by Stephen D. Hans | Mar 1, 2016 | Employment Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
Recently, a sexual harassment case involving a Chicago professor became high profile in the news. While you can view the case from the perspective of the victim and the alleged abuser, there is also the viewpoint of educational institutions to consider. What preventative actions can they take to protect themselves against lawsuits? The New York Times reported that a well-known molecular biologist, who was a professor at the University of Chicago resigned after the university recommended he be fired. The administration based the termination recommendation on violations of the college’s sexual misconduct policy. Professor Jason Lieb allegedly made unwanted sexual advances toward several female graduate students during an off campus retreat attended by graduate students and several faculty members. As a result of the allegations, Lieb resigned. An incident of sexual misconduct also arose when Lieb worked at the University of North Carolina. However, an investigation at that time revealed no evidence to support the claim. When Lieb left the University of North Carolina and Princeton interviewed him for a position, Lieb gave permission for Princeton staff to examine his UNC personnel file. The University of Chicago also examined his UNC personnel file and found no evidence that proved him guilty of the allegation. Consequently, the Chicago department of human genetics voted unanimously to hire him. Weighing the responsibility to protect sexual harassment victims versus false sexual harassment allegations can be difficult. Obviously, background checks are vital for educational institutions when hiring personnel. Also, these types of incidents bring up questions about whether the standards universities currently use to evaluate candidates during the hiring process are adequate. At Stephen...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 27, 2016 | Business Attorney, Employment Discrimination
New York Employment Defense Attorney talks about Non Discrimination Act Knowing what you can ask and must not ask employees or job applicants is vital for businesses. With all the information available on the internet today, gathering information may seem like the natural thing to do. However, there are lines you must not cross. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is a relatively recent ant-discrimination law. According to GINA, employers, employment agencies and labor organizations do not violate GINA when acquiring medical information about an employee’s disease or disorder that is not genetic information. A recent settlement with the EEOC provides an example of what is considered a GINA violation. Joy Mining Machinery settled with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding a lawsuit where the company requested family medical history on its pre-placement form. The form asked employees whether they had a family medical history for “TB, Cancer, Diabetes, Epilepsy and Heart Disease.” While these questions are routine for doctors, not only are employers prohibited from asking for such medical history, they are also not allowed to purchase genetic information about applicants or employees except under narrow exceptions. The agreement Joy Mining entered into as part of the settlement included considerable equitable relief and prohibition from unlawful retaliation. The company agreed not to inquire about medical genetic information, to train its management and HR employees regarding GINA, and the EEOC will monitor compliance with the settlement provisions. At Stephen Hans & Associates, our attorneys counsel company owners, their managers and HR personnel regarding GINA and other anti-discrimination laws. With legal issues, many gray areas exist, and...
by Stephen D. Hans | Dec 8, 2015 | Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination
Even billion dollar companies can allow legal mistakes to occur and have it cost them millions of dollars. Such appears to be the case when executives at Giorgio Armani allegedly discriminated against the company’s own general counsel, Fabio Silva. The NY Daily News reported that Silva began working as general counsel for Armani in October of 2014. The lawsuit brought by Silva claims that Armani’s CFO Thomas Chan repeatedly told Silva he didn’t trust Mexicans during a time that they were working on a deal with a Mexican vendor. A co-worker let Chan know that Silva was Mexican. After that, Silva says that Chan subjected him to “heightened scrutiny and unfounded criticism.” Silva filed a complaint with the company’s COO, Giorgio Fomari. However, Fomari took no actions to correct the discrimination except to tell Silva he erred by saying something in writing. When Silva asked for a raise in April based on an outstanding performance review, he says Fomari wouldn’t give him a raise because of the discrimination complaint. Of course, this is retaliation. Later on, Silva told his bosses that he had been diagnosed with colon cancer, but explained it was operable, and minutes afterward, the company’s HR rep fired him. She said she thought it would be a good time to tell him that the company was terminating him. The reason given was that they didn’t feel they could trust him. Silva is a highly respected and experienced attorney in the fashion industry. He filed a $75 million lawsuit against Armani, which is being heard by the Manhattan Supreme Court. Situations like this can be easily avoided...
