrimination until the time of the award. Courts are reluctant to award front pay, or future damages. In other words, a victim who is unlawfully terminated in 2016 and receives a favorable jury verdict in 2018 can receive back pay from 2016 to 2018, but usually not front pay from 2018 to some other point in the future. In addition, victims must try to mitigate damages by looking for new work.

Emotional damages are the hardest category of damages to quantify. But, emotional damages are generally considered either garden variety or more severe. Garden variety emotional damages fall on the lower end of the spectrum of awards and typically will not exceed $50,000. Garden variety damages may be awarded where a plaintiff does not have medical corroboration for her symptoms or where the plaintiff testifies about vague and general symptoms of emotional distress. Higher awards of $200,000 may be appropriate where a plaintiff testifies about significant emotional distress such as changes in eating and sleeping behavior, withdrawing from socializing, hair loss, and other extreme symptoms. If a medical professional testifies about those symptoms, the awards may exceed $200,000 and can reach into the millions, but only with evidence of the most extreme mental distress.

Punitive damages are designed to punish defendants who acted recklessly or wantonly. They are also used to deter others from acting in a similar manner. Punitive damages, if awarded, must be relative to the other damage awards. For instance, a court will not likely uphold a punitive damage award of $10,000,000 where the plaintiff was able to prove only $10,000 in other damages.

Prevailing plaintiffs in employment discrimination lawsuits are also able to recover attorneys fees and costs. At the conclusion of an employment discrimination lawsuit, the attorney can submit time records to the court and ask the judge to order the defendants to pay for the attorneys’ time on the case. Costs may be also be imposed against the employer, including the costs for filing the lawsuit and the costs for deposition transcripts.

The damages available to victims of discrimination can be confusing. Damages are highly fact specific and each case must be reviewed individually to determine the amount of each category of available damages. To determine how much your employment discrimination case may be worth, contact a Long Island employment lawyer at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC at 631-352-0050 or http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

Damages in an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

Sexual Harassment Cases

For many reasons, victims of sexual harassment are often reluctant to bring their stories to light and to seek justice for the abuse they faced. One of the reasons victims are reluctant is that sexual harassment cases are often he said, she said, so victims are afraid that they won’t be believed. Perhaps a more troubling reason is that victims are worried that by making their claims public, their careers and/or reputations will be hurt.

At Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, we often hear these concerns when we’re counseling our clients about their options for seeking redress as a victim of sexual harassment. One of the options we offer is by seeking a resolution in a private and confidential manner, such as mediation. Through a private resolution means, like mediation, the parties are comfortable knowing that they can craft a resolution which achieves their objectives, and that the result and the process of reaching that resolution, will remain private and confidential. This often a relief for sexual harassment victims who are concerned about publicly fighting their case.

The “Weinstein” Provision in the New Tax Code

The Harvey Weinstein scandal coming out of Hollywood has shed light on the epidemic of sexual harassment in the workplace. The bravery of the women coming forward has inspired many other victims to come forward, including victims of sexual harassment in Washington D.C. With these stories coming to light, attention has also be drawn to the fact that many victims reached private settlements with the accused. These agreements often entail a payment of money to the victim, in exchange for an agreement that the allegations and the payment will remain confidential. Additionally, because these payments are often made by corporations, the payments were often considered business expenses, meaning corporations would not pay taxes on these payments. The tax code also allowed victims to deduct attorneys’ fees from taxable income.

According to the New York Times, Senator Robert Menendez said “I think most Americans would be outraged to know they that are subsidizing sexual predators in the tax code.” So, the new tax code contains a provision which has come to be known as the “Weinstein Provision.” The provision reads:

“No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for — (1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or (2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.”

In other words, payments made to sexual harassment victims are not tax deductible if the agreement to pay is included as part of a confidentiality agreement. But, attorneys’ fees’ are also not deductible.

Tax Consequences for Sexual Harassment Victims

The “Weinstein” Provision is likely to have little effect on huge corporations. The benefit of confidentiality outweighs any potential negative tax implications, particularly in light of the other cuts set forth by the new tax code. The new provision, however, may have serious implications for smaller businesses and sexual harassment victims. For smaller businesses seeking confidentiality, the tax implications may not justify including a confidentiality provision. Oftentimes, sexual harassment defendants will settle a claim solely to obtain confidentiality. Because many sexual harassment cases are he said she said, defendants feel confident about putting their credibility up against the victim’s. So, defendants may choose to take more sexual harassment cases to trial. With the uncertainty of trials, many more victims of sexual harassment stand to go uncompensated for the abuse they faced.

Additionally, the new provision can be read so as to penalize victims. Previously, attorneys fees for sexual harassment victims were not taxable. The new provision does not distinguish between the victim’s attorney’s fees and the accussed’s attorneys’ fees. The victim usually pays her attorney a portion of any settlement amount. Now, the tax code can be interpreted as requiring the victim to pay taxes on the total settlement, even though she did not receive the entire amount, because a portion was paid to her attorneys. Thus, the tax code seems to punish victims who must choose to between taking a payment and maintaining confidentiality, or turning down confidentiality and taking her chances in a courtroom. Moreover, it is sometimes the victim who also wants confidentiality, so the premise that only a defendant is pushing for it, is false.

Long Island Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC are Long Island sexual harassment lawyers. Today’s blog was for informational purposes only and should not be used as tax or legal advice. If you have further questions about sexual harassment or the implications of the new tax code on sexual harassment settlements, contact a Long Island employment at 631-352-0050 or on the internet at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com.