Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Rather than the formal, rigid structure of court proceedings, mediation is an informal and confidential way for plaintiffs and defendants to meet to try to reach a settlement of their dispute. Mediators are trained in techniques which can help the parties reach a settlement. More information about mediation in general, is available here.

The Southern District of New York (SDNY) is one of New York’s federal courts. It has jurisdiction over federal cases from counties in New York State such as New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Sullivan, Orange, and Dutchess. Because of the area it covers, the Southern District of New York has handled many famous court cases, including most recently, the sentencing of President Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen, the “deflategate” litigation relating to the NFL, and the prosecution of Bernie Madoff.

Also because of the area it covers, the SDNY is a busy court. To control case load, the Court has adopted several programs, including mandatory mediation for different types of cases, including some employment cases and some police misconduct cases. These programs send roughly 1500 cases per year to early mediation (i.e. soon after the case is filed) with the hope that some of the cases can be settled and taken off the Court’s docket, to relieve the stress on the system.

With 1500 cases per year in the mediation program, the SDNY routinely looks for qualified and experienced mediators to join the panel. The SDNY uses a “wheel,” to assign mediators, as it does for judges, as well. This means mediators (and judges) are assigned at random, when a case enters the mediation referral program.

The road to Weinick’s swearing in started last year. Weinick underwent a rigorous application process, which reviewed his qualifications and fitness to serve. A panel of interviewers questioned Weinick about his experience and other background material. Ultimately, the panel approved Weinick’s application.

Next, the Court’s mediation office required that Weinick demonstrate his mediation skills, and ability to adhere to the program’s strict standards and quality of service. Weinick participated in a serious of mediation observations to understand how other mediators on the panel implement the court’s rules, styles, and guidelines, then Weinick was paired with a highly experienced mediator, so that Weinick could demonstrate his mediation skills at a real life court ordered mediation session.

After receiving a “thumbs up” from his evaluator and upon an additional qualifications review from the program administrator, Weinick was approved to join the panel. He is now on the “wheel” and eligible to be assigned as a mediator for cases entering the SDNY mediation program in the future.

In addition to the Southern District of New York, Weinick participates in several other courts’ alternative dispute resolution programs. In 2022, the Eastern District of New York, which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, added Weinick to its roster of mediators. After a comprehensive review by the Nassau County Bar Association’s judiciary panel determining him to be “well qualified,” the NCBA added Weinick to its roster of mediators.

Weinick also serves as an arbitrator for Nassau County District Court. Parties in District Court can choose to have their case decided by an arbitrator, instead of a judge. The advantage is that arbitrators can typically hear and decide cases faster than judges, because of the judges’ caseload.

On his appointment to the SDNY, Weinick commented, “It’s been a lot of work to get to this point, but I’m looking forward to serving the SDNY and to accepting mediation assignments.”

If you have questions about mediation, contact one of our employment lawyers at 631-352-0050 or visit our website at http://linycemploymentlaw.com.

Weinick sworn in as mediator for the SDNY

In fact, New York’s whistleblower law is remarkably narrow. The New York employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC have previously blogged about the limitations of New York’s whisteblower statute, codified as New York Labor Law 740. But, on January 22, 2022, the law is set to expand. Today’s Long Island employment law blog explains the changes coming to New York’s whistleblower law.

Under the existing New York whistleblower law, workers in New York were protected against retaliation by employers when employees engaged in certain protected acts. To invoke the protections of the act, employees had to have disclosed an illegal activity of the employer. Further, it was not enough that the employer just engaged in unlawful activity. The violation must have threatened the health or safety of the public or constitute healthcare fraud. In other words, the law’s coverage was remarkably limited.

When the 2022 amendments take effect, the whistleblower law’s coverage will be greatly expanded. Among the changes coming, the law will protect both employees and independent contractors. Previously independent contractors were not covered.

In addition, the law more broadly defines the types of laws which employees can allege an employer is violating. The amendments clarify that executive orders, court decisions, and administrative agency decisions or rulings, are all within the definition of a “law, rule, or regulation.”

Under traditional understandings of the term retaliation, only certain employment actions were deemed retaliatory. For instance, terminations and demotions have clearly been legally recognized as retaliatory acts. But other acts, such as an employer speaking poorly about a former employee, may not have been recognized as retaliatory. Under the changes coming in 2022, the whistleblower expands the definition of retaliatory acts to prohibit employers from acting in ways which may harm a former employee’s prospects for future employment and from reporting an employee or his or her family to immigration officials.

Notably, a key change is that the activities that an employee may engage in to invoke the law’s protections has also been expanded. Employees will need only to make a good faith effort to advise their employer of a violation, before reporting the violation to a public body. Some exceptions apply to this requirement of first reporting to the employer, including, where the employee reasonably believes an imminent danger to the public exists, the employee thinks the employer will destroy evidence, or where the the employee believes the employer knows about the violation but will not correct it.

Other changes include that the statute of limitations has been increased from one year to two years. Also, whereas damages were limited in the previous version of the law, the changes make available punitive damages, front pay, and civil penalties of up to $10,000. Finally, employers must post notice of employees’ rights under the law.

Whisteblower protections in New York are one of the most commonly misunderstood areas of employment law. Prior to 2022, New York’s whistleblower law was notoriously limited in scope and covered only particular activities. The 2022 changes will expand New York’s whisteblower protections in important ways. Limitations remain though which why it is important to speak to an experienced employment law attorney if you believe your employer is violating a law.

The employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are experienced in handling a variety of employment retaliation matters. Laws such as Title VII and the New York State Human Rights law also provide retaliation protection. If you are concerned about an employer violating a law or if you believe you have been retaliated against at work, speak to one of our retaliation lawyers at (631) 352-0050, or in the Hudson Valley at (845) 669-0040.

Changes coming to NY whistleblower law

Overall, across the entire country and the EEOC’s jurisdiction, 67,448 charges were filed. Later, we’ll discuss that there may be factors to consider other than less employees are filing charges, but 2020 marks the fourth straight year of declining charges, and nearly a decade of an overall average decrease in total filings.

New York is following the national trend. In 2020, 2,999 charges were filed, down from 3,220 the year before. This is also the fourth year of declines. The following chart shows that, with the exception of a few upward ticks, the trend has generally been less and less filings since the reporting started in 2009.

Total New York EEOC Charge Filings from 2009 to 2020

Retaliation is by far the number one charge type. But, the numbers here can be deceiving. Retaliation frequently comes along with an employee complaining about some other type of underlying discrimination. In other words, many times, an employee will complain that she is facing sex discrimination in the workplace. After complaining internally to the employer, the employer may retaliate and fire the employee. When the employee files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, she will charge both sex discrimination and retaliation. Thus, the raw number of retaliation charges does not necessarily reflect an independent charge of retaliation. The charge will often include retaliation plus one more categories of discrimination. Nonetheless, with 1,774 retaliation charges making up almost 60% of EEOC charges in New York, retaliation continues to prove itself to be a dangerous weapon for employees and a pitfall for employers.

After retaliation charges, sex, race, and disability charges lead the way. With the me-too movement and all the publicity about workplace sexual harassment in recent years, it’s not surprising that sex discrimination is the second highest type of charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC in New York, at 1,190 charges. This is a slight decrease from the 2019 numbers when 1209 sex discrimination charges were filed. In fact, except national origin charges which were exactly the same from 2019 to 2020, all charge types decreased, except Genetic Information discrimination, which saw a small uptick from 6 in 2019 to 14 in 2020. The next two charts shows the 2020 EEOC charge numbers in New York, and the change between 2019 and 2020.

2020 EEOC Charges in NY by charge type

2019 vs 2020 NY EEOC Charges by Type

What do the 2020 numbers tell us about what’s happening with workplace discrimination in New York? The numbers this year are tricky because of many factors. First, and perhaps most obviously, in 2020, New York workplaces were facing the pandemic. New York’s pause shutdown workplaces across the state for months, taking away opportunity for hostile work environments, sexual harassment, and other discriminatory conduct. Would the charge numbers have been on a higher trajectory if workplaces had not shut down? It’s certainly impossible to say, but as noted, charges have been declining for about a decade and continued declining in 2018 and 2019, when the me-too movement was in the forefront. This suggests the numbers would have declined, even absent the pandemic.

