Title VII

Published on: April 13, 2015

An Employment Trap: Tardiness

The clock is always ticking if you’re an hourly employee

One of the most frequent stumbling blocks for clients is tardiness. Whether it’s coming to work on time or coming back from breaks in a timely fashion, we cannot stress this enough: you must be on time for work. Even if your boss says he doesn’t care. Even if you stay late to make up the time. Even if you work through lunch to make up the difference. You have got to be at work on time. If the schedule says 9 am, you need to clock in at 9 am.

Obviously, some of this varies from job to job. A lot of professional positions do not have a set schedule. Many accountants, lawyers, and executives are not expected to be at work at any given time. The same is true for many people who telecommute. For those individuals who have a traditional, scheduled time of arrival, however, being on time to work is critical.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 27, 2014

Fourth Circuit Holds Employer Liable for Third Party Harassment

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

Have you ever had to deal with an unpleasant person at work? When does the inappropriate conduct of someone at work rise to a civil rights violation by your employer? A recent decision by the Fourth Circuit may help answer these questions. The Fourth Circuit upheld racial and sexual hostile work environment claims in Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corporation on April 29, 2014.

Lori Freeman, former employee of Dal-Tile, sued her former employer after enduring months of mistreatment from a sales representative from one of the company’s main clients.

In June 2008, Dal-Tile bought a stone yard called Marble Point in Raleigh, North Carolina, formerly owned by Marco Izzi. The yard was incorporated into Dal-Tile as a sale-service organization, and Izzi purchased ownership in VoStone, Inc., a Raleigh kitchen/bath remodeling center that became a significant client of Dal-Tile and major source of revenue.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 21, 2014

You Just Got Fired: How to Deal in 11 GIFs

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

Being terminated from your job almost always comes with a huge amount of stress and emotion. There’s a lot to process, and people often want to do that processing very quickly in order to get back up and running. Every day, we see people who have lost their jobs and are understandably having a tough time figuring out where to begin. We’re here to help, and in this particular situation we’re here to help you understand with some visual aids. Here’s a guide to the firing process.

1. Be Professional: Nothing is gained by burning bridges on the way out.

Stay calm, act professionally.
2. What’s The Deal?: What are the terms of your separation? Were you fired? Did you get a chance to resign? Is there a severance package?

Continue reading →

Published on: August 13, 2014

11 Things You Should Know About EEOC’s New Guidelines on Pregnancy Discrimination in Employment (Part 1)

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

On July 14, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published guidance on laws governing pregnancy-based discrimination for the first time since 1984. Charges of pregnancy discrimination are rising largely due to common and persistent misconceptions about pregnancy in the workplace.

The two of the main federal laws concerning pregnancy-related discrimination in the workplace are the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The PDA is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), which contains two fundamental restrictions on how employers may treat workers for pregnancy-related reasons.

First, employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or other related medical conditions. Second, women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or other related conditions must be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work. The ADA’s pregnancy-related provisions mandate that employers must accommodate impairments caused by an employee’s pregnancy to the same extent they would other disabilities in the workplace.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 8, 2014

Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. Part III: Fourth Circuit Issues a Rehearing

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

Do you think that the Fourth Circuit got it wrong when it decided against an employee who was called a “porch monkey” more than once by a coworker and was fired from her job shortly after she complained? You are certainly not alone. Ms. Boyer-Liberto’s complaints about the racists did not give rise to a claim for a hostile work environment or employment discrimination according to the Fourth Circuit, but you may see the Fourth Circuit change or limit that opinion.

The Fourth Circuit on Tuesday, July 1, granted en banc hearing to Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., marking a potential shift in the way the Fourth Circuit analyzes employment discrimination claims. What this means is that both sides will reargue the case, but this time they will do so in front of all eligible judges of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Many appellate courts sit in parts or divisions of three or more judges from among a larger number on the full court. The Fourth Circuit is no exception. That’s why only three judges (Chief Judge Traxler and Judges Neimeyer and Shed) heard and decided the original case. When a court sits en banc it is possible that it will reach a different decision from the original 3-member panel. It is common for parties to ask for a rehearing en banc after an appellate court renders a decision; however, they are rarely granted. When a court does grant a rehearing en banc, it means that one of the following situations are in play:

A material (potentially outcome changing) fact or legal issue was overlooked in the decision;

Continue reading →

Published on: June 16, 2014

Fourth Circuit Decision Offers Guidance on Race Discrimination: Hostile Work Environment/Retaliation Claims, Part 2: What This Case Teaches Us

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

On Friday, we discussed the recent discrimination case at arising from employment at a hotel bar between Reya Boyer-Liberto and her former employer, the Fontainebleau Corporation. We move on today to what we can learn from this case of racial language used in the service industry.

What the Case Teaches Us:

In dropping Liberto’s case, the Fourth Circuit was essentially saying that, even assuming everything that Liberto alleged was true, the conduct she faced did not amount to a hostile work environment while she had been employed by Berger.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 13, 2014

Fourth Circuit Decision Offers Guidance on Race Discrimination: Hostile Work Environment/Retaliation Claims, Part 1: What Happened and the Law

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

Have you ever wondered how bad your working conditions have to become your work is a “hostile work environment?” A recent case may help you decide whether you’re in a position to take legal action.

Reya Boyer-Liberto, an African-American woman, sued the Fontainebleu Corporation and her boss Leonard Berger for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Liberto alleged that her former employer discriminated against her by allowing a hostile work environment to persist at the hotel where she worked because a coworker yelled at her and called her a “porch monkey” twice within a two-day period.

Despite recognizing the racial slurs as unacceptable, the Fourth Circuit held that Liberto’s coworker’s conduct was too isolated to constitute a hostile work environment, reasoning that a two-day period of racial comments, relating to one altercation, was not sufficiently “severe” or “pervasive” to change a term or condition of her employment or create an abusive workplace atmosphere.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 23, 2014

Unpaid Interns Earn the Right to Sue in NYC

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

In 2013, Lihuan Wang, then a student at Syracuse University and an unpaid intern for Phoenix Sattelite Television, sued Phoenix because her supervisor took her to lunch and to a hotel room where he kissed her by force and grabbed her buttocks. She resisted and, later, Phoenix wouldn’t hire her. U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Castel dismissed Ms. Wang’s lawsuit because she was not Phoenix’s “employee” