New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., held a hearing on transgender discrimination yesterday in the Capitol, winning praise from gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. This was the first ever congressional hearing on transgender rights. Rep. Andrews called the hearing as Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor. Rep. Andrews, who is not seeking reelection to his congressional seat, defended his decision to conduct the hearing by stating that "Congress has a responsibility to protect all Americans from unfair discrimination."

Rep. Andrews called several witnesses who had personally experienced transgender discrimination, including retired Colonel Diane Schoroer. Ms. Schorer testified that a job offer as a terrorism analyst was quickly rescinded after she revealed to the Library of Congress that she was a transgender person. Ms. Schoroer retired from the military after a distinguished career as David Schoroer. Ms. Schorer's story is below.

Additional witness testimony can be found at the National Center for Transgender Equality website.

Kudos to Rep. Andrews for understanding that discrimination against any minority, no matter how small or misunderstood, is discrimination against everyone.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination and Harassment

Bookmark:

William Wallace, former Senior Associate Dean for Academic and Student Affairs for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit against the University claiming he was fired in June 2006 for exposing racist hiring practices. Mr. Wallace was terminated by the University after federal monitor Judge Herbert Stern determined that Mr. Wallace abused his position as second in command at UMDNJ's School of Osteopathic Medicine in Stratford in myriad ways, including getting subordinates to submit expenses for him, devoting a "significant" amount of university time and resources to his political jobs, and giving a no-bid catering contract to a friend in exchange for free meals. The monitor also concluded that Mr. Wallace used his influence to try to get his daughter into medical school without the required essays or test.

I find it noteworthy that Mr. Wallace waited until the very end of his two year statute of limitations to bring this case. To me, that means he had a very hard time finding an attorney who would take his case. If you have a hard time finding an attorney to take your case, it generally means you don't have a good case.

I cannot personally comment on the merits of Mr. Wallace's claims; however, I can vouch for the thoroughness and precision of the Federal Monitor's team of investigators and attorneys. If they say you're guilty, you're guilty. I will also say that frivolous discrimination lawsuits not only waste taxpayer money, but hurt the real victims of discrimination and retaliation, who juries paint with the same brush as the fakers. Perhaps Mr. Wallace should have left well enough alone.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination and Harassment , Food for Thought , Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

In an age of increasing identity theft, the State of Connecticut has become the second state (after Michigan) to pass a law requiring that all businesses and their employees safeguard and protect the confidentiality of social security numbers. In signing the new bill into law, Governor M. Jodi Rell, said that “[i]n our fast-paced world, it takes only moments for someone to steal an identity and commit significant, long-lasting damage to a credit record." “This bill protects not just Social Security numbers, but any personal information," continued the Governor. "The law requires anyone possessing such information to safeguard it, along with the computer files and documents containing it, and specifically mandates that businesses that collect Social Security numbers develop a privacy protection policy."

The new law requires businesses to not only safeguard the personal information of their customers, but their employees as well. Although the law does not give individuals whose information is improperly divulged a right to file a lawsuit, it does provide for penalties and fines up to $500,000. A thoughtful description of the new law is set out in Daniel Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

Federal agencies and their employees, like IRS agents, have long been prohibited from disclosing taxpayer's financial information to third parties, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103 and related laws and regulations. However, CT is only the second state to apply this prohibition to private citizens.

I recently counseled a client whose personal financial information was improperly disclosed by his employer to a group of his coworkers. While this client undoubtedly suffered embarassment and emotional injury due to his employer's thoughtless actions, I had to advise him that he did not have a case. Unfortunately, New Jersey does not have a similar statute and common law claims such as invasion of privacy did not apply to his situation.

I strongly feel that Connecticut and Michigan have done the right thing by passing legislation requiring employers and businesses to maintain confidentiality of financial information. I would like to see our New Jersey legislators follow suit.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Rights Violations , Food for Thought

Bookmark:

The U.S. Department of Education is widening an investigation into whether Princeton University is discriminating against Asian applicants by artificially capping the number of students of Asian background it admits each year. The investigation was sparked by a 2006 lawsuit filed by Jian Li, a Chinese immigrant who grew up in Livingston, NJ, who was rejected for admission into Princeton's class of 2010 although he had perfect SAT scores, was in the top 1 percent of his high school class, and had significant extracurricular activities. The DOE is examining Princeton's admissions data for the class of 2010 to determine whether Asians have been discriminated against. The University denies any discrimination, stating that 14% of its freshman class last year was Asian.

Mr. Li, who was also rejected at Harvard, Stanford, MIT and U. Penn, told the Yale Daily News that his case is based on a study of admissions processes published by three Princeton researchers in 2004, "which found that while elite universities gave African-American applicants an advantage equivalent to 230 extra SAT points and Hispanic applicants 185 points while making admissions decisions, the schools placed Asian-Americans at a disadvantage equal to a loss of 50 SAT points." This phenomenon has been labeled "disaffirmative action." The researchers concluded that if colleges stopped using affirmative action quotas in admitting students, Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places that are currently taken by black or Hispanic students.

The jury is still out on whether affirmative action policies in our colleges and universities are having a desirable effect. Are quotas an effective tool in ending racism, or are they just another form of racism? I guess it depends on who you speak to, a fact which speaks volumes.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination and Harassment

Bookmark:

NELA colleague Neil Mullin, Esq. won a significant victory for a gay couple who claimed they were harassed and discriminated against by firefighters in the Town of Secaucus, NJ. The plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to anti-gay epithets and death threats after they asked the firefighters, whose station house was next to their residence, to quiet down. The plaintiffs alleged that the Town promoted two of the individuals involved, instead of disciplining them. The jury ruled in favor of the couple, concluding that Secaucus was responsible for the actions of the firefighters who perpetuated the attack, and that town officials had been indifferent to the harassment and discrimination the men experienced.

Mr. Mullin told The Hudson Reporter that he hoped the verdict "will signal to the Town of Secaucus the need to make some major changes. The mayor, the town attorney, and administrator failed to take any significant action to protect these men when their lives were in danger."

Having litigated against municipalities myself, I know that these cases are complicated and highly adversarial. My heartfelt congratulations to a terrific attorney and his team, and to the two gentlemen who prevailed in this case.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Rights Violations , Discrimination and Harassment

Bookmark:

My jaw hit the floor when I read that an experienced New York employment defense attorney had come out and publicly stated that "retaliation is human nature." Judith Moldover, Esq., Senior Staff Attorney of the Lawyer's Alliance of New York, made the statement to a group of human resources professionals at a recent conference sponsored by the Society for Human Resource Management. Ms. Moldover, who spent the majority of her career defending employers, most recently at mega-firm Ford & Harrison, warned the HR crowd that retaliation claims are on the rise because there is an almost "irresistible urge to strike back" against employees who complain or file lawsuits against their employers. You bet there is!

Finally, a defense attorney admits what me and my clients have been saying for years. I spend all day trying to convince defense attorneys that their clients have retaliated against mine. They look at me like I have three heads. "My client? Retaliate against yours? Absurd!" they say. Now I know what they are really thinking. "Oh shoot, not again. Medic!"

I applaud Ms. Moldover for her candor and I hope employers hear her message, i.e., that because retaliation is human nature, employers need to make preventing retaliation second nature.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Food for Thought , Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

UMDNJ was back in the news last week as former State Senator Wayne Bryant lost his application to have all federal bribery charges against him dismissed. Sen. Bryant is alleged to have held several "no show" jobs for UMDNJ in exchange for boosting state funding for the school. U.S. District Court Judge Freda Wolfson denied Bryant's application to dismiss all charges and set a trial date for September 8, 2008.

Judge Wolfson's ruling indicates that the remaining charges against Sen. Bryant are legally sound, although the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence will be decided by a jury. Whether or not the jury convicts Sen. Bryant of bribery, the State of New Jersey's esteemed medical school has taken yet another serious blow to its credibility. It remains to be seen whether the University's new President can take the school in a different direction. For the sake of all New Jersey taxpayers, I hope so.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Food for Thought

Bookmark:

We recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of construction foreman Michael Dodd against his former employer, George Harms Construction Co., Inc. The lawsuit alleges that the company demoted Mr. Dodd and terminated his employment because he blew the whistle on business practices which he believed to be illegal, fraudulent, unethical, and harmful to public safety.

The Complaint in the case of Michael Dodd v. George Harms Construction Co., Inc., MON-L-2582-08, states that in January 2006, Mr. Dodd, a construction supervisor who had worked for the company for over twenty years, told his boss that his fellow foremen were not conducting weekly safety meetings. These foremen were filing false safety meeting reports to document “meetings” which never occurred, according to the Complaint. Mr. Dodd alleges that after he reported this conduct, the company isolated him, demoted him, took away his crew, and assigned him the worst jobs on the site, including picking up garbage.

The Complaint further alleges that in April 2007, Mr. Dodd blew the whistle again, this time about a retaining wall built by the company on Routes 1 and 9 in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mr. Dodd alleges that he wrote a letter to Chief Executive Officer Tom Hardell stating that he believed the company had intentionally altered the design and structure of the wall, compromising its structural integrity, without the consent or knowledge of the State. The Complaint states that Mr. Dodd also contacted the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration regarding his claims. According to Mr. Dodd, the company then began an “investigation” which was designed, not to look into and remedy the problem with the wall, but to cover-up its conduct and find grounds to terminate Mr. Dodd’s employment. According to the Complaint, the company terminated Mr. Dodd’s employment at the conclusion of its investigation, finding that Mr. Dodd was “insubordinate,”“highly irresponsible,” “recklessly indifferent to the truth,” “dishonest and disruptive,” and had “lied” about his safety concerns.

Mike Dodd is a hard working man who gave George Harms Construction twenty years of his life. The fact that the company terminated his employment just weeks after he contacted OSHA and reported an allegedly unsafe condition on one of this State’s busiest highways is, in my view, a clear violation of whistleblower protection law.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

Keansburg's Board of Education voted last week to suspend the $741,000 severance package it planned to give its Superintendent of Schools, Barbara Trzeszkowski, until litigation filed by the State Attorney General to void the agreement is resolved. Keansburg, however, opted to remain a plaintiff in litigation it brought, along with the other "Abbott" districts in New Jersey, to contest the State's new school-funding formula. Keansburg and the other districts allege in that case that the new school-funding formula will deprive it of the $4.3 billion in special aid they receive from the State.

The Board's attorney, Richard Shapiro, recommended that Keansburg opt out of the school funding case, given the public relations nightmare surrounding Ms. Trzeszkowski's severance package. The Board did not follow that recommendation.

From a legal point of view, the severance package issue does not appear to be relevant to the constitutional challenge at the center of the school funding litigation. However, from a moral point of view, Keansburg's position is untenable. Keansburg's conduct, including negotiating and signing off on a $741,000 severance package for an administrator (while its students attend classes in trailers, mind you), and the conduct of other free-spending Abbott districts necessitated the school funding reform law. Keansburg can't credibly complain about the law's "unfairness" now.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Severance Negotiations

Bookmark:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission obtained a $2.2 million settlement today from the landmark New York City restaurant, Tavern on the Green. The EEOC's lawsuit, filed in September 2007, alleged that the restaurant engaged in sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation against workers who complained about these unlawful conditions. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Tavern on the Green's attorney told the press that "the restaurant conducted a thorough investigation of the allegations when they were first made some time ago and found them "entirely devoid of merit.'" That must have been some great "investigation," huh?

Congratulations to the EEOC for its significant victory. And a big "boo" to Tavern on the Green for harassing, discriminating against, and retaliating against its employees . . . and then claiming that the victims of this conduct were lying. I hope this major settlement sends a message to other corporate wrongdoers that they cannot hide their heads in the sand when their managers and supervisors harass, discriminate, and retaliate against their subordinates. Wake up and smell the litigation.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination and Harassment , Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark: