On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in the case Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. The decision is monumental in that it materially alters the requirements that employees must satisfy to prove unlawful workplace discrimination. If you’re thinking that the current conservative leaning SCOTUS ruled in favor of employers, you would be wrong. Read today’s Long Island employment law blog to learn about the Muldrow decision and its impact on employment discrimination cases across the nation.

In Muldrow, the female plaintiff was a plain clothes police officer assigned to a special Intelligence Division. By virtue of this assignment, Muldrow received what could only be reasonably viewed as employment benefits, though not in the traditional sense. Muldrow did not receive extra pay or better health care benefits. Rather, Muldrow received other perks such as FBI credentials and use of an unmarked police car which she could take home.

Eventually a new commander of Muldrow’s unit took over. According to Muldrow’s lawsuit, the new commander made comments suggestive of a sex based animus. For instance, he referred to Muldrow as “Mrs.”, rather than Sergeant, as was customary. Further, according to Muldrow, the commander transferred her out of the unit, in order to replace her with a male officer.

2024 has seen New York’s federal appellate court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, issue a string of employee friendly decisions. We have blogged about some of these decisions previously. On March 26, 2024, the Second Circuit decided an employment discrimination case which clarifies how trial courts should analyze discrimination cases. As we discuss in today’s Long Island employment law blog, the decision should result in more discrimination cases getting to trial.

In Bart v. Globus Corporation, the employer, Globus Corp., accused an employee, Elaine Bart, of falsifying food logs, maintained by the company to ensure health and safety. Globus fired Bart. Bart admitted that she violated the food log policy, but nonetheless, she alleged that the termination decision was made based on her gender. Accordingly, Bart sued Globus pursuant to, among other statutes, Title VII, the federal workplace anti-discrimination law.

To a layperson, this may seem like an open and shut case. The employer accused the employee of violating policy, the employee admitted to violating policy, and the employer fired the employee for violating the policy. How could this be unlawful discrimination then?

Employment laws in New York are complex and always evolving. In 2024, various existing employment laws will see changes take effect. In addition, some entirely new laws will take effect. Today’s Long Island employment law blog will take a look at some of the changes so that employers can consider compliance options and so that employees understand their rights.

The Freelance Isn’t Free Act

A hotly contested issue in employment law is whether workers are independent contractors or employees. Many employers try to categorize workers as independent contractors to avoid many of the legal obligations that come along with adding an employee to payroll. The Freelance Isn’t Free Act is an attempt to add some protections for independent contractors.

Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are proud to announce that both partners, Matthew Weinick and Peter Famighetti, have been selected to the New York Metro Super Lawyers list. This marks the 10th consecutive year that the magazine selected Weinick and the 8th consecutive year for Famighetti. Additionally, the firm is announcing the opening of a new practice area – mediation services.

Firm Celebrates a Decade of Selections by Super Lawyers Magazine

In 2012, Super Lawyers magazine first selected Weinick for its “Rising Star” list. The Rising Star list is reserved for lawyers who have been practicing for less than 10 years or who are under 40 years old. Super Lawyers’ patented selection process results in just 2.5% of the lawyers in the state being selected for inclusion. Weinick made the cut for inclusion on each list from 2012 to 2018.

Long Island employment law firm Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC recently hired a summer law student intern, Danielle Jacobs. Danielle is a second year student at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University.

During her time as an intern, Danielle has conducted research and drafted memoranda. Danielle has observed Mr. Famighetti and Mr. Weinick at consultations and arbitration hearings for labor and employment law topics. Additionally, Danielle assists Mr. Famighetti and Mr. Weinick by drafting intent to sue letters, complaints, rebuttals, and settlement agreements, along with writing blog posts on commonly asked questions by clients such as the NYC Mandatory Retirement Plan and the NY HERO Act.

During her time at Hofstra Law School, Danielle has achieved a GPA of 3.72 and is in the top 8.4% of her class. She also recently earned membership as a Staff Member on the Hofstra Law Review for Vol. 50. Danielle holds a Merit Scholarship and a Dean’s Honor Scholarship from Hofstra Law School. Throughout her first year of law school, Danielle also became an active member in the Hofstra Law Women’s club and the Public Justice Foundation. The Public Justice Foundation helps raise money and awards fellowships to students who devote their summers to working in an area of public interest and are unable to be paid while doing so. Danielle spoke with alumni, family members, and friends in order to raise money for the Public Justice Foundation.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, or the ADA, is a federal law which regulates discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The law prohibits discrimination in several areas, including in employment. Like most words in the law, however, disability has a specific definition meaning that to be protected under the law, an individual must have a disability as defined by the ADA. On June 30, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York joined other jurisdictions and took an expansive interpretation of the meaning of disability. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the case.

To be covered under the ADA, an individual must have a disability as defined by law. The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. If an individual has a medical condition that does not meet this definition, then the ADA does not apply and the individual is not entitled to reasonable accommodations under the law and is not protected from discrimination based on the medical condition.

In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly interpreted the definition. The Court determined that the words used by Congress, such as major and substantially, implied that disability is a demanding standard. The Court further held that to qualify as a disability, a person’s impairment must be permanent or long term.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law which requires, among other things, that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. But, what if, by providing an accommodation, the employer would be violating another federal law? Must the employer still provide that accommodation? Recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York weighed in on this question. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the Bey v. City of New York decision.

The Fire Department of New York (FDNY) maintains a policy that requires all firefighters to shave their facial hair in order to wear a tight fitting respirator to protect the firefighters from smoke and toxic fumes. The policy allowed for only short sideburns and trimmed mustaches that do not affect the area where the mask meets with skin.

Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (“PFB”) is a skin condition which causes pain, irritation, and scarring to men who shave with PFB. In other words, men with PFB cannot shave without enduring pain, irritation and scarring. PFB is more prevalent among black males than white males. Firefighters are not immune from PFB, thus some firefighters suffer from PFB, putting their medical condition on a collision course with the FDNY facial hair policy.

Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC have been blogging about whether employers can lawfully require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Our blogs have concentrated on guidance issued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and have opined that workplace vaccination requirements are likely lawful, at least under federal law.

But, the EEOC’s guidance is not binding and there have not been any apparent court cases concerning the legality of vaccination requirements. On June 12, 2021, however, a Texas federal court dismissed a challenge to a Texas hospital’s workplace rules requiring that employees be vaccinated or be fired. 116 employees challenged the rule. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the case.

On April 1, 2021, Texas hospital Houston Methodist, issued a policy directing that all of its employees must be vaccinated by June 7, 2021. 116 employees challenged the rule in federal court and asked that the court block the hospital from requiring that they be injected with the vaccine or be fired.