But, other non-pandemic factors may reveal why EEOC charges are declining. The EEOC’s statistics do not include charges filed with state or local enforcement agencies, although in New York, charges filed locally are cross-filed with the EEOC. In New York, local county or city human rights commissions are also empowered to investigate charges of discrimination, as is the New York State Division of Human Rights. Oftentimes, state or local workplace discrimination laws are more liberal and expansive than the federal countertops. This is the case in New York, where New York City’s human rights laws have been liberally construed for years, and New York State last year revised its workplace discrimination laws to largely match the City’s. Thus, it is often more advantageous for employees to file in the New York State Division of Human Rights instead of the EEOC, so their claims are viewed with the benefit of New York’s liberal human rights laws. This factor may explain the overall decline of EEOC filings over the past decade. To test this theory, we’ll take a look at the Division’s numbers when they’re published.

Of course, another factor may be that workplaces are paying closer attention to anti-discrimination training and policies. New York law now requires that employers train employees about sexual harassment and discrimination. If those trainings and policies are effective, we would expect to see a decrease in unlawful employment practices, and thus, a decease in discrimination charges.

What do you think about the latest EEOC statistics? Let us know on our Facebook page. If you have questions about the EEOC, New York State Division of Human Rights, workplace discrimination, or retaliation, contact a Long Island employment lawyer at 631-352-0050. We are now serving New York’s Hudson Valley, as well, and our Hudson Valley employment attorneys are available at 845-669-0040.

Super Lawyers evaluates lawyers in the state who they find have reached a “high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.” The rating service then selects lawyers using a patented process, including surveying lawyers within the state, and independently researching evaluation of candidates and peer reviews.

2020 marks the fifth consecutive year that Famighetti has been selected for the Super Lawyers list. On his selection, Famighetti commented that, “I am so appreciative to be included on the Super Lawyers list, alongside some of the most respected lawyers in the state.” Famighetti further noted that, “I believe that both partners’ selection shows the Firm’s commitment to excellence in the practice of law.”

After being listed as a “Rising Star” each year from 2012 to 2018, a list reserved for lawyers under 40 years old, 2020 is the second year Weinick has been selected to the Super Lawyers list. About the Super Lawyers list, Weinick said, “The New York Super Lawyers list reviews lawyers in New York City and the metro area, meaning we’re evaluated against some of the most talented lawyers working in some of the world’s biggest law firms. Being selected from such competition is truly a remarkable achievement.”

The Super Lawyers list will be published in the annual Super Lawyers New York Metro Magazine. Additionally, the list will be published as part of a special New York Times supplement, with readership of 1,100,000 people.

Famighetti & Weinick PLLC is a Long Island employment law firm. The firm handles cases concerning employment discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and improper payment of wages and overtime. The firm concentrates its practice towards representing employees. Famighetti and Weinick were selected to the plaintiff’s employment discrimination practice area of the Super Lawyer’s list.

For more information about Famighetti & Weinick PLLC, visit our website at http://linycemploymentlaw.com or our social media pages on Facebook or Linkedin. For free case evaluations, speak to one of our Long Island employment attorneys by phone at 631-352-0050.

Long Island Employment Lawyers Selected to Super Lawyers List

The Labor and Employment Law committee is tasked with analyzing proposals for new federal and state legislation and regulations relating to employment issues such as employer-employee relations, benefits, and pensions. The committee also reviews judicial decisions concerning employment law matters including discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour issues.

The committee meets once per month at the association’s Mineola office building, affectionately known by members as “Domus.” Meetings provide committee members the opportunity to discuss the latest developments in employment law. The committee invites a speaker to each meeting, to lead a discussion with members about a particular area of employment law.

