New York Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

A 26 year-old woman is suing the New York Police Department (NYPD), claiming that she was fired because she refused to drop a complaint against a co-worker who allegedly sexually assaulted her in May 2008. Since she first pressed charges, the woman claims that several high-ranking officers continually urged her to drop the prosecution, but that she refused. The NYPD retaliated when the woman refused to drop the charges. The woman, a former civilian employee who had hopes of becoming a police officer, has suffered significant negative consequences as a result of this refusal. These consequences include being rejected from entry to four police academy classes between January 2009 and March 2011 and being terminated from her civilian job with the NYPD.

According to the woman’s lawyer, her career was disrupted by the NYPD and the NYPD made her feel “vulnerable and unprotected”. The NYPD claims that the woman was fired not because she continued to press charges but because a residency check indicated that she did not live at the Bronx address where she claimed to have lived. The woman insists that she did live at the address during all times relevant to the complaint.

This case is indicative of the fact that any employer, including the protectors of our peace, may be guilty of workplace discrimination. It is unfortunate that the Plaintiff, who has already suffered by being the victim of a sexual assault, did not have the support of her co-workers, and more importantly, the New York Police Department. This case is especially heinous not only because of the alleged retaliatory efforts of the woman’s employer, but also because of who her employer was.

The full Daily News article can be found here.

Presidential Candidate Herman Cain has spent the past two days denying a Politico.com report claiming two women had accused him of improper sexual behavior in the 1990s. Cain commented, “I was falsely accused of sexual harassment and when the charges were brought, as the leader of the organization, I recused myself and allowed my general counsel and my human resources officer to deal with the situation.”

Cain got into trouble when he made inconsistent statements to press. He initially told reporters he was unaware of any settlement, but then he acknowledged he did know of a settlement offer made to one of the women. He later told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, “Maybe three month’s salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.” It’s unknown whether the second woman has retained a attorney, or if she has requested to speak publically about the matter. Politico reported both women had received five-figure payouts from the National Restuarant Association to settle the claims. Cain told van Susteren he is unaware of any formal charges brought by a second woman, but that she had evidently alleged an “unwanted sexual advance.”

Cain said he knew both women. He recalled that one of them was a writer for the NRA. Cain told van Susteren, “She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying - and I was standing close to her - and I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, ‘My wife comes up to my chin.’ And that was put in there as something that made her uncomfortable, something that was in the sexual harassment charge.” Cain also boasts that the allegations were given a “thorough” investigation by association’s general counsel and human resources chief, and that he was cleared. Yet, Mary Ose, the retired human resources supervisor at the restaurant association told Politico that she had never even heard of the allegations.

As rumors swirl about sexual harassment allegations against Cain in the 1990's, it remains unclear whether or not the accuser will be able to tell her story. Joel Bennett, attorney for the claimant, says its unlikely she will be speaking to the media any time soon because of a confidentiality agreement she signed as part of a settlement with the NRA. Sources say the NRA is carefully looking at its legal obligations before deciding whether or not to waive the agreement. The New York Times reported that she received $35,000 (one year’s salary) in severance pay to leave the organization.

Cain says the bull’s-eye on his back is getting bigger but promises there are no other skeletons in his closet. Only time will tell how this situation will impact Cain’s favorable status in the polls, but so far supporters are rallying behind him. The campaign released Monday that they had received $400,000 in donations after the allegations surfaced.

A sexual harassment claim was brought in New York County Supreme Court yesterday by eight employees of AVA Lounge at the Dream Hotel.

The owner and general manager are accused of subjecting the women to “Best Ass” contests and referring to them as “Double Ds” and “Thighs” instead of their names.

Mark Stumer, a lawyer for the women said that the supervisors basically harassed each woman that worked there, and that it was “constant, pervasive, and everyday.” Apparently, the environment at the AVA Lounge was so barbaric that the manager would announce over two-way radio that people were having sex in the building across the street from the hotel. According to the complaint, managers would brag about their sexual escapades to the staff including videotaping a sexual act in the office and snorting cocaine off the naked body of an employee.

One employee, Christine Anderson, alleged in the complaint that she was wrongfully accused of stealing and then fired for complaining about this behavior.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law and should not be not be tolerated. If you feel that you may be the victim of sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace, contact Schwartz & Perry.