by Stephen D. Hans | Nov 17, 2015 | Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination, Wage and Hour
Queens & New York City Employment Defense Attorneys Situations arise where an employee leaves and you must once hire or promote someone to fill their position. Based on skills, experience and the job description, employers offer a salary or wage for work being done as part of a position’s duties. As an employer, it is worth your time to review whether you provide equal pay to men and women who perform the same or comparable job functions. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a lawsuit against an oil company for sex based discrimination and paying a female employee a lower salary than her male predecessor. The details of the case are that SOCI Petroleum/Santmyer Oil Company, Inc. (SOCI) hired Lori Bowerstock to work in human resources in 2006 in Wooster, Ohio. When the current human resources manager’s employment ended in 2009, Bowerstock assumed his function and began performing his functions. The EEOC’s complaint alleges that the company allowed derogatory, sex-based comments against women in general and devalued their work performances and capabilities. SOCI paid Bowerstock less compensation than her male predecessor for doing the same work. In this case, the EEOC alleges the company violated the Equal Pay Act of 1964 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act The EEOC first sought to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process. After failing to reach a settlement, the EEOC is now pursuing permanent injunctive relief to prevent SOCI from discriminating through unequal pay to women, to enforce equal employment opportunities for women, and to obtain lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages. Working closely with an...
by Stephen D. Hans | Oct 13, 2015 | Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination
What You Should Know About Weighing Age and Ability When Hiring As an employer or company owner, do you ask questions like this when interviewing a job candidate? Are you planning on retiring soon? How many years do you plan on working in this field? Companies are conscious of the expenses involved with high job turnover rates. Hiring an employee who would potentially stay with the company for many years is to the company’s advantage. However recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a state agency for failing to hire an attorney for a vacant appeals officer position. The applicant, Joseph Bednanik was over the of 40, graduated law school with honors and had around 30 years of legal experience. He had worked 17 years with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission when interviewing for the appeals officer position with the Pennsylvania Office of Public Records. Bednanik had extensive experience in a related field and a good reference for the position. During the second interview, the executive director expressed concerns that Joseph may have a short tenure and retire soon. The office hired a far less experienced applicant who was 15 years younger and did not hire Bednanik because of age considerations. The EEOC sued based on age discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits discrimination in hiring based on the age of applicants who are 40 years or older. While hiring someone with potential longevity in a position seems like good business sense, this is not a good idea when potential age discrimination is an issue. Business owners are wise to consult...
by Stephen D. Hans | Aug 4, 2015 | Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination
Religious discrimination has been in the news a lot recently. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just filed a lawsuit against the United States’ largest package delivery company, UPS (United Parcel Service, Inc.) based on claims of religious discrimination. The EEOC alleges that the UPS uniform and appearance policy conflicts with employee’s civil rights to observe their religious practices. Numerous employees were denied hiring or promotions as a result of the UPS policy, when in fact their hair and beards were an aspect of their religious practices. Examples include a Muslim who applied for a driver helper position in Rochester, N.Y. He wore a beard as part of his religious practice and was told he had to shave his beard and that God would understand if he shaved his beard to obtain a higher paying job. He was eligible for a lower paying job if he decided not to shave the beard. The EEOC found instances at other facilities where Muslims and Christians were forced to shave their beards against their religious beliefs. In addition, a Rastafarian holding a part-time supervisor position in Fort Lauderdale did not cut his hair as part of his religious observance. When he requested a religious accommodation for the appearance policy, the manager told him he did not want any “employees looking like women on his management team.” The EEOC claims when employees requested religious accommodations for particular positions that UPS put them on hold for years. When religious accommodations create no undue hardship for an employer, failure to make the accommodation is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In...