Typically, chairpersons of the committee serve two year terms. Having served for two years as Vice-Chairperson, Weinick was selected as Chairperson by a sub-committee comprised of distinguished past committee chairs.

On his appointment, Weinick commented, “The bar association has been a cherished part of my professional life and I’m looking forward to giving back to the committee which has helped me grow so much as a lawyer.” Weinick expects to face many challenges this year, including the likelihood that the committee will not be able to hold in-person meetings because of coronavirus, and the ongoing legal issues related to employment because of coronavirus.

Weinick first joined the Nassau County Bar Association while a student in law school. When his path brought him into employment law, he joined the Labor and Employment Law committee, and has been actively participating with the committee ever since. As a committee member, Weinick has led presentations at the committee’s monthly meetings and he has presented at Continuing Legal Education classes put together by the committee and presented to the entire association.

In addition to committee work, Weinick is involved in the association’s pro bono work, including the association’s annual open houses and lawyer in the classroom program. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Weinick participates as a member of the bar association’s pandemic task force and provides free consultations to community members who have employment related questions arising because of coronavirus. Weinick has had all eight articles published that he submitted to the bar association’s newspaper, Nassau Lawyer. The articles addressed substantive employment law issues, procedural issues, and broader civil rights matters.

The firm congratulates Matt on this achievement!

Matt Weinick selected to lead Labor and Employment Law committee

Sick Leave

The law provides for paid sick leave for some employees. Preliminarily, this portion of the law applies only to employers with less than 500 employees. As to employers who meet this number requirement, employees may qualify for paid sick leave if they meet any of these requirements:

• the employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation order (for coronavirus);
• the employee must self-quarantine per a doctor’s direction;
• the employee has symptoms of the virus (must also seek a medical diagnosis);
• the employee must care for someone who is under quarantine;
• the employee must care for their child because of school closures or regular caregiver unavailability;
• the employee has another hardship specified by designated government agencies.

The law provides for exceptions for some small businesses who can show hardship and some health care workers. The law also provides for job security and sets the amount of wages which can be collected by employees, varying depending on full-time or part-time status, and whether leave is taken because of the employee’s medical need, or the employee’s need to care for another.

Family Leave

The law alters some provisions of the existing Family Medical Leave Act. For example, FMLA leave availability is extended to all employees who have worked at least 30 days. Employees who cannot work or who cannot work at home, but must care for a child, are entitled to 12 weeks of leave. The first 10 days may be unpaid, but the balance of the leave must be paid, a stark contrast to the existing FMLA. The law also requires job security, meaning the employee must be re-employed upon expiration of the leave.

Again, exclusions apply to health care workers, and the law imposes caps on the amount of salary employers are required to pay.

Tax Credits

To alleviate some of the burden of the law on businesses, the law provides for tax credits who pay benefits under the law. We leave explanation of the nature of these credits to accountant and tax lawyers, and note only that these credits are available.

We continue to follow the coronavirus as it relates to employment law. We also remain available to speak to individuals about their questions related to the coronavirus and work. Call us at 631-352-0050.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act

Elisa’s value to the firm and to our clients is self-evident. Before her hire, Elisa studied criminal justice at Excelsior College. Her coursework included instruction about the United States court system, immigration, juvenile justice, criminal law, and ethics, coursework which aligns with the firm’s values of providing legal services to vulnerable segments of the population.

Elisa also received her paralegal studies certificate from Hofstra University. At Hofstra, Elisa learned skills which she puts to work everyday, including research and writing, and civil litigation procedures. Her substantive law classes included contracts, real estate, family law, business organizations, and Wills, Trusts, and Estates.

As a further indication of Elisa’s values and commitment to public service, prior to her hire, Elisa volunteered with the City University of New York’s Citizenship Now Immigration Center. As a volunteer, Elisa provided support to the full-time administrative staff and performed general administrative duties. Moreover, Elisa assisted program participants with completing immigration documents, including naturalization paperwork. Elisa performed this work under the supervision of attorneys.

Upon her hire, the firm dedicated itself to providing Elisa with further intense hands-on training. Proving herself a quick learner and self-starter, Elisa’s responsibilities have grown. Today, Elisa is the main point of contact for the firm’s real estate clients, she prepares and files the firm’s court litigation documents, she performs new client intakes, and she generally keeps Matt and Pete sane, by organizing the monstrous litigation files involved in our complex employment litigation practice.

As if this all weren’t enough, Elisa is fluent is Spanish. Her participation in translating for clients and translating documents is invaluable and allows the firm access to serve some of the most vulnerable segments of Long Island’s workforce.

Outside the office, Elisa shows dedication to her family. She is most proud of her son who serves the country in the United States armed forces.

We are grateful for Elisa and we trust that she will continue to serve the firm’s clients respectfully and conscientiously.

Paralegal Elisa

A court’s jurisdiction is generally considered either general or specific. In New York, the Supreme Court (which is actually the lowest level court) is generally a court of general jurisdiction. This means Supreme Courts can hear nearly any type of case. For purposes of efficiency however, the state created other courts of specific jurisdiction. As noted above, family courts, surrogate’s courts, and small claims courts were created to hear specific types of cases so that the Supreme Court can hear other matters without its docket being clogged.

Federal courts are, by the very nature of the Constitution, courts of limited jurisdiction. Since the federal government only has the power to regulate those areas granted by the Constitution and all other areas of regulation and lawmaking are reserved to the states, federal courts cannot hear all types of cases. Generally, federal courts can hear cases in one of two ways, either by diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties live in different states. For example, if Jim lives in New York and Joe lives in New Jersey and Jim was injured in a car accident with Joe, Jim could sue Joe in a federal court. But, if Jim and Joe both live in New York, Jim would have to sue Joe in a New York State Supreme Court.

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a lawsuit relates to a federal law. For example, if a person sued the government for a First Amendment violation, that lawsuit could be filed in federal court or if an employee sued an employer for discrimination under Title VII, the lawsuit could be filed in federal court.

Oftentimes, a plaintiff will file a lawsuit based on violations of state and federal law. In employment lawsuits, for example, a plaintiff may use federal and state discrimination laws to sue the employer. If there is no diversity jurisdiction, where does the employee file the lawsuit? Since New York State Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction, the employee could file his lawsuit there and include the state and federal claims. But, federal courts may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction. When a lawsuits involves federal and state law claims which are related, a plaintiff may file the lawsuit in federal court and the court will have supplemental jurisdiction to hear the state law claims.

Sometimes, federal law claims will be dismissed from a lawsuit in federal court, leaving the state law claims. In those cases, the court may decide to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction. If the court does not, the state law claims will also be dismissed, but the plaintiff can re-file in state court, essentially starting the lawsuit all over again.

This is precisely what happened in Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp. In Catzin, several employees filed a lawsuit against their employer alleging, among other things, that the employer did not properly pay them their wages. This constitutes a violation of both federal and state laws and, indeed, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in federal court using both the federal and state laws available to them. The case was litigated for two years and was ready for trial. But, just before trial, the plaintiffs notified the court that they would not be pursuing the federal law claims, only the state. Sue sponte (meaning on its own), the court told the parties that it would no longer exercise supplemental jurisdiction and that the state law claims would be dismissed. The court further questioned the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ motivations for filing in federal court with federal claims, suspecting the lawyer did so only to forum shop. The plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Second Circuit determined that the Federal District Court committed three errors in dismissing the case. First, the court erred by dismissing the case without giving the parties notice that it would decide, or an opportunity to be heard on the issue. Next, the appeals court erred by assigning improper motives to the attorney without giving the attorney an opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Second Circuit determined that the court did not adequately weigh the factors designated in the jurisdiction statute. The appellate court found persuasive that the federal court have heard the short trial much more efficiently than sending the case to state court where the parties would have to start all over again.