The entire article is available from NYDailyNews.com

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported that a major construction company has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $125,000

According to the EEOC's claims, female employees were subjected "to a sexually hostile work environment which included telling stories of sexual exploits, derogatory remarks about females, inappropriate sexual comments and engaging in unwelcome touching of a sexual nature."

Besides the monetary relief, the company has agreed to revise its sexual harassment policy and to provide training to its employees and staff.

EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg stated that, “Employers have an obligation under federal law to provide all of their employees with a workplace free from such misconduct.”

More information regarding this issue can be found here.

In a fairly recent case handed down by the New York Court of Appeals, employers are held strictly liable for a supervisor’s conduct in sexual harassment cases. Ordinarily, state courts like to try and reconcile both federal laws like Title VII with state laws.

In Zakrewska v. The New School, the plaintiff claimed that she had been sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor through e-mails and certain conduct. She sued the school using the NYCHRL (New York City Human Rights Law) in federal district court. The New School tried to use the Ellerth defense (allows for a defendant in a Title VII case to claim immunity to vicarious liability of employees if (1) there was no tangible employment action take because of the harassment, (2) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and in response to the harassing conduct, and (3) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer). The district court denied the motion and The New School appealed which was certified by the 2nd Circuit.

The 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court that the defense was not available under the New York City Human Rights Law. The plain language of Section 8-107 precludes the use of the Ellerth defense by stating:[a]n employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice based upon the conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of subdivision one or two of this section only where:
"(1) the employee or agent exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
"(2) the employer knew of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct, and acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action; an employer shall be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct where that conduct was known by another employee or agent who exercised managerial or supervisory responsibility; or
"(3) the employer should have known of the employee's or agent's discriminatory conduct and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct”

Based on this plain language, the court concluded that the Ellerth is unavailable for a defendant under the NYCHRL and therefore will be strictly liable for the conduct of it’s employees. Furthermore, the court noted that the statute states that an employer’s anti-discrimination policy can other go towards the mitigation of civil penalties or punitive damages.

The star of the MTV reality show, "The Hills," is claiming that the creator of the show sexually harassed her. The claim centers on the show's creator inappropriately touching her during a photo shoot promoting the television program.

The issue reiterates the significance that sexual harassment need not just be by words alone. Inappropriate physical conduct such as touching, groping, or grabbing, which is offensive and or unwelcome can constitute sexually harassing behavior.

The full article can be found here.

Former New York Congressman Eric Massa is now facing a complaint of sexual harassment from a male employee. Massa, who recently resigned in connection to an ethics probe, has also been subject to reports of his abrasive behavior including groping individuals and using inappropriate language.

This matter raises several significant issues. The first is that it reflects the increasing number of claims of sexual harassment made by men. The other issue is that sexual harassment and other kinds of employment discrimination are prevalent at even the highest levels of our government.

Additional information related to this issue can be found at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002408-503544.html

Employees of a major international pharmaceutical company were in federal court in New York City this week for the trial of their class action sexual discrimination case filed on behalf of 5,600 employees.

It is anticipated that employee testimony will reveal how management pressured one employee to get an abortion, and that during training sessions, management encouraged women not to become pregnant while working for the company.

Plaintiffs have requested damages of $54 million in back pay, based on evidence that women in sales positions have been receiving an average of $105 less per month than men in comparable jobs.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit in the southern District of Ohio against New York based JP-Morgan Chase Bank alleging the bank sexually discriminated against women and fired one after she complained about their practices at an office in Colombus, Ohio.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Aimee Doneyhue was terminated from her job in 2007 in retaliation for complaining about sexually discriminatory practices to management because of the “sexually hostile work environment which was created, fostered, and maintained by male supervisors.” The complaint also alleges that JP-Morgan did not take proper action to correct the harassment and made it much more difficult for women to earn commission and bonuses.

The complaint seeks back pay, punitive damages, and an end to all discriminatory practices on the basis of gender. JP-Morgan spokesperson declined to comment.

Executive Officer Leanne Siri, the highest ranked civilian woman at Dallas Fire-Rescue, filed a Federal complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission on Friday, April 24, 2009. Siri, alleged that she was demoted, losing 30% of her current pay, after complaining of “lewd emails and sexual harassment form higher-ups.”

Dallas City Attorney Thomas Perkins, speaking on behalf of the city and the department, refused to address Siri’s allegations, but did state that the fire department chief, Eddie Burns, has expanded opportunities for women within the fire department, and made it easier to file employment discrimination complaints.

