Phillips & Associates
Phillips & Associates
Phillips & Associates
Avvo Clients Choice Awards 2014
10 Best Law Firm 2017
National Employment Lawyers Association
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
ABA - Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice
Lawyers of Distinction
Superlawyers
NYSTLA
New York County Lawyers' Association

people, home, motion, walk, asia, professionalNew York City’s employment antidiscrimination statute provides protection for workers who are responsible, outside of work, for providing care to certain individuals. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of caregiver status, as well as retaliation for reporting an alleged violation or opposing an allegedly unlawful practice. These provisions protect caregivers from losing their jobs in many situations, but they do not necessarily facilitate caregivers having time off from work to meet their responsibilities. A new law, enacted by the New York City Council in January 2018, allows caregivers to make “temporary changes” to their work schedules in certain situations. The law takes effect in mid-July 2018.

The NYCHRL is one the few laws in the country to provide express protections based on caregiver status. It defines a “caregiver” as someone “who provides direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(30)(a). A “care recipient” is (1) a close relative—e.g. a child, spouse parent, grandparent, etc.—or an individual who lives with the caregiver, who (2) needs the caregiver’s assistance “for medical care or to meet the needs of daily living.” Id. at § 8-102(30)(b). “Caregiver status” is a protected category under the NYCHRL, along with categories like age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. Id. at § 8-107(1)(a). Employers may not terminate or refuse to hire a person solely because of caregiver duties, nor may they discriminate with regard to wages, job responsibilities, or other features of employment.

The new law, Int. 1399-2016, defines “caregiver” much the same as the NYCHRL. The law applies to people who are responsible for providing care to a minor child, or to an adult who either resides with the caregiver or is a family member, and who relies on the care that they provide to meet their medical needs or the needs of daily life. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-1261.
Continue reading

Legal Contract & Signature - Cool TonesAsserting a claim for sexual harassment in New York City can be extremely harrowing, even with the city’s progressive employment laws. A claimant might risk professional or personal consequences for speaking out, which is why employees with similar allegations often seek to pool their resources and assert their claims as a group. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __ (2018), limits employees’ ability to bring collective actions against their employers in some situations. The case specifically deals with collective arbitration of disputes under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but advocates for people who have experienced sexual harassment worry about the impact of the decision on a wide range of employment claims.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex and several other factors. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq., prohibits employment discrimination based on a wide range of factors that includes sex. Both statutes, according to court interpretations, recognize sexual harassment as a form of unlawful sex discrimination. Employees may file complaints of alleged acts like sexual harassment with administrative agencies. Those agencies investigate the claims, and either pursue the claim themselves or grant the complainants the right to sue for damages in court. Many employment agreements, however, contain clauses that require employees to submit any and all disputes to arbitration.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., encourages the use of arbitration as a private method of dispute resolution. It states that an arbitration clause in a contract “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,” unless the contract itself is legally unenforceable or invalid. Id. at § 2. Courts have the authority to compel a party to a contract with an arbitration clause to participate in arbitration, or to hold that party in contempt. Courts may also enforce arbitration awards that it finds to be lawful.
Continue reading

NYS Capitol PanoramaIn New York City, sexual harassment claims are covered by federal, state, and city law. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) offer some of the most comprehensive protection against discrimination in the country. Sexual harassment in the workplace has received a considerable amount of media attention in the past year, and both New York State and New York City have responded by enacting a series of new laws addressing numerous aspects of workplace harassment. The New York State Legislature passed a budget bill, S. 7507/A. 9507, in March, and the Governor signed it into law on April 12, 2018. Part KK of the bill includes multiple sexual harassment provisions. The New York City Council passed seven separate laws dealing with sexual harassment, collectively known as the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act. The Mayor signed them all on May 9.

The new laws overlap on two matters: mandatory anti-harassment training and policies, and requirements for public contractors.