If you have questions about jurisdiction or where to file a lawsuit, such as an employment discrimination lawsuit, speak to one of our Long Island employment lawyers at 631-352-0050. Our lawyers regularly represent clients in both federal and state courts.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

According to Hofstra Law School’s website, the Foundational Lawyering Skills class is a required course for all second year students. It teaches “core lawyering skills” such as litigation and transactional lawyering. Instructors assess the students’ competency in those skills. The class is comprised of a lecture and “break-out classes.” Weinick will be instructing one section of the break-out class on Tuesday afternoons.

The fall 2018 semester will be the fourth year in a row Weinick has participated as an instructor in the Foundational Lawyering Skills class program. Last year Weinick’s students commented that he was “pleasant,” “professional,” gave “thoughtful feedback,” “He was good, seemed effective,” and he was “Great, informative, knew the material, gave effective comments.”

On his appointment, Weinick said, “I love being a part of the Hofstra Law community and playing a role in the education of our next generation of lawyers.” Weinick further noted that both he and Peter Famighetti are graduates of Hofstra and that, “F&W and Hofstra have an important relationship and we are grateful for all that we do together.” For instance, through Hofstra’s Alumni office, Weinick was admitted to the United States Supreme Court this year and F&W hired a devoted and hard working law clerk, Thalia Olaya.

For more information about LAW3200, Foundational Lawyering Skills, visit Hofstra’s website. For more information about Long Island employment lawyer, Matthew Weinick, visit the website for Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC at http://linycemploymentlaw.com/matthew-weinick/.

The following facts are taken from Fernandez v. Zoni Language Ctrs., Inc. decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on May 26, 2017. The plaintiffs were English Language instructors at a private, for-profit institution offering English classes to adult students. The teachers argued that their employer, Zoni Centers, was required to pay them minimum wage for hours worked outside of the classroom, such as when preparing for class and grading work, and overtime hours when their classroom and out-of-classroom work exceeded forty hours per week. The District Court held that although employers are generally required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to pay employees minimum wage and overtime, teachers are considered bona fide professionals exempt from these FLSA requirements. Thus, Zoni Centers was not required to abide by the general FLSA requirements.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REGULATIONS

The issue in the case was whether Zoni Centers was considered an “educational establishment” as required by the Department of Labor’s regulation. If they were, then the FLSA exemption applied and if not, the exemption did not apply and the teachers would win. Although the teachers tried to argue that Zoni Centers was not an “educational establishment,” the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The teachers here argued that Zoni Centers should not be considered an “educational establishment” because: (1) instructors hired by Zoni Centers did not have to possess a teaching certificate, have majored in a field related to English, or even have bachelor’s degrees; and (2) the students did not earn a certificate like students at primary schools, secondary schools, or even colleges. In striking down the teachers’ arguments, the Second Circuit considered both the plain meaning of the word “educational” and the fact that the regulation did not have a clear definition of what an “other educational institution” meant. The Court thought this vagueness suggested that the meaning was broad and flexible. Therefore, the Second Circuit held that Zoni Centers was an “educational establishment” because they conveyed knowledge to its students and possessed a state licensure and national accreditation. Furthermore, in deciding to agree with the lower court, the Second Circuit concluded that although the eight factors the District Court used to determine whether the exemption applies were helpful, they were not definitive. The eight factors were: (1) the title of employees; (2) the certifications required of employees; (3) the formality of courses; (4) the granting of certificates or degrees; (5) the institution’s charter; (6) the employee’s involvement in organizing, communicating and delivering curriculum; (7) whether the institution is licensed by a state agency responsible for the state’s educational system; and (8) whether the institution is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization. In other words, the Second Circuit decided not to adopt a strict test to determine who qualified under the bona fide professional exemption applicable to teachers. In sum, a teacher at a private institution that is not considered either a primary school, secondary school, college, or any of its counterparts, may not be entitled to minimum wage for hours worked outside of the classroom or overtime hours when their classroom and out-of-classroom work exceeds forty hours per week.

Since it may not always be clear who falls under the FLSA exemption for bona fide professionals, if you have further questions about unpaid minimum wage or overtime contact the employment lawyers on Long Island of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC at 631-352-0050.