In addition to Siri’s complaint, the fire department also faces two other gender discrimination complaints and a lawsuit.

The Waterford Township of Michigan has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former Waterford Police Department clerk against the township and its police department. Penny Jo Dye alleged that she was subject to degrading and inflamed comments made about her breasts and tight pants after she gave statements backing a sexual harassment claim brought by a co-worker against the police department. After Dye filed a complaint with the township’s Fiscal and Human Resources Department about sexual harassment, she alleged that the township refused to interfere and instead, retaliated against her. The retaliatory conduct included isolating Dye by taking her job responsibilities away from her, withholding training and commencing unwarranted internal investigations to discipline her. Dye was ultimately terminated from her position.

The Township agreed to settle her case for $325,000 in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit. Under the settlement agreement, Dye is prohibited from applying to future employment opportunities with the Waterford Township.

According to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a male registered nurse, Roy E. Dreshman, Jr., has filed a claim against his former employer, Henry Clay Villa, in the United States District Court in Pittsburgh for sexual harassment, gender discrimination and age discrimination. In the complaint, Dreshman alleges that soon after two of his co-workers recognized him to be a former stripper, some employees began to pass around photographs of him as a dancer, solicited lap dances, asked him to perform at bachelorette parties and groped him. One employee even decorated her office with a poster of Dreshman as a male stripper. Residents of the nursing home also participated in discriminatory conduct against Dreshman by telling him, “Oh, my gosh, you are one of them go-go boys,” and calling him a “hootchie-kootchie dancer.”

Dreshman also alleges that the nursing home discriminated against him based on his gender and age by favoring female nurses for full-time positions over male nurses. Dreshman was told that he was a "pretty boy" and that "males did not ‘belong’ in the nursing field.” In the complaint, he also alleges that instead of launching an investigation after receiving his complaint, the management of the nursing home retaliated against him, leading to his ultimate termination.

In a complaint filed in September 2007 with the New York State Division of Human Rights, a former sheriff’s confidential executive assistant in Tompkins County claimed she was sexually harassed and subjected to gender discrimination by the Sheriff over a period of two years and then was retaliated against after complaining about the alleged behavior. Robin Korherr claims the sexual harassment began in 2005 while she was going through a divorce. Tompkins County Sheriff Peter Meskill allegedly tried to grope and kiss Korherr on several occasions. Korherr also alleges that Meskill often called her after he had been drinking to tell her how beautiful she was.

Korherr says she asked her boss several times to rectify the situation and that Meskill would initially apologize, but then become aggressive in his harassment again. In early 2007, Meskill took away her privileges and enforced new rules which made it impossible for Korherr to work. Korherr believes that these actions were retaliation against her for refusing to sleep with Meskill. In late 2007, Korherr left the job to work for the New York State Office of Homeland Security.

On March 26, 2009, the New York State Division of Human Rights found probable cause to hear Korherr’s case. Korherr provided testimony for her case during a hearing on April 23, 2009 after two hours of private negotiations in an attempt to reach a settlement. Meskill is expected to testify at a later date.

On April 13, 2009, Federal District Court Judge, Lawrence O. Anderson, entered a judgement of over $267,000 as well as significant injunctive relief in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in an employment discrimination lawsuit against Sunfire Glass Inc. The lawsuit charged that Sunfire’s owner, Paul McBride, subjected a class of female employees to severe physical and verbal sexual harassment in violation of Federal law.

Judge Anderson found that McBride sexually harassed two female glassblowers by touching the women on their breasts and between their legs, hitting the women on the buttocks, making obscene gestures and verbally harassing the women by talking about their bodies and using vulgar language. The two women, Tineke Meyer and Karina Mercado, complained repeatedly to management, but no action was taken to stop the sexual harassment. As a result of the severe abuse, the women were left no choice but to resign.

In addition to the monetary damages awarded, Judge Anderson also ordered Sunfire enjoined from engaging in sex discrimination and ordered the company to train employees on employment discrimination and sexual harassment, to post notices about sex discrimination and to create anti-discrimination policies and procedures.

Without the courage of these two women to stand up for themselves, the heinous conduct at Sunfire would not have been exposed. Perhaps their courage will stand as an example, and empower people to stand up for themselves, and for each other when confronted with employment discrimination or sexual harassment.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc. will pay $255,000 in order to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. As part of the settlement, it will also investigate anonymous sexual harassment claims, conduct more employee training and report instances of sexual harassment claims for three years.