Mandatory Anti-Harassment Training

Subpart E of Part KK of the New York budget bill amends the Labor Law, adding a section that directs the state to develop a “model sexual harassment prevention guidance document” and a “sexual harassment prevention policy.” Employers must adopt the model policy, or one that is consistent with it; must distribute this policy in writing to all employees; and must provide annual anti-harassment training programs. This subpart takes effect on October 9, 2018.
Continue reading

ModelsCatwalkOver the past year, countless people have come forward with accounts of sexual harassment in the workplace. Known as the #MeToo movement, it began in the entertainment industry, and has expanded to include many other industries and professions. Fashion models have described their experiences with harassment at photo shoots, fashion shows, and other events in New York City. Sexual harassment is covered by laws prohibiting sex discrimination in employment, but the fashion industry presents challenges under laws like the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). These laws generally apply to “employees.” Many who work in fashion are considered to be independent contractors. In October 2017, an Assemblywoman from Queens introduced A08572, the “Models’ Harassment Protection Act” (MHPA). This bill would amend the NYSHRL to include provisions specifically applying to the types of sexual harassment that models often experience, and to account for the employment relationship between model and designers, photographers, and others.

The U.S. Supreme Court established that the prohibition on sex discrimination in employment under federal law includes sexual harassment. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). New York courts have made the same determination with regard to the NYSHRL. See, e.g. Belle Ctr. v. Human Rights Div., 221 A.D.2d 44, 49-50 (N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dept. 1996).

Plaintiffs can allege two types of sexual harassment under these laws. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a “supervisor…expressly or tacitly link[s] tangible job benefits to the acceptance or rejection of sexual advances,” regardless of how the plaintiff responds to said advances. Id. at 50. Hostile work environment occurs when pervasive and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature “alter[s] the conditions of the [plaintiff’s] employment.” Id. Neither theory of sexual harassment requires proof of economic loss, but a quid pro quo claim requires “proof of linkage between the offensive conduct and decisions affecting employment.” Id. at 50-51.
Continue reading

Penguins on icebergSexual harassment is an unlawful form of sex discrimination under employment statutes in New York City and around the country. It is often a result of an individual taking advantage of their power or authority in the workplace over a subordinate. It could take the form of demands for sexual activity of some sort as a condition of employment, or a pattern of unwanted sexual remarks or advances. In either case, the alleged harasser relies to a large extent on the alleged victim’s inability to speak out directly against the behavior. Statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allow individuals who have experienced unlawful New York sexual harassment to file an administrative complaint, followed by a civil lawsuit. Some scenarios in which sexual harassment may occur, however, are not “workplaces” under the meaning of laws like Title VII. Sexual harassment can occur in academic settings, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides recourse in those situations. In late 2016, several former graduate students complained of sexual harassment by a professor. An internal investigation by the university resulted in the professor’s dismissal a year later. The story made headlines largely because the alleged harassment did not occur in a classroom or laboratory, but instead during research trips to Antarctica.

When sexual harassment occurs in an educational setting, employment anti-discrimination statutes might not apply. Title IX prohibits discrimination by certain educational institutions on the basis of sex. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Federal funding is the main factor determining whether Title IX applies to a particular educational institution. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have established that Title IX allows civil claims for sexual harassment by teachers, professors, or other employees against students, provided that the school administration knew about the alleged harassment and failed to take appropriate action. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992); Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998).

The cases involving research trips to Antarctica mentioned above involved three former graduate students and the geology department chair at Boston University (BU). The complaints allege numerous acts of sexual harassment during trips to Antarctica between 1999 and 2001, when the department chair was an assistant professor. Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent in the world—larger than Europe or Australia—but because of its location at the South Pole, it is almost entirely covered with ice. It has no permanent population. The only residents temporarily inhabit scientific research stations. The continent is not under the jurisdiction of any particular nation, but any nation’s presence there is governed by international treaties. U.S. laws generally apply to Americans in Antarctica.

beer pongRecent media and public attention has helped shed light on sexual harassment in workplaces all over the country, including New York City. Employees have several means to fight back against such unlawful employment practices, but the attention to the issue since last fall has helped many employers identify and deal with individuals, policies, and practices that contribute to workplace sexual harassment. Laws like the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) allow employees to recover damages once New York City sexual harassment has occurred. The hope, of course, is that this attention will make workplace sexual harassment less common in general. Allegations of sexual harassment at a finance and technology startup company last year led to the CEO’s resignation, between the filing of two lawsuits against the company. Charles v. Social Finance, Inc., No. CGC-17-560682, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 11, 2017); Zamora vs Social Finance, Inc., No. SCV-261312, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., Sep. 21, 2017).

In New York City, laws at the city, state, and federal levels prohibit sex discrimination in employment. Each of these statutes, while not expressly mentioning sexual harassment, has been construed to prohibit sexual harassment as part of its provisions on sex discrimination. One particular form of prohibited sexual harassment under the NYCHRL and other laws is known as “hostile work environment.” This involves a pattern of unwanted sexual behavior, ranging from remarks, comments, or jokes to overtures or actual physical contact, that is pervasive enough to interfere with a person’s ability to do their job. The behavior does not necessarily have to come from individuals in a superior workplace position to the complainant, provided that the employer knows about it but has failed to act.

The defendant in the lawsuits mentioned above is a Silicon Valley startup that provides online lending services. The company received positive coverage in the media for “stretching the definition of what a lender should do” by providing services beyond those directly related to a lender/borrower relationship. Beginning in early to mid-2017, however, stories began to emerge that showed a very different side of the company. Not at all unlike many New York City finance companies, current and former employees described an alleged “frat house culture” that included frequent sexual banter and actual sexual activity on company property.

Virtual RealityVirtual reality (VR) technology has been a feature of science fiction for some time. The technology is quickly advancing, although it has not reached the level portrayed in books and movies. Devices are now available to consumers that allow them to play VR games, both alone and with other players online. VR technology may prove to be useful in educating people about preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, and also in the recovery process for survivors of sexual assault and sexual harassment. New York City is home to numerous technology companies exploring the benefits of VR technology. Unfortunately, VR has also presented further opportunities for some people to engage in New York sexual harassment. Participants in online VR games have reported numerous instances of conduct that would meet any standard definition of sexual harassment, and even assault, if it occurred in the real world. These alleged incidents might not directly involve employment statutes dealing with sexual harassment, but they demonstrate how deeply ingrained the attitudes that often lead to sexual harassment are in our society.

Employment statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. This includes sexual harassment in certain situations:  when a manager or supervisor makes sexual conduct of some sort a condition of employment, and when unwanted sexual remarks and other conduct are pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. Employers have a legal responsibility to make reasonable efforts to investigate and remedy reported sexual harassment, and they could be liable for failing to do so. These statutes could apply to sexual harassment in “virtual” settings if an individual’s job requires them to participate in VR activities. For consumers using a company’s VR services, the service provider’s legal duty is not quite as clear, but they still have responsibility for their customers’ safety.

Current VR technology involves the use of a headset that allows a user to view the virtual setting in three dimensions. The headset responds to the user’s head movements, and additional controllers might reflect the real-world movement of the user’s arms, hands, and legs. The result can be a remarkably immersive environment, which has demonstrated benefits for various types of training and education. Some employers conduct sexual harassment trainings using VR technology, based on research suggesting that people retain more information from interactive VR programs than from live speakers or videos. VR applications might also help people who have experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment deal with trauma and related issues.

University of RochesterState and federal anti-discrimination laws in New York prohibit a wide range of discriminatory acts and practices, as well as acts taken in retaliation for opposing or reporting alleged discrimination. Even if an employer is found not to be liable for overt discrimination, such as New York sexual harassment, it could still be liable for retaliation against those who complained of the alleged conduct. A university in upstate New York has been embroiled in controversy for months, beginning with multiple allegations of sexual harassment against a professor and criticism of the university’s handling of complaints. While an investigation purportedly cleared the professor of wrongdoing, a lawsuit now alleges retaliation by the university and several administrators. Aslin, et al. v. University of Rochester, et al., No. 6:17-cv-06847, complaint (W.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2017).

Most employment anti-discrimination statutes treat sexual harassment as a type of unlawful sex discrimination. With regard to retaliation, both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law specifically identify retaliation as an unlawful practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(7). Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 does not specifically mention retaliation, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that retaliation for reporting alleged Title IX violations is itself an intentional act of sex discrimination. 20 U.S.C. § 1681; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U.S. 167 (2005).

