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.

Jennette Suarez claims that she was subjected to lewd sexually harassing behavior during her employment at Staten Island Ferry. Suarez alleges in her suit recently filed in Federal Court in Brooklyn that ferry employees used high tech cameras to zoom in for closeups “down a women’s blouse or up a woman’s skirt” and that deckhands created a degrading and demeaning workplace for women.

Additionally, Suarez claims that male deckhands would freely view pornography on their phones, refer to woman in “offensive and disrespectful language” and that after Suarez complained about the sexual harassment, she was fired in retaliation for her complaints.

The full Daily News article can be found here.

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

Cleve Bryant, former associate athletics director for football operations for the University of Texas, was dismissed from the University last March after a university investigation determined that Bryant sexually harassed then 24-year old, Rachel Arena, an administrative assistant who worked in the football department.

Documents obtained from the investigation reveal Arena’s allegations against Bryant:

• During a July 2010 meeting in Bryant’s office about whether she would receive a raise, Bryant pulled down the top of Arena’s dress and bra and fondled her breast.

• Bryant repeatedly told Arena in person or via text that “I want to kiss you.”

• Bryant retaliated against Arena after she told him to stop texting her by creating a false allegation that she acted inappropriately at a minor league baseball game she attended with former UT football players.

• Bryant, while in the break room with Arena one day, stood in front of her and said, “Kiss me.” Arena turned away and Bryant kissed her on the neck.

• Two other female office workers alleged that Bryant had kissed them in the past.

Bryant, who is married, has denied all of the allegations. Bryant also appealed his firing, but university officials have not commented on the appeal, nor will they discuss any aspects of this story. The school investigator’s report to the school president states that “Mr. Bryant suggests that Arena contrived her story because she had been denied an $11,000 raise . . . This investigator does not believe that Ms. Arena was denied a raise for other than legitimate business reasons, but also does not believe that she invented these incidents over a two-year period.” The report went on to state that “this investigator does not find Mr. Bryant credible.”

Arena further contends that the harassment began shortly after she was hired in 2008. She started getting sexually charged texts from Bryant allegedly discussing “where [she] was going, what [she] was wearing... if [she] went home with anyone and about [her] sex life.”

Arena filed a formal complaint of sexual assault and sexual harassment with the university’s Office of Institutional Equity in October 2010. Arena has since settled her complaint with the university for an undisclosed amount and will not be pressing criminal charges. Arena’s attorney Gloria Allred stated that: “It appears that some female employees of Texas athletics may be afraid to come forward because they fear that if they file a complaint, that they may be retaliated against and lose their job.”

More information regarding this case is available at ESPN.com.

A lawsuit was filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court last week by 23 year old, Priscilla Agosto, against her former employer, a real estate office, for sexual harassment. Ms. Agosto claims that several of her male co-workers subjected her to inappropriate comments and sexual advances, a violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. She is seeking back pay and benefits from her former employer.

Agosto was employed for 14 months. Throughout her time there, she allegedly faced lewd comments, propositions for oral sex and was even offered $500 to sleep with a co-workers girlfriend. When one of her co-workers slapped Agosto across the face, she knew she had to take action. Agosto claims that she complained to her boss who brushed the incident off and only told the employee to apologize. This perceived lack of concern quickly prompted Agosto to bring suit. Agosto hopes that by speaking up and sharing her story, she will help inspire others facing sexual harassment to speak up.

The employer responded to the lawsuit by denying the charges and asserting that Agosto is too ugly to harass. She claimed that Agosto, “made up a story because she didn’t want to work.”

You can read more about Agosto’s claims in the New York Daily News and Yourjewishnews.com

Recently the Central Park Boathouse, a landmark in Manhattan since the 1950's, has been the subject of several sexual harassment and other related discrimination claims against them.

Approximately six former and current employees have made claims that supervisors at the restaurant routinely subjected them to sexual harassment by way of inappropriate comments, touching and conversation in the workplace. These employees field a complaint with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a result of this alleged conduct in the workplace.