Cracker Barrel was accused of allowing sexual jokes and lewd remarks to be made to seven female employees at one of its locations in Cedar Bluff, TN. The company did not take action when the women complained to managers and the Cracker Barrel complaint line. According to a recent article in The Tennessean, Cracker Barrel decided to settle the sexual harassment suit in order to maintain a good relationship with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

This is not the first time Cracker Barrel was accused of allowing workplace discrimination practices to occur at one of its locations. In 2006, Cracker Barrel paid $2 million in a consent decree to resolve a race discrimination and sexual harassment suit involving 51 employees at three Illinois restaurant locations.

Sexual harassment can include any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or verbal or physical conduct that creates an offensive or sexually charged work environment for employees of either gender.

In two recent sexual harassment cases in New York, one state and one Federal, the Courts reinforced the broadening of the protection of the New York City Human Rights Law in sexual harassment cases. In Williams v. The New York City Housing Authority, 872 NYS2d 27 (1st Dept. 2009) and Zarkzewska v. The New School, 06 Civ. 5463 (LAK), the Courts addressed The Restoration Act of 2005 amendments to the New York City Human Rights Law, which refer to the Act’s “uniquely broad and remedial purposes.”

In Williams, the Court determined that under the New York City Human Rights Law, a sexual harassment case should not be analyzed under the traditional framework set forth by the Federal courts in determining what is actionable harassment. Further, the Court noted that the classification of conduct as “severe and pervasive” does not apply to claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law.

In Zarkzewska, the Court ruled that under the New York City Human Rights Law, defendants are not entitled to an affirmative defense that exists under the Federal law.

The decision in Williams is perhaps most significant because now, when analyzing a case of sexual harassment under the New York City Human Rights Law the question is not whether the conduct is severe and pervasive but rather “the primary issue for a trier of fact in harassment cases...is whether the plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender.”

The New York City Council, by its enactment of the Restoration act of 2005, has once again established itself as a leader in the preservation of an individual’s human rights in the workplace. The Court’s interpretation of the Restoration Act has sent the clear message that sexual harassment in the workplace of any kind will not be tolerated.

Two New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees recently filed a troubling sex discrimination lawsuit. According to a recent article in the New York Daily News, the two female employees, Lillian Padilla and Magda Rodriguez, claimed they are subjected to entirely different conditions than their male counterparts. The allegations state that the women are consistently given the hardest and dirtiest jobs, are victimized by a barrage of threats and insults, and are denied showers or changing rooms after spending hours working in sewage. The complaint further alleges that the women, both of whom are lesbians, are subjected to derogatory slurs attacking their sexual orientation, and have also been unwillingly exposed to pornographic materials.

According to the complaint, this is not the first instance of sex discrimination committed by the DEP. The women claim that other female employees have left the company because of similar treatment, causing a shocking disparity in the male to female ratio at the DEP, with only five female laborers out of the 426 currently employed. Furthermore, when attempting to assert their rights, the female employees were threatened by management and continued to receive harsh treatment. However, despite these acts, all Padilla and Rodriguez are seeking is the same treatment as their male co-workers. Says Rodriguez, “I just want the policies changed so that women have equal rights. I have no shower. She has no shower. We work in sewage. That’s what we do all day.” The DEP is said to be currently investigating the claim.

Brenda Keys, a former State Attorney’s office employee has been permitted, by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, to file a suit against her former employer on the grounds of workplace retaliation and hostile work environment. However, based on Keys’ allegations, the Commission disallowed the possibility of a sexual harassment suit.

The allegations involve incidents between Keys and former State Attorney Steve Meadows in which Keys alleges that she was demoted and had her bonus halved by Meadows because he learned that she was aiding some of her co-workers in the pursuit of sexual harassment complaints against Meadows. Central to the Commission’s finding was its conclusion that Meadows had no credible evidence with which to refute allegations that Meadows had sex with an employee in his private office. An additional Commission finding that gave weight to the potential hostile work environment claim was that Meadows seemed to prefer his female staff, particularly those female employees who wore revealing clothing.

Meadows unsuccessfully attempted to complain of a bias on the part of the Commission’s review, pointing to an alleged 60 claims from other female employees who contended that the work environment was “professional and positive,” which the Commission allegedly failed to recognize. His request that the review be forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in order to obtain a supposed unbiased review, was refused, according to Meadows.

