Articles Posted in Hostile Work Environment

For federal workplace discrimination claims in New York, employees must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the discriminatory act in order to preserve their right to sue the employer. But, oftentimes for hostile work environment claims, the employee doesn’t reach a breaking point until after enduring perhaps months or years of abuse. Does the employee lose the right to sue based on acts which occurred before the 300 day filing period? On April 8, 2019, New York’s federal appellate court answered that question, and clarified several other important points of law concerning employment cases.  Today’s Long Island employment law blog explains.

For an employee to have a hostile work environment claim against an employer, the employee must be able to show the employer’s abusive conduct was either severe or pervasive. When showing pervasive conduct, the employee must show many hostile and abusive acts took place frequently over a period of time. But, employees must file charges of discrimination within 300 days of the discriminator act.

In Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie, the plaintiff alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment at three different store locations and over the course of more than a year, ending in September 2013.  But, the plaintiff did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC until December 2013. The trial court ruled that the everything that happened from before 300 days before the EEOC charge was filed, would not be considered.

Are you facing a hostile work environment? You may think so, but courts may not agree.  Employment law requires employees to show that they faced severe or pervasive abusive conduct in the workplace, to prove a hostile work environment claim.  What is severe or pervasive conduct?  Today’s Long Island employment law blog explains.

Courts have long stated that their role is not to keep workplaces civil.  So, many employees may believe their bosses and/or coworkers are mistreating them, but the law would not regard the conduct as unlawful.  Employment laws only prohibit abusive conduct which is directed at employees based on the employee’s protected characteristics, such as sex, gender, race, or national origin.  Moreover, the conduct must be severe or pervasive.  The legal definition of severe of pervasive has been settled for a while, but because it’s a somewhat of a nebulous definition, courts and lawyers sometimes have trouble discerning when conduct meets that standard.

In Fox v. Costco, decided on March 6, 2019, the Second Circuit provided insight into questions. First, can an employee claim he subjected to a hostile work environment based on a disability?  Second, what kind of conduct can be severe or pervasive.  Let’s take the questions in turn.

If employees gossip or spread rumors about a co-worker falsely having sex with a supervisor, does that constitute a hostile work environment? At least one federal appellate court says yes, at least if the employer knew about the rumors, participated in spreading the rumors, and disciplined the worker based on the rumor.  Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses this workplace issue.

In Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, the plaintiff was initially hired to a low level warehouse position with the company.  But, in the course of two years, the plaintiff, a female, was promoted several times, eventually to an assistant manager position.  Within weeks of this promotion, male employees began circulating rumors that the plaintiff had a sexual relationship with a high ranking manager, and that she entered into the relationship for the purpose of obtaining the promotions. The rumors started from a male employee who was jealous about the plaintiff’s quick rise to her position.

The plaintiff met with the highest ranking manager at her location to discuss the matter. At the meeting, the manager blamed the plaintiff for “bringing the situation into the workplace,” and warned her that he could not recommend her for any further promotions because of the rumor. He specifically stated she would not progress any higher in the company because of the rumor.

Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are Long Island employment lawyers. We receive many calls each week from potential clients and we hear a wide variety of questions from them. One question we hear a lot is “I thought I can’t sue my employer?” Why do employees ask this question and what’s the answer? Today’s Long Island employment law blog explores this issue.

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.

The Long Island employment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC obtained a decision that probable cause exists to believe that a national investment bank discriminated and retaliated against their client.  The case will be scheduled for a public hearing at the New York State Division of Human Rights.

The age discrimination and retaliation case was brought on behalf of one of the bank’s traders. According to the allegations in the case, the trader had been successfully working on Wall Street for decades.  Then, co-workers and supervisors began subjecting the trader to a hostile work environment based on his age.  The abusive conduct consisted of age based jokes and comments, some of which were documented in e-mails.  The complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights detailed other improper hostile workplace conduct directed at the trader based on his age.

Further, the trader complained about the age discrimination on multiple occasions, also at times in writing. Despite these complaints, the hostile work environment continued.  The trader opposed other unlawful discriminatory conduct in the workplace and after one such time, a supervisor threatened to run the trader out of the company.  Indeed, soon after these complaints, the bank issued a poor performance evaluation to the trader and removed from him many of his top accounts.  The complaint alleged that the reasons the bank gave the trader for removing the accounts were demonstrably untrue. Ultimately, the bank terminated the trader’s employment.

On December 20, 2017, the United States Congress passed a tax bill which changed many provisions of the United States tax code.  Many of those most prominent changes received extensive coverage by the press.  One smaller provision, however, did not receive much attention, but has the potential to affect sexual harassment cases in a significant way.  Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the so-called “Weinstein” provision in the new tax bill.

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.

Contact Information