As of now Boathouse management has not said much. Restaurant spokesman Joseph O’Donnell stated that, “all employees are aware of the Boathouse’s zero tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment.”

The complaints by employees of the Boathouse have sparked reaction from New York City Public Advocate Bill De Blasio, who is now urging the Parks Commissioner, Adrian Benepe to revoke the contract to operate the restaurant and boating concession at Central Park. De Blasio commented, “it doesn’t fit the values of this city and it violates the law.”

Parks Department spokeswoman Vicki Karp has responded by stating that the agency takes sexual harassment allegations very seriously and cares deeply about labor standards, promising that action will be taken in any and all situations that warrant scrutiny.

Regardless of the outcome of these claims, it will be interesting to see how these negative reports will affect business for the Boathouse in the coming weeks. It will also be very significant if actions are ultimately taken by New York City officials to cease operations of the restaurant due to discrimination claims.

A sexual harassment claim has been brought by four employees of New York nightclubs Tenjune and Simyone Lounge.

The owner is accused of making unwanted sexual advances and requesting sexual favors from the women. He is also accused of luring two of the women away from cameras and the public, and then ordering them to expose themselves. He allegedly barred the women from leaving and forced them to touch him inappropriately.

Three of the women are afraid to return to work and the fourth is working but fears continued sexual harassment and retaliation.

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 Reuters.

A sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit has been brought against fashion designer Marc Jacobs' company in New York City. Patrice Lataillade states that her former supervisor created a hostile work environment by “displaying gay pornography in the office and requiring employees to look at it.” Further, the complaint states that this supervisor allegedly disseminated a book, which included photos of Marc Jacobs’ staff in sexual positions and required employees to "pole dance."

According to the complaint, after Lataillade complained via e-mail, she was fired less than a week later with the perpetrator allegedly telling other employees that he "takes credit" for her termination. Lataillade was employed from May 1996 to September 7, 2010, and throughout her 14 years of service, Lataillade claims she received consistently outstanding reviews as well as bonuses and promotions.

While Marc Jacobs' company drafted a sexual harassment policy in January 2010, it was not disseminated by Human Resources, and nothing was done to reprimand the perpetrator.

More about this case as available here.

Daniel Papelino was expelled from a New York pharmacy college after he disclosed that he was sexually harassed to Albert White, the school’s associate dean of student affairs. Papelino alleged that Deanna Nowak, his Chemistry professor, was overly flirtatious and made unwanted sexual advances towards Papelino in her office and even offered to award him extra points on his exam in exchange for sexual favors.

Not long after Papelino complained to Dean White of the sexual harassment, Nowak was charged with spearheading an investigation to determine whether Papelino and his two roommates had cheated on exams. All three students were found guilty of cheating and Papelino was expelled. Papelino brought a sexual harassment claim against the school after a state court found that there was no evidence that Papelino had cheated on any exam. Papelino and his roommates sued the school for retaliation, sexual harassment and breach of contract. These lawsuits were dismissed by the District Court, however Papelino appealed.

The Second Circuit panel found that Dean White did not take Papelino’s sexual harassment allegation seriously and did nothing to investigate the claim. As a result, the panel reinstated Papelino’s claim of sexual harassment against the school.

For more information, see http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/26/33654.htm

A major veterinary center is being sued for sexual harassment and retaliation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of six female employees for actions of one of its co-owners.

At least six female employees were subjected to vulgar and offensive comments. The co-owner often called them “worthless” and “whores.”

The co-owner also fired at least three of the victims and forced others to quit after they made their complaints, which could be retaliatory. The EEOC is seeking compensatory, punitive, and injunctive relief against the company.

Additional information is available here.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) will secure a settlement on behalf of Ora L. Borrell for the sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation she endured during her employment with Bardon, Inc.

Incidents of sexual harassment included public urination by other employees in her presence, explicit sexual comments and requests, and touching and grabbing against her will. Borrell was eventually terminated by the company in retaliation for her complaints.

This case is a further demonstration of the prevalence of sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

Additional information regarding this matter can be found here.

The trial in the sexual harassment and retaliation case brought by former New York 1 News anchor Adele Sammarco has begun in Federal Court in Brooklyn. Ms. Sammarco claims that she was subjected to a hostile, sexually charged environment in which the male employees maintained a "boys's club" at the expense of the female employees.

Ms. Sammarco also claims that she was terminated after she had complained about the sexual conduct of a co-worker. The trial has just begun and individuals have begun to take the stand and testify. We hope to report on the outcome of this case as it moves forward.

Additional information can be found at http://www.1010wins.com/Fmr--NY1-Reporter-Takes-Stand-in-Harassment-Lawsui/6804419

A former employee of a well known real estate company claims the company president was obsessed with employees’ weight and he faced discrimination on the job because he was overweight. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisor made comments that he was “too fat” and his weight had “ballooned” since he began working for the company.

The family of a deceased construction worker has decided to continue bringing a $20 million sexual harassment against her former employers, JP Morgan Chase, Plaza Construction and Total Safety Consulting, failed to respond to her numerous complaints of harassment on the job. The woman was subjected to harassment on the job from 2007 onward, when an elevator operator began to paw her and proposition her. When she repeatedly rejected the elevator operator, he turned nasty telling her that “This is a man’s world, not a place for women to work.”

Women are a rarity in construction, making up only one in every ten employees. After complaining numerous times to her supervisors, the woman was told that if the operator was disciplined, his union would make waves. Eventually she was removed from the job only 2 months after beginning, which resulted in depression so severe that a workman’s compensation judge ruled it a work injury.

Tragically, the woman died in a house fire in October 2009. Her two daughters have continued the lawsuit in her name to continue her legacy of fighting for what she believed in.

A male employee of a large hair transplant company has brought a lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court, in which he claims he was sexually harassed by his female co-workers. The plaintiff claims he was subjected to conduct such as being regularly propositioned for sexual relations and being physically touched and fondled. Additionally, when he complained, he was fired soon after, leading to a claim of retaliation.

Conduct such as comments and touching in the workplace is entirely inappropriate and in violation of the applicable Human Rights Laws.

In Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, a 30 year old female plaintiff brought a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act claiming that her termination was in retaliation for reporting, in the employer’s internal investigation, that the Employee Relations Director had sexually harassed her. The employer’s proffered legitimate non discriminatory reason for Crawford’s termination was that she embezzled funds.

Title VII’s opposition clause makes it unlawful "for an employer to discriminate against any ... employe[e]" who (1) "has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter." However, Title VII does not define the term “oppose.” The Supreme Court, utilizing the plain meaning of “oppose”, held that the statute’s opposition clause also extends protection to an employee that speaks out about discrimination not on their own accord but at the behest of their employer during the course of an internal investigation.

The Court reasoned that the meaning of the term "oppose" goes beyond "active, consistent" behavior in ordinary discourse, to include a person that has taken no action except for the act of disclosing the discrimination. Thus, a person can "oppose" discrimination merely by responding to someone else's questions just as surely as actively complaining of discrimination.

A former employee at the Verizon facility in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania alleged that her employment was terminated after she complained of discrimination. The former employee complained about sexually offensive graffiti and materials in Verizon work areas and trucks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that after complaining to management, the employee was subjected to retaliatory harassment, including the hanging of a plastic rat from the ceiling. The EEOC went on to charge that Verizon management knew of the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Instead, the employee was fired for her complaints.

Verizon maintains that an investigation took place but nothing was discovered to substantiate the allegations. Verizon further contended that the company acted appropriately and the size of the settlement recognized that the company did nothing wrong. Verizon has agreed to provide training to its employees at the Bryn Mawr facility on TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal to retaliate against someone who complains about employment discrimination.

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals to answer the following question: Does the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code?

Under Faragher/Ellerth, employers are afforded an affirmative defense under federal law to vicarious liability for discriminatory harassment by a supervisor that does not result in a tangible employment action if the employer can show it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct alleged discriminatory conduct and the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the protective measures afforded by the employer.

The language of the New York Human Rights Laws is in direct conflict with the federal Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. The Second Circuit correctly called on New York’s highest court to resolve this issue because of “the absence of authoritative state court decisions, the importance of the issue to the state, and the capacity of certification to resolve this litigation.”

On June 11, 2009 The EEOC (U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission) entered into an agreement with prominent national retailer Dillard’s Inc., in settlement of a lawsuit regarding incidents of sexual harassment in violation of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act. As part of the agreement, Dillards is to pay $11,000 in damages to the victims of sexual harassment as well as reform their workplace policies to comply with Title IV.

While the media typically depicts sexual harassment victims as females, males also fall victim to sexual harassment in the workplace. The Dillard’s case involved male on male sexual harassment at a Dillard’s in Florida. According to the EEOC, the Dillard’s store at the Fashion Square Mall in Orlando permitted a sexually hostile work environment for its employees. The specific incident involved a male supervisor that engaged in verbal as well as physical sexual harassment of two Dillard’s employees, a male sales associate and a male dockworker. The supervisor exposed himself to the employees, sexually propositioned them, and made explicit sexual and derogatory comments to them. While both men complained about the foregoing conduct, Dillard’s took no steps to resolve it.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-1496-PCF-KRS) in September 2007. The terms of the settlement provide that in addition to paying the victims $110,000, the Dillard’s store will provide its staff with booklets describing its anti sexual harassment and retaliation policies, conduct training for all employees on the matter, and train employees that will specifically be responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints. Furthermore, Dillard’s will submit to monitoring by the EEOC for the next three years, and will post a notice about the resolution of this case.

The EEOC recently stated that employers ought to be more vigilant in ensuring that male employees are not being subjected to working in sexually hostile environments since sexual harassment cases involving male victims have increased sharply over the past decade.

A former Bay Minnete, Alabama employee, Deanna M. Rider, has brought a sexual harassment and workplace retaliation suit under Title VII of the Equal Pay Act, alleging that Public Works Director Lamar Hadley propositioned her for sex, slapped her on the rear and tried to feel her breasts. The suit also alleges that upon receiving her complaint of the alleged sexually harassing acts, the city fired her from her position.

Among the allegations contained in the complaint were that Hadley called Rider at home, made numerous advances toward her and, on one occasion, asked Rider to take off her panties and show Hadley her private area.

A woman has sued ABC and ‘Lost’ actor Henry Ian Cusick claiming that the actor sexually harassed her, and that ABC fired her in retaliation after she complained. The lawsuit claims that Cusick, who stars as Desmond Hume on ‘Lost,’ fondled the woman’s buttocks and breasts, and kissed her on the lips in October 2007. The woman alleges that when she reported the incident to her supervisor, she was told to avoid Cusick, and then was fired 12 days later. She had worked for ABC since 1997. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages the woman is seeking.

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.

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.

The Vineland Board of Education approved a $125,000 out-of-court settlement to Joni Kane, the district’s public information assistance, who commenced a civil sexual harassment suit in 2006 against district spokesperson John Sbrana and the school system. Kane charged Sbrana and the school with placing her in a hostile work environment where she was sexually harassed, and denied promotions and pay increases.

The suit alleged that one month into Kane’s employment with the communications office in 1997, Kane was subject to sexual advances by Sbrana through emails. In 1998, after avoiding Sbrana’s advances, Kane was told that she would have to work weekends, holidays and evenings without overtime compensation. The suit also named the district for failing to resolve the hostile work environment and abusive work conditions. Kane’s attorney, Marc Weinberg, said the situation had caused Kane “extreme physical and psychological injuries,” warranting compensatory and punitive damages.

The Board of Education split in a 5-3 vote to authorize the payment by the district’s insurance carrier. Objections were made with respect to how the investigation was handled at the outset when allegations of sexual harassment first arose in 2006. Frank Giordano, President of the Board, said that even though there was an interest in letting the matter proceed to give each party equal access to justice, if the district lost in court and Kane was awarded more than $125,000, the remaining balance would have to be paid by taxpayers. However, Superintendent Charles Ottinger explained that the Board’s displeasure with the outcome and their legal representation was not a reflection on the merits of Kane’s case, and further reiterated that any employee who is subject to sexual harassment should bring the matter to the attention of the administration.