Burger King Corp. settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and will pay $85,000 to a North Carolina woman who was harassed by her store manager. The EEOC stated that Kathleen Joyner was sexually harassed by her general manager from December 2007 to March 2008. Ms. Joyner was 18-years-old at the time the alleged harassment took place.

According to the complaint, Ms. Joyner had complained to her assistant managers, but they failed to take any action to resolve the issue. As part of the settlement, Burger King Corp. is required to provide anti-harassment training to all managers and shift coordinators in its Clemmons and Winston-Salem, North Carolina restaurants. Ms. Joyner’s general manager was transferred to the Winston-Salem restaurant. In addition, all Burger King Corp. restaurants are required to review the anti-sexual harassment policies with all newly hired employees.

This week, the San Francisco Chronicle and Law.com reported that Maya Perez, a transgender woman, filed a sexual harassment and gender discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Burlington Coat Factory, claiming that while she was a sales associate in their San Francisco store, she had to endure seven years of physical and verbal abuse from her supervisors, colleagues and customers after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. Perez is one of a handful of transgender people who are litigating such employment discrimination matters.

Perez began working at the San Francisco store in 1996. Perez alleges that after she transitioned from a man to a woman in 2001, fellow co-workers and customers harassed her by pushing and groping her, showing her pornographic magazines and photographs, and calling her names such as “he-she.” The managers and security guards failed to intervene and protect her after they heard and saw the incidents either in person or on the store’s security cameras. The store also prevented her from changing her name tag from “Stevie,” her male name, to “Maya,” her current name. After legally changing her name from “Steven Perez” to “Maya Perez” in 2003, the store forced her to reapply for her position with her new name, even though she had already worked in the store for seven years.

Burlington Coat Factory’s company policy prohibits discrimination based on sex, but it does not make reference to sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. After Perez complained to her supervisors and the regional human resource director about the harassment, neither took any steps to investigate the issue, as required by company policy. Perez is seeking punitive damages, emotional distress, back pay and a change in employment policies to ensure that managers and employees are more sensitive toward gender identity matters.

Recently, The New York Times wrote a piece detailing a somewhat predictable side effect of the current economic downturn, predictable in the sense that recessions of years past have resulted in a similar trend: men are feeling the brunt of lay-offs, creating a higher percentage of families being supported by women breadwinners. In fact, women workers are poised to comprise a majority of the American workforce for the first time in the country’s history.

However, looking beyond this fact of increased representation in the workforce, reveals the ominous reality facing families in this economic climate. While women may seem more secure in their jobs in the recession, as the vast majority of layoffs have fallen on male dominated industries such as manufacturing and construction, women tend to find it more difficult to solely support a family because, in general, women who hold full-time positions generally earn only 80 cents for each dollar that their male counterpart earns.

In the face of a deepening recession, we may see challenges to presumed gender roles if layoffs continue to disproportionately fall on men with a new female dominated labor force. It is our hope that women will soon be treated more fairly in the workplace and not be subjected to sex discrimination or sexual harassment as women gain increased representation in the workforce.

Karin Keegan, a 37-year-old female Delta Airlines flight attendant, is suing JetBlue Airways and Delta Air Lines for sexual harassment. Ms. Keegan complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and was given the right-to-sue letters late last year. Due to an agreement, Delta flight attendants are ferried to their job assignments by JetBlue flights. Ms. Keegan claims that a male JetBlue flight attendant denied her access on the work-related flight because she was not dressed provocatively enough. The male JetBlue flight attendant wanted her to wear a lower-cut shirt and tighter pants. When Ms. Keegan changed her outfit to appease the JetBlue attendant, she was told that she was too late to board the flight. In addition, flight attendants of lower seniority were allowed to board the flight without issues with regard to their clothing.

A recent Sports Illustrated article noted that a former female employee has filed a $225 million lawsuit against NASCAR in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, citing sexual harassment, race discrimination and wrongful termination.

Mauricia Grant, a former Nationwide Series Technical Inspector, alleges atrocious behavior from her co-workers, such as calling her "Queen Sheba" and "Molicious," making repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan and, in one instance, two male employees exposed themselves to her. NASCAR has suspended the two accused employees without explanation.

