Retaliation Category Archives — Page 2 of 3 — Long Island Employment Law Blog Published by Long Island Employment Law Attorneys

December 4, 2018

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

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.

August 6, 2018

Damages in an Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

by Famighetti & Weinick

How much is an employment discrimination lawsuit worth? As Long Island employment lawyers, this is a frequent question we hear from victims of unlawful workplace discrimination in New York. Victims of discrimination may be able to recover several categories of damages which comprise the total amount that an employment discrimination lawsuit may be worth. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the damages available to discrimination victims.

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.

May 24, 2018

“Drumbeat of Retaliation” Case Decided

by Famighetti & Weinick

Retaliation in the workplace is illegal. The law protects employees who speak up when they believe the employer discriminated against them because of a protected characteristic such as race, gender, age, disability, religion, or national origin. Employers cannot try to “get back” at the employee by negatively affecting his or her job such as by demoting, firing, or reducing the employee’s hours or pay. Continue reading

July 29, 2017

Qui Tam Whistleblower Case

by Famighetti & Weinick

The False Claims Act allows an individual to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government, against another individual or company who has defrauded the government. This type of lawsuit is called a qui tam action. If the person bringing the lawsuit wins, he or she may be entitled to receive up to 30% of the recovery. Additionally, the False Claims Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation of their employers. For example, an employer cannot fire an employee because of a lawful act the employee engaged in to prevent the government from being defrauded.

On July 27, 2017, New York’s Federal appellate court decided a case which discusses a qui tam action and the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act.

The first issue in Fabula v. American Medical Response, Inc., was whether the plaintiff’s complaint satisfied the particularity standard.

July 26, 2017

FMLA Retaliation Standard Relaxed

by Famighetti & Weinick

The Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) is a federal law which allows eligible employees to take a leave of absence from work for several reasons such as when dealing with a serious health condition of the employee or their family.

FMLA Retaliation and Interference

On July 19, 2017, in Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Centers, Inc., the highest federal court in New York decided a case relating to the FMLA and answered two important questions.

July 5, 2017

FMLA Leave Case

by Famighetti & Weinick

The Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) is a federal law which allows eligible employees to take a leave of absence from work for several reasons such as when dealing with a serious health condition. The FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering, restraining, or denying an employee’s right to exercise a leave of absence under the FMLA.

A Serious Health Condition Under the FMLA

A “serious health condition” under the FMLA includes “an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves . . . continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

June 19, 2017

Federal Retaliation Lawsuits

by Famighetti & Weinick

To start a federal discrimination or retaliation lawsuit, a plaintiff must file a complaint with the court. The complaint is a document which states the facts which the plaintiff alleges add up to causing the defendant to be liable to the plaintiff. In Federal courts, the complaint must set forth enough facts to make the plaintiff’s claims plausible, otherwise, the case risks being dismissed by the court. On June 15, 2017, New York’s Federal appellate court decided a case which discusses this “plausibility” standard.

The Plausibility Standard

For years, Federal courts applied a liberal “notice pleading” requirement to determine whether complaints should be dismissed or not. Courts looked to determine whether there were enough facts to give notice to the defendants about the basis for the plaintiff’s case. Then, in 2009, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, applied a stricter standard and held that complaints must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true” to state a plausible claim for relief. If not, the complaint will likely be dismissed. The Supreme Court did not provide much guidance about what that standard means and so courts have struggled to apply the standard to the cases coming before them.

April 28, 2017

Union Retaliation Case

by Famighetti & Weinick

An employee called his boss a “NASTY MOTHER F***ER” on Facebook and further wrote about the boss: “F*** his mother and his entire f***ing family.” His boss fired him. Was this a wrongful termination? The answer may be surprising. Today’s employment law blog from Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC explains.

The following facts are taken from NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, a case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on April 21, 2017.

Hernan Perez was a server for Pier Sixty, a catering company. In 2011, Pier Sixty’s employees sought union representation. The organizing campaign was “tense,” with management threatening employees that they could be fired for union activities. Nonetheless, the employees unionized via a vote on October 27, 2011.

April 10, 2017

Long Island Retaliation Lawyer

by Famighetti & Weinick

Retaliation takes many forms in Long Island’s workplaces. Employees can face demotions, terminations, reductions in pay, or employers will refuse to promote employees as retaliation for employees complaining about discrimination or for engaging in other protected activity. Famighetti & Weinick PLLC are employment lawyers on Long Island, New York who can assess cases of workplace retaliation.

Retaliation in Suffolk and Nassau Counties Long Island

Retaliation can and does take place in Long Island’s workplaces. Only certain activities, however, can trigger protections against workplace retaliation on Long Island. The federal anti-discrimination statutes provide protections. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees who complain about or oppose discrimination. It further protects employees who participate in EEOC discrimination investigations or testify in discrimination lawsuits. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), all have similar protections for employees who exercise rights under the statutes.