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.

On December 3, 2008, a jury awarded Juan I. Valera $420,000 for being subjected to a hostile work environment. Valera, an employee of Costco for 20 years, is gay and is also HIV-positive. Valera’s attorney alleged that a Costco General Manager casually used the word “queer” around Valera, which caused him to take a leave of absence. To rectify the situation, Valera asked the Assistant General Manager to protect him from insensitive remarks. The following day, Valera was demoted and received a pay cut.

A report on MSNBC.com noted that, in February 2009, Valera is suing Costco again. Valera alleges in his new Los Angeles Superior Court complaint that the company’s failure to reinstate him to his old position is an act of retaliation that stems from both the previous jury award and his sexual orientation.

After a seven week trial in a sex discrimination and sexual harassment case brought by a female neurosurgeon, Dr. Sagun Tuli, against her boss, Dr. Arthur Day, the Chairman of the Neurosurgery Department, a jury awarded the Plaintiff $1.6 million in damages. According to a recent article in The Boston Globe, the jury found that Dr. Tuli was subjected to harassment, ridicule, intimidation and other abusive conduct that was motivated, in part, by her gender. An example of the discriminatory conduct was the repeated demeaning remarks made to Dr. Tuli by Dr. Day while she was operating, such as, “You are just a girl. Are you sure you can do that?” On another occasion at a hospital dinner, Dr. Tuli testified that Dr. Day asked her whether she would “get up on the table and dance for [them] to show the female residents how to behave.” The jury also awarded damages because it found that the hospital retaliated against Dr. Tuli after she complained about sex discrimination.

Last week, The New York Times published an article about the United States Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., No 06-1595, to expand the protection of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Crawford was a case of workplace retaliation brought by a witness in a sexual harassment investigation who was terminated after cooperating with the investigator. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether someone who was not complaining about employment discrimination that they themselves suffered was entitled to be protected from workplace retaliation.

In Crawford, Justice Souter, writing for the majority noted that “[N]othing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative, but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question.”

The Crawford decision is very significant in that it shows a shift in the interpretation of the Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation laws to mirror more closely the New York City Human Rights Law which was amended in 2005 to broaden employees’ protection from workplace retaliation.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on January 26, 2009, which is sure to be the subject of man future blog posts. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, the plaintiff was a former municipal employee who had been terminated. The company stated that it had fired the employee for “embezzlement.” The employee, however, believed that she was terminated because she participated in an investigation into a sexual harassment complaint asserted by a co-worker. Crawford stated that she was being punished for having confirmed that the complaining employee was actually sexually harassed.

The issue, therefore, was not whether the employee who asserts a claim was protected by workplace retaliation laws – which she would be – but whether an employee who does not herself assert a claim but merely participates in the investigation is also protected.

The Court unanimously agreed that such an employee was protected. Justice Souter wrote that “When an employee communicates to her employer a belief that the employer has engaged in a form of employment discrimination, that communication virtually always constitutes the employee’s opposition to the activity.” The Court recognized, therefore, that just by confirming that sexual harassment occurred, the employee was opposing it.

While this decision has long been the rule in New York, both the district and appellate courts in Crawford had reached the opposite conclusion. We are pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court is ensuring that employees who in any way oppose discrimination in the workplace are protected against workplace retaliation.

A recent New York Law Journal article reported that a Federal judge has thrown out a pro se libel action against a New York Judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the second such dismissal for the plaintiff who claims she was fired unjustly, citing sexual harassment and workplace retaliation.

In both cases, the plaintiff appealed her alleged unfair termination, claiming that the judges defamed her in their statements, thereby damaging her reputation. The presiding Federal judge threw both cases out, calling the recent libel action “frivolous.”

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 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.