Today’s Long Island employment law blog was written by Thalia Olaya, a Hofstra Law School intern working at Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, this summer.

Employment Discrimination in Garden City

Employees in Garden City continue to face discrimination in employment. Sex discrimination in Garden City can happen when an employer treats one particular sex different than another. For example, an employer may promote only men instead women. Another growing type of discrimination is gender discrimination and gender stereotype discrimination. An example of gender stereotype discrimination is where an employer fires a male who displays “effeminate” characteristics.

Other types of employment discrimination in Garden City are disability discrimination, race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and age discrimination. Employers are prohibited from making employment decisions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and pay based on any of these protected characteristics. Additionally, disability discrimination can occur when an employer refuses to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and by the New York State Human Rights Law. Two types of sexual harassment are hostile work environment and quid pro sexual harassment. A hostile work environment exists when an employer subjects to an employee to unwelcome sex based abusive conduct in the workplace which is either severe or pervasive. Examples include sex based jokes in the workplace, pornography in the workplace, or demeaning words directed at an employee based on the employee’s sex. Severe conduct could include touching such as massaging an employee’s shoulders, or something more significant such as touching a female’s buttocks or breasts.

Quid pro sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor requests sexual favors from a worker in exchange for favorable treatment.

Workplace Retaliation

Most employment statutes protect employees who exercise rights granted by an employment law or who complain that their rights have been violated. For example, if an employee reasonably believes she has been discriminated against in the workplace and complains about, the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for making the complaint. Examples of retaliation include anything which dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint, such termination, reducing pay, unfavorable work assignments, or subjecting the employee to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Employees are also protected for enforcing rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or for complaining about wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime in Garden City

Employees in Garden City are entitled to receive minimum wage and, in many cases, overtime. Waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys, cooks, and valets, are just some examples of vulnerable employees in Garden City who are frequently cheated out of minimum wage and overtime. Overtime must be paid to employees in Garden City who work more than 40 hours in a workweek and who are not otherwise exempt under the law. New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act also requires that employees in Garden City receive wage statements for each pay period in which they are paid. Violations of the minimum wage, overtime, or wage statement requirement can result in significant damages for employers. Employees who have not been paid properly should speak with an employment lawyer serving Garden City to discuss how the unpaid wages can be obtained.

Help for Garden City Employees

Employment laws in Garden City can be tricky to navigate. There are federal, state, and local laws which may apply. Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are employment lawyers serving Garden City and can discuss your employment case with you. Our Long Island employment law office is located in Melville, New York. Our employment lawyers can be reached at 631-352-0050 or on the web at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com or Facebook.

Employment Discrimination in Carle Place

Employees in Carle Place continue to face discrimination in employment. Sex discrimination in Carle Place can happen when an employer treats one particular sex different than another. For example, an employer may promote only men instead women. Another growing type of discrimination is gender discrimination and gender stereotype discrimination. An example of gender stereotype discrimination is where an employer fires a male who displays “effeminate” characteristics.

Other types of employment discrimination in Carle Place are disability discrimination, race discrimination, national origin discrimination, and age discrimination. Employers are prohibited from making employment decisions such as hiring, firing, promoting, and pay based on any of these protected characteristics. Additionally, disability discrimination can occur when an employer refuses to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and by the New York State Human Rights Law. Two types of sexual harassment are hostile work environment and quid pro sexual harassment. A hostile work environment exists when an employer subjects to an employee to unwelcome sex based abusive conduct in the workplace which is either severe or pervasive. Examples include sex based jokes in the workplace, pornography in the workplace, or demeaning words directed at an employee based on the employee’s sex. Severe conduct could include touching such as massaging an employee’s shoulders, or something more significant such as touching a female’s buttocks or breasts.

Quid pro sexual harassment occurs when a supervisor requests sexual favors from a worker in exchange for favorable treatment.

Workplace Retaliation

Most employment statutes protect employees who exercise rights granted by an employment law or who complain that their rights have been violated. For example, if an employee reasonably believes she has been discriminated against in the workplace and complains about, the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for making the complaint. Examples of retaliation include anything which dissuade a reasonable employee from making a complaint, such termination, reducing pay, unfavorable work assignments, or subjecting the employee to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Employees are also protected for enforcing rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or for complaining about wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime in Carle Place

Employees in Carle Place are entitled to receive minimum wage and, in many cases, overtime. Waiters, waitresses, bartenders, busboys, cooks, and valets, are just some examples of vulnerable employees in Carle Place who are frequently cheated out of minimum wage and overtime. Overtime must be paid to employees in Carle Place who work more than 40 hours in a workweek and who are not otherwise exempt under the law. New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act also requires that employees in Carle Place receive wage statements for each pay period in which they are paid. Violations of the minimum wage, overtime, or wage statement requirement can result in significant damages for employers. Employees who have not been paid properly should speak with an employment lawyer serving Carle Place to discuss how the unpaid wages can be obtained.

Help for Carle Place Employees

Employment laws in Carle Place can be tricky to navigate. There are federal, state, and local laws which may apply. Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are employment lawyers serving Carle Place and can discuss your employment case with you. Our Long Island employment law office is located in Melville, New York. Our employment lawyers can be reached at 631-352-0050 or on the web at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com or Facebook.

Wrongful Termination in New York

Employees in New York are considered to work at-will. At-will employment means that employers can hire or fire employees for any reason or no reason at all. The reason, however, cannot be an unlawful reason. Because of employment at-will in New York, unlawful reasons are created by the passage of laws so there are only a few reasons which may considered wrongful termination in New York. An employer simply making up a reason, framing an employee, or believing one employee’s story over another, are generally not wrongful terminations. These acts, however, may be evidence of a wrongful termination and be used as evidence of discrimination or retaliation.

Discriminatory Termination in New York

Federal law, New York State law, and New York City law, all prohibit employers from terminating employees because of discrimination. Only certain types of discrimination are prohibited. In New York, employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis race, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, gender stereotyping, military service, criminal conviction status, age, religion, or disability.

Laws in New York also prohibit employers from terminating employees who engage in concerted activity. Although this prohibition arises from the National Labor Relations Act — the statute which regulates unions — the NLRA nonetheless protects most employees who talk or complain to one other about workplace conditions. The NLRA also protects an employee who complains to management about workplace conditions on behalf of other employees.

Further, in New York, employers may not terminate employees for exercising their rights under the FMLA or the FLSA.

Retaliatory Termination in New York

Like discriminatory terminations, federal law, New York State law, and New York City law prohibit terminating employees in retaliation for protected activity. The key is protected activity. Retaliation protection is provided only when an employee engages in conduct protected by statute. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. So, if a female employee complains to her employer that she was not promoted because she was female, the employee has engaged in protected activity. If the employer fires the female employee because of her complaint, she has a retaliation claim.

On the other hand, if the female employee complains that she did not get a promotion because the owner decided to give the promotion to his son, then that conduct is really nepotism, not sex discrimination, so the female employee is not protected in this situation because, generally, nepotism is not prohibited by Title VII.

Retaliation provisions also protects employees who take FMLA leave or request a reasonable accommodation for a disability under the ADA. Similarly, military service members who take time to serve their country are generally protected by USERRA and employers are prohibited from retaliating against those who serve in the military.

Wrongful Termination of Civil Service Employees in New york

Civil service employees on Long Island and in New York — employees of state or local governments — generally have more protections than private sector employees. Many civil service employees are protected by Article 75 of the Civil Service Law. Article 75 says that, generally, civil service employees can be terminated only for just cause. Just cause must be determined at hearing. Civil service employees who are protected by Article 75 and who are terminated without a hearing, may have Constitutional claims such as a due process claim and may have rights under a union contract.

Long Island Wrongful Termination Lawyers

Victims of wrongful termination on Long Island may have several options to find justice. Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are employment lawyers on Long Island who may be able to help your case of wrongful termination. We can be contacted at 631-352-0050 or on the web at https://www.linycemploymentlaw.com.