December 28, 2021

Updates to New York’s Whistleblower Law

Whistleblower retaliation is perhaps one of the most misunderstood employment law claims in New York. Many employees believe a broad whistleblower law protects a variety of employee conduct and that when employees complain about any number of workplace issues, they are automatically protected against retaliation by the employer.

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.

March 3, 2021

Judge Rules Firm’s Case Against Long Island Fire Department Can Proceed

by Famighetti & Weinick

In November 2020, the Long Island employment law firm Famighetti & Weinick PLLC filed a federal lawsuit against a Long Island volunteer fire department on behalf of a female volunteer firefighter. The lawsuit alleged that the department discriminated against the firefighter based on her sex, then retaliated against her when she complained about the discrimination. The fire department asked the court to dismiss the case. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the lawsuit, the department’s motion, and the court’s decision.

The lawsuit alleges that the female volunteer firefighter is currently the only female in the department. Unlike her male counterparts, the female firefighter alleged that she was treated differently by being subject to unwarranted scrutiny over work on department committees. She further alleged that stipends and budgets under her control were cut to levels lower than males who had previously held her position.

After years of ongoing disparate treatment, the firefighter eventually brought her complaints to the department’s attention. After making the complaint, individuals in the department tried to oust her from her position as an officer of the department, and took other action allegedly in retaliation for her complaints. Ultimately, the fire department decided that her claims lacked merit, so she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

March 7, 2020

Neutral Acts Can Support a Hostile Work Environment

by Famighetti & Weinick

On March 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, handed a gift to employees. The Court reviewed issues related to (1) hostile work environment claims and (2) the standard for retaliation claims. On both issues, the Court’s decision came out highly favorable for employees. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the decision in Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc.

Hostile Work Environment Claims are Fact Intensive and Should Not Be Decided on Summary Judgment

Under federal law, a hostile work environment claim must show, among other things, that the employee was subjected to abusive and unwelcome conduct based on the employee’s membership in a protected class. Further, the conduct must be severe or pervasive such that it altered the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment. Notably, New York law expressly eliminates the severe or pervasive standard, so that showing is not necessary when suing under state law, but still must be met when suing in New York, but under federal law. The Rasmy decision addresses the requirements (1) conduct based on the employee’s protected class and (2) the terms and conditions of employment. These points are discussed below.

January 27, 2020

EEOC Publishes 2019 Charge Statistics

by Famighetti & Weinick

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency charged with investigating and prosecuting claims of discrimination arising under federal law. Generally, federal law prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, color, disability, age, and genetic information. Further, federal law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report or oppose unlawful workplace discrimination.

Before an employee may sue an employer for discrimination or retaliation (arising under federal law) employees must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In January 2020, the EEOC published data reporting the number of charges filed across the United States and its territories in 2019. The publication shows the number of filings broken down by state and type of charge, and percentage of charges as a total of all filings and as a percentage of all filings within the state. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the EEOC’s report.

New York saw a total of 3,220 EEOC charge filings (or 4.40% of all charges filed in the United States). This shows a continued a downward trend of EEOC charges in New York. As pictured in the graph below, in 2016, New York saw 3,740 total EEOC filings which steadily decreased to 3,220 last year.

April 19, 2019

Appeals Court Applies Stricter Test to Disability Discrimination in New York

by Famighetti & Weinick

In employment discrimination claims, courts generally apply one of two methods of analyzing the claims. In a mixed-motives analysis, plaintiffs must show the employer was motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory animus. This is considered a more lenient standard. In but-for causation, the plaintiff must show that discrimination was the but-for cause of the employment action taken against the employee. This is considered a stricter standard. On April 18, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, New York’s highest federal court, ruled that but-for causation is the appropriate legal standard applicable to disability discrimination claims. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the decision.

In Natofsky v. City of New York, the plaintiff alleged disability discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York. He brought his claims under the Rehabilitation Act. The trial court applied a standard requiring the plaintiff to show that discrimination was the “sole” reason that the employer took a adverse actions against him. Applying this standard, the trial court dismissed the employee’s claims, then the employee appealed.

On appeal, the Second Circuit first looked at whether the employee was required to show that discrimination was the sole reason for the acts taken against him. The court determined that the Rehabilitation Act incorporates the standards from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). So, although the Rehabilitation Act indeed uses language indicating discrimination must be the sole reason, subsequent amendments to the Act made clear that courts were to look to the ADA for the appropriate standard.

April 9, 2019

What Acts Can be Considered For a Hostile Work Environment Claim?

by Famighetti & Weinick

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.

February 21, 2019

Are Rumors About Sex in the Workplace a Hostile Work Environment

by Famighetti & Weinick

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.

December 10, 2018

Intimate Association: The Right to be Free From Government Intrusion Into Family

by Famighetti & Weinick

Courts have long recognized a constitutional right to intimate association. Intimate association protects close family relationships from undue interference from the government. Today’s Long Island civil rights blog discusses some of the contours of these claims and a recent appellate court decision concerning intimate association under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Close family relationships enjoy constitutional protections. In fact, courts have determined that two amendments protect individuals’ rights to enter into and enjoy close personal relationships. The First Amendment was determined to protect close family relationships in 1999 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The First Amendment prohibits the government from intruding into a familial relationship as retaliation for one family member’s exercise of free speech rights.

The relationship at issue must be very close. For instance, a husband and wife, parent and child, and brother and sister (or other siblings), have all been determined to be close enough so as to constitute a constitutionally protected familial relationship. Two longtime childhood friends, however, are not constitutionally protected as an intimate association, even if those friends consider themselves so close as to constitute a de facto family.

December 4, 2018

Firm’s Age Discrimination Case Against Investment Bank to Proceed to Hearing

by Famighetti & Weinick

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.

August 8, 2018

Retaliatory Arrest Violates First Amendment

by Famighetti & Weinick

The First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee remains a hot topic in the courts. The First Amendment lawyers at Famighetti & Weinick PLLC handle First Amendment cases ranging from employment retaliation to retaliation against private citizens. Today’s Long Island civil rights blog discusses retaliatory arrests and the effects of government officials censoring speech.

The Constitution has limits. The First Amendment is not unlimited and neither is the Fourth Amendment. For instance, the Fourth Amendment places limits on a police officer’s arrest power. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to have probable cause before making an arrest, meaning a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, the arrest is unlawful. Establishing probable cause, however, is easy and police officers are given a significant amount of discretion and deference when it comes to arrests.

On June 18, 2018 in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, the question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the existence of probable cause prevented an individual from suing for retaliatory arrest.