The controversy that led to the Aslin lawsuit began in September 2017, when the magazine Mother Jones reported allegations of sexual harassment by a professor at the University of Rochester (UR). A group of eight individuals, consisting of current and former professors and a former graduate student, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on September 1, 2017, in which they outlined a series of alleged failures by the university to investigate the matter adequately. UR administrators stated that an internal investigation had been unable to substantiate the allegations. Toward the end of that month, UR initiated a new investigation, to be led by a former chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Transgender Pride FlagNew York City employment discrimination laws include express prohibitions against discrimination because of gender identity or gender expression. At the federal level, whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 contains similar protections depends on where the claim arises. Prior to 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) held that gender identity is covered by Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions. It filed suit in 2015 on behalf of a transgender woman alleging gender identity discrimination. United States v. Southeastern Okla. State Univ., No. 5:15-cv-00324, complaint (W.D. Okla., Mar. 30, 2015). The following year, officials from multiple states sued the federal government over certain policies on transgender rights. State of Texas, et al. v. United States, et al., No. 7:16-cv-00054, complaint (N.D. Tex., May 25, 2016). The two cases became intertwined as the issue of transgender rights gained attention in 2017.

Some courts have held that gender identity discrimination falls under Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination, finding it to be “because of sex,” as defined by the statute. They often cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that “sex stereotyping” constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Gender identity discrimination, the argument goes, is sex discrimination because an individual does not conform to stereotypes about a particular gender. Other courts have held that, absent express inclusion of gender identity as a protected category, using those or similar words, it is not covered by the statute.

The DOJ filed suit on behalf of a complainant who began working at an Oklahoma university in 2004, when she “presented as a man and went by a traditionally male name.” Southeastern, complaint at 4. She notified the university of her intent to transition to a female identity in 2007. She alleged that, once this process began, and after it was complete, her employer treated her differently, and she was ultimately denied tenure because of her gender identity. The court ruled in July 2015 that the complainant is part of a protected class because of “sex stereotyping based on a person’s gender non-conforming behavior.” Southeastern, mem. op. at 5 (Jul. 10, 2015). A jury entered a verdict in the complainant’s favor in late 2017 and awarded her $1.165 million in damages.
Continue reading

cheerleadersIn every type of workplace in New York City, sexual harassment is an unlawful employment practice. Employers have a duty to protect employees from harassment not only by supervisors and co-workers but also by customers. The type of work performed has no bearing on this, which one might hope is something that would not need to be said. Members of cheerleading squads for professional sports teams around the country have spoken out recently about sexual harassment experienced as part of their jobs. The job of a professional sports cheerleader is to entertain, with the entertainment coming from a combination of athletic prowess and physical attractiveness. To use football as an example, certain aspects of the game still cater to certain stereotypical male preferences, even though women now make up nearly half of the NFL’s fan base. While professional cheerleaders must have extensive dance training and experience, policies and practices at both the team and league levels sometimes place them in a more decorative role—one that can leave them exposed to the risk of sexual harassment and assault by fans and others. A recent discrimination complaint further outlines the workplace challenges cheerleaders face.

Cheerleading as a profession falls into an unusual legal category, in which sex and—for lack of a better term—sex appeal may be viewed as key qualifications for a job. Employment statutes prohibit discrimination based on sex, but not necessarily based on attractiveness. Court decisions and other laws directly addressing this are relatively rare, and they can vary widely from one industry or workplace to another. Over 30 years ago, a federal court ruled that an airline could not use “sex appeal” as a “bona fide occupational qualification” for its flight attendants. Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F.Supp. 292, 293 (N.D. Tex. 1981). The court noted an exception, however, for jobs involving “vicarious sexual recreation.” Id. at 301. It cited two 1971 decisions by the New York Human Rights Appeals Board, allowing Playboy Clubs to discriminate based on sex and physical appearance.

The job of professional sports cheerleaders includes much more than performing during games. Cheerleaders are also expected to act as ambassadors for their team by attending team-sponsored events and other promotional events. According to a report in the New York Times, this often includes events at which alcohol consumption occurs, such as tailgate parties, sometimes leading to “offensive sexual comments and unwanted touches by fans.” Many women reported “go[ing] in pairs or small groups to feel safer.”

Contact Information