The plaintiff called NASCAR an “old boys club” and went to great lengths in describing the insular nature of the company. “They need to stop hiring ignorant sisters, cousins and uncles [of theirs] and start hiring qualified, educated people to work their billion-dollar business,” Ms. Grant said in an interview.

NASCAR has responded, saying that the plaintiff never filed a complaint, and therefore could not blame NASCAR for not being able to stop the behavior. The CEO of NASCAR said that he had not been aware of the situation and that the claims would be immediately investigated.

In a recent decision in the case of Weiss v. Morgan Stanley, 05-cv-3310, the Court clearly pointed out that, “A plaintiff may prevail on a claim for retaliation even when the underlying conduct complained of was not in fact unlawful so long as she can establish that she possessed a good faith, reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated [the] law.”

It is, therefore, essential that we keep in mind the fact that although the plaintiff may prevail in the underlying employment discrimination claim, there is a reasonable basis to pursue a workplace retaliation claim so long as the sentiments expressed in the Weiss case quoted above, exist.

A New York State Judge in Brooklyn has re-confirmed the broad goals of the New York City Human Rights Law. In Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, 18 Misc.3d 1131(A) (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2008), the plaintiff was a transgender woman who had been born anatomically male but lived her life with a female identity. She complained that she had been discriminated against by a New York Transit Authority employee who had harassed her and made “transgender-phobic epithets” to her for a period of approximately 10 minutes.

The court denied the New York Transit Authority’s motion to dismiss the case, reaffirming that “[t]he Human Rights Law affords protection to transgender people in New York City.” The Court noted that “[t]he New York City Human Rights Law was intended to be more protective than the state and Federal counterparts,” and that “[t]he legislative history contemplates that the law be independently construed with the aim of making it the most progressive in the nation.”

In its decision regarding the New York City Human Rights Law, the court relied on the case of Selmanovic v. NYSE Group, a case in which Schwartz & Perry LLP is participating. We remain committed to fighting to ensure that the New York City Human Rights Law remains one of the most stringent and protective human rights laws in the country.

A recent article in The New York Times reported on the increase in complaints of discrimination in the workplace. The article went on to state that, “federal job discrimination complaints by workers against private employers rose by 9% last year, the biggest annual increase since the early 1990s.”

Based on the article, one might reasonably conclude that job discrimination has intensified. Another reasonable conclusion might also be that more individuals who suffer discrimination in the workplace have been able to observe, from their experiences, that those who complain of employment discrimination do not suffer the results of reporting employment discrimination to the same extent they did previously.

There is a reasonable likelihood to believe that it is not necessarily the increase in discriminatory conduct that caused the number of individuals who report employment discrimination to be greater than before. Instead it could be that individuals have learned that reporting discriminatory acts does not necessarily produce retaliation. The strong workplace retaliation laws that our lawmakers have enacted throughout our country have, in large part, effectively protected those who report discrimination from the retaliatory conduct they feared in the past.

A New York federal jury handed down an $11.6 million verdict in October 2007 in the Isiah Thomas sexual harassment case. On Thursday, December 6, 2007 a California state court jury awarded a former Fresno State women’s basketball coach just over $19 million in damages on her gender discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims.

Many civil verdict awards are comprised of both economic and non-economic components, both of which are sometimes broken down even further. In the case of the Fresno coach, plaintiff Stacy Johnson-Klein’s award broke down into four components: Past economic losses, future economic losses, past non-economic losses and future non-economic losses.

Ms. Johnson-Klein’s past economic losses component of the award ($634,254) covers the period between the coach’s firing in 2005 until the commencement of the trial. Past economic losses typically include lost wages and benefits. Ms. Johnson-Klein’s future economic losses component ($4,440,419) projects the plaintiff’s losses if she had not been fired, and typically includes lost wages and benefits measured from the trial through the plaintiff’s work-life expectancy. This point is usually the plaintiff’s retirement age, typically between age 65 and 70.

The non-economic components are awarded to the plaintiff for pain and suffering that she experienced as a result of the defendant's conduct, independent of economic damages. Ms Johnson-Klein was awarded $3 million for past non-economic losses and $11 million for future non-economic losses. In some cases, the jury may award the plaintiff punitive, or exemplary, damages in order to punish the defendant's willful misconduct which led to the suit. However, in the Johnson-Klein case, there was no punitive damages award against Fresno state because in California, punitive damages may not be recovered by a plaintiff against a defendant that is a public entity.