Articles Posted in Gender Discrimination

by

In many parts of the U.S., the availability of paid family leave to care for a newborn is entirely dependent on one’s employer. Ensuring that employers with family leave policies apply them fairly is often a matter of enforcing laws against discrimination on the basis of factors like pregnancy or gender. New York City discrimination attorneys do not have to go that far much of the time thanks to the state’s paid family leave law, which took effect in 2018. Even if an employee is not eligible for leave under the new state law, New York City’s prohibition on caregiver discrimination may offer protection against adverse employment actions. Both state and city law make no distinction based on gender—mothers and fathers alike can claim family leave and caregiver status. A recent settlement in a lawsuit against a New York City-based financial firm suggest that the country may soon be ready to follow in the city’s footsteps.

The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) defines a “caregiver” as someone who is responsible for supporting a minor child or certain other individuals. This obviously includes parents of children under the age of eighteen. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and job applicants on the basis of caregiver status. It does not necessarily require that employers provide accommodations for employees with caregiver responsibilities, but it still provides workers with important protections.

The paid family leave law applies to both full-time and part-time workers once they have worked for a minimum period of time. They must start over with regard to minimum days or weeks worked when they start working for a new employer. Starting in 2019, the law allows eligible employees to take up to ten weeks of leave to bond with a new baby. An individual must take advantage of this program within twelve months of the child’s birth. It expressly applies to any new parent, regardless of gender. Both of a child’s parents may take paid family leave if they meet the eligibility criteria. Benefits are payable through employers’ disability insurance.
Continue reading

by

New York City has taken many actions to combat discrimination and harassment in the workplace. These actions are not limited to legislation, such as the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), or investigations by the city’s Commissioner on Human Rights (CHR). In 2018, the CHR named Brooklyn-based street artist Tatyana Fazlalizadeh as its first Public Artist in Residence (PAIR). The program partners city agencies with artists “to address pressing civic issues through creative practice.” Fazlalizadeh unveiled a mural, entitled Respecting Black Women and Girls in St. Albans, in Daniel M. O’Connell Playground in Queens on April 12, 2019. The mural addresses experiences of “the daily indignities of anti-Black racism and sexism.”

New York City has officially declared, through the NYCHRL, that “bias-related violence or harassment…threaten the rights and proper privileges of [the city’s] inhabitants.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101. The NYCHRL further states “that gender-based harassment threatens the terms, conditions and privileges of employment.” Id. In most situations, the NYCHRL only applies to employers with four or more employers, but any employer, regardless of size, could be liable for gender-based harassment. See id. at § 8-102.

The NYCHRL prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and multiple other factors. Id. at § 8-107(1)(a). “Discrimination” in this context can include workplace harassment. The statute also prohibits any “person,” which may include both individuals and businesses, from engaging in “discriminatory harassment” based on any protected category. This is broadly defined as knowingly using or threatening force to intimidate a person or interfere with their exercise of any legal right or privilege. Id. at § 8-603.
Continue reading

by

The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) is one of country’s the most comprehensive laws dealing with discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas. On May 20, 2019, a new law will go into effect that adds “sexual and reproductive health decisions” to the law’s list of protected categories. Some employers have fought against legal requirements involving matters like contraception in recent years. Similar arguments have appeared in support of employers who terminate, demote, or otherwise penalize employees for some of the most private acts in which people engage, or some of the most personal decisions that people can make.

The NYCHRL already prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of factors like gender, marital or partnership status, and sexual orientation. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). The statute defines “gender” to include “actual or perceived” characteristics, including gender identity and gender expression. Id. at § 8-102. This provides express protection against discrimination based on transgender status, which is missing in federal law.

Existing law may apply to some adverse employment actions arguably based on “sexual and reproductive health decisions.” The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination under federal, state, and New York City law. The plaintiff became pregnant before getting married and returned from her honeymoon “visibly pregnant.” She alleged that her employer fired her because it “disapprove[d] of [her] pre-marital pregnancy.”
Continue reading

by

Employees in New York City are protected from unlawful discrimination in the workplace by laws at the local, state, and federal level. The city’s anti discrimination statute is one of the most comprehensive and expansive in the nation, but New York City discrimination attorneys must carefully evaluate each case of alleged discrimination to determine which law best applies. In order to understand what laws protect employees against discrimination in New York City, it is important to understand how these laws apply their protections.

Protected Categories in Anti Discrimination Law

In one sense, employers discriminate all the time, meaning that they make decisions that affect some employees differently than others. Discrimination on the basis of factors like job performance, seniority, or experience is not considered unlawful. When an employer discriminates on the basis of a factor like race, sex, or religion, that is a different story.

Anti discrimination laws identify categories that are protected against employment discrimination. Court decisions may interpret these laws to provide further detail about prohibited workplace practices. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, ruled more than thirty years ago that the prohibition on sex discrimination found in federal law applies to sexual harassment in the workplace. Some federal courts have held that sex discrimination also includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Other courts have reached opposite conclusions.
Continue reading

by

A law enacted by the New York City Council, Local Law 95 of 2018, requires the city’s Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to make information available to the public about how city law addresses sexual harassment. Under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), sexual harassment in the workplace is a form of unlawful sex discrimination. Local Law 95 requires the CHR to post information online about what constitutes sexual harassment and what remedies are available. It was enacted as part of a larger package of bills collectively known as the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act. A new page went live on the CHR’s website in August 2018, shortly before the deadline set by the City Council. The page includes a wealth of information, including a notice and fact sheet summarizing city law on sexual harassment. These documents provide a helpful overview for individuals who might be considering whether to contact a New York City sexual harassment attorney.

The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of numerous factors, including gender. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). The statute uses an expansive definition of “gender” that includes “actual or perceived sex, gender identity and gender expression,” and other characteristics. Id. at § 8-102. These definitions of “gender” and “gender discrimination” have a much broader scope than many antidiscrimination laws. The prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is not expressly extended to factors like gender identity. Both statutes consider sexual harassment to be a type of sex discrimination.

The New York City Council passed Local Law 95 as Int. No. 614-A on April 11, 2018, and the mayor signed it into law on May 9. The law amended the NYCHRL by adding a new section entitled “Sexual harassment information,” codified at § 8-132. It requires the CHR to “post conspicuously on [its] website online resources about sexual harassment.” These resources must include information identifying sexual harassment as “a form of unlawful discrimination under local law,” providing examples of conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, identifying government agencies that receive complaints, describing the CHR’s complaint process, and stating that retaliation is also unlawful. The law also recommends including information on “bystander intervention education,” as well as “an interactive tool” that guides users through a CHR complaint. The effective date of the law was August 7, 2018.
Continue reading

by

Workers are protected from a wide range of employment practices under the laws of New York City. Employment discrimination attorneys can assert claims on their clients’ behalf under city law for unlawful actions by employers based on gender, caregiver status, and other factors. Federal and state law prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and recent childbirth. New York City’s prohibition on caregiver discrimination offers further employment protections for young parents. These provisions do not specifically mention gender, but caregiver discrimination is often intertwined with gender discrimination simply because of gendered assumptions about caregiving. A lawsuit filed last year, Avery v. Le Bernardin, Inc. et al, No. 1:18-cv-000626, complaint (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2018), illustrates this close relationship, as well as the proximity between sexual harassment and other forms of gender discrimination. The plaintiff dismissed her suit without prejudice several months after filing it, but the complaint still offers a useful example of the kinds of allegations often found in the restaurant industry.

Sexual harassment is considered a form of unlawful sex discrimination under most employment antidiscrimination statutes. The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) is one of the few statutes in the U.S. to address caregiver discrimination. It defines a “caregiver” as an individual “who provides direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102. The term “care recipient” applies to a person who is a family member or resides with the caregiver, who suffers from a disability, and who depends on the caregiver for daily support. This person could be an adult or a child. The definition of “caregiver” also includes responsibility for a “minor child,” simply defined as someone under the age of eighteen. This effectively includes all parents.

The plaintiff in Avery worked for about three years as a server at “one of the finest restaurants in the United States.” Avery, complaint at 1. She alleged that women who worked at the restaurant regularly faced sexual harassment, and that management either ignored complaints or “shamed” the people who complained. Id. at 2. She further alleged that one of the restaurant’s owners, whom she named individually as a defendant, engaged in “body shaming of Plaintiff shortly after giving birth for her weight gain,” among other claims. Id. The restaurant, she claims, refused to assign her to lunch shifts to accommodate her childcare schedule, resulting in her constructive discharge.
Continue reading

by

Workers in New York City are protected from discriminatory actions by their employers based on a wide range of factors. New York City discrimination attorneys can bring claims on behalf of clients in state or federal court, or with an administrative agency like the city’s Commission on Human Rights (NYCHR). A complaint filed with the NYCHR last year alleges that a museum in Queens rescinded a job offer when it learned that the complainant had recently given birth. The complainant in Columbus v. MoMA PS1, et al asserts claims under city law for gender, pregnancy, and caregiver discrimination.

The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and caregiver status, among other categories. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). The statute defines a “caregiver” as someone “who provides direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient.” Id. at § 8-102. The term “care recipient” has an extensive definition, but the relevant provision for the Columbus case involves caregiving responsibilities for a “minor child,” defined as a child under the age of eighteen.

Pregnancy is not expressly included in the NYCHRL’s list of protected categories. Neither is it included in the definition of sex discrimination, like in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The NYCHRL does, however, require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to employees who are pregnant or have recently given birth, which will “allow the employee to perform the essential requisites of the job.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(22)(a).
Continue reading

by

The legal landscape for caregivers in the U.S. is still largely uncertain when it comes to employment. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world with no provisions at the national level for paid parental leave. Protections for caregivers against employment discrimination are patchy. New York City caregiver discrimination attorneys have more options than their colleagues in other cities, thanks to provisions in the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) that expressly address caregivers. Other statutes may offer protection to caregivers in certain situations. Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a gender discrimination lawsuit against a major cosmetics company. The agency had alleged that the company discriminated against male employees by allowing female employees to take more paid parental leave. EEOC v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-03897, complaint (E.D. Pa., Aug. 30, 2017).

Two federal statutes directly address employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a wide range of discriminatory acts based on sex and other factors. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 prohibits discrimination in wages based on sex, provided that the alleged disparity in pay involves jobs “requir[ing] equal skill, effort, and responsibility…under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1). No federal statute directly addresses discrimination on the basis of caregiver responsibilities. The NYCHRL is one of the first employment laws in the country to provide express protections on this basis. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-102, 8-107(1)(a).

The defendant in the Estee Lauder case offered paid parental leave to qualifying employees under four programs: “maternity leave, adoption leave, primary caregiver leave, and secondary caregiver leave.” Estee Lauder, complaint at 5. Three of these programs included at least four weeks of paid leave, with maternity leave lasting as long as six weeks. The secondary caregiver leave program, however, only allowed two weeks of paid leave. Employees using maternity, adoption, or primary caregiver leave were also entitled to a “transition back-to-work benefit,” which allowed them to gradually return to a full-time schedule over an additional four-week period. Id. at 5-6. The primary caregiver benefit was only available “in surrogacy situations.” Id. at 7. According to the EEOC’s complaint, the defendant only allowed biological fathers to utilize the secondary caregiver benefit.
Continue reading

by

Since the fall of 2017, the national discourse has given considerable attention to the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, perhaps more than it has ever received before. This is often referred to as the #MeToo movement. According to some news reports, it has left managers, supervisors, and executives in some industries uncertain about the future. In late 2018, Bloomberg reported that some Wall Street managers have adopted a new rule: “Avoid women at all costs.” Hyperbole aside, this reveals what could become a larger problem. In an effort to avoid what they perceive as risks for future sexual harassment claims, could employers perpetuate other forms of sex discrimination? One column describes this as a possible “unintended consequence” of #MeToo, as if women and their advocates somehow bear some share of responsibility. Other pieces take tones that range from scolding to mocking. For New York City sexual harassment attorneys, this is a very serious question.

Employment discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in New York City under three statutes: Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). An employer violates the law if they refuse to hire, refuse to promote, terminate, or otherwise discriminate against an individual based on their sex. These laws protect both men and women, although it is women who bear the brunt of sex discrimination in the workplace, both historically and currently. Provisions in the NYCHRL additionally protect transgender and non-binary workers against discrimination.

Sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination under these statutes in two general scenarios: quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination under Title VII more than thirty years ago in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). It expanded this to include same-sex sexual harassment, e.g. male employees subjecting another male employee to a hostile work environment, twelve years later in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998).
Continue reading

by

A jury in a Manhattan federal court returned a verdict this summer in favor of a professor who formerly taught at a university in New York City, and awarded her $1.25 million in damages. The plaintiff alleged sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Ravina v. Columbia University, No. 1:16-cv-02137, 1st am. complaint (S.D.N.Y., Jul. 8, 2016). The verdict demonstrates how different claims under Title VII may operate independently of one another. The jury actually found in favor of the defendant on the claims involving sex discrimination and sexual harassment. It rendered a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, however, on her retaliation claims. New York City sexual harassment attorneys often present harassment and retaliation claims side by side, but the two claims involve two different statutory provisions. To borrow a phrase from the political realm, if sexual harassment is the crime, retaliation is often the cover-up.

Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex is an “unlawful employment practice” under Title VII and the NYCHRL. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). Multiple court decisions have established that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination in two broad categories: when sexual activity in some form is made a condition of employment, and when pervasive and unwelcome sexual remarks or behavior create a hostile work environment. Both laws also state that an employer commits an unlawful employment practice when they discriminate against an employee because they have “opposed any [unlawful employment] practice,” made a complaint alleging an unlawful employment practice, or cooperated in an investigation of an alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(7).

A plaintiff, generally speaking, has the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit. They must establish the defendant’s liability by a preponderance of the evidence. A plaintiff must demonstrate to the finder of fact—a judge or jury—that at least fifty-one percent of the evidence supports their allegations against the defendant. If the finder of fact concludes that the plaintiff has not met this burden of proof, they must render a verdict in the defendant’s favor. This does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff’s claims are false or have been disproven. It only means that the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to convince the judge or jury.
Continue reading

Contact Information
New York Office
45 Broadway #430
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 248-7431Fax: (212) 901-2107
Princeton Office
100 Overlook Center 2nd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (609) 436-9087Fax: (212) 901-2107
Long Island Office
585 Stewart Ave #410
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 365-3731Fax: (212) 901-2107
Philadelphia Office
1635 Market St #1600A
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 315-7694Fax: (212) 901-2107
White Plains Office
50 Main St #1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (212) 248-7431Fax: (212) 901-2107
Miami Office
175 SW 7th St
#1208
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (305) 549-5120Fax: (212) 901-2107

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Any testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Bryan Arce, Erica Shnayder, Jesse Rose, and Marjorie Mesidor were selected to the Super Lawyers list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2021, Phillips & Associates, Attorneys at Law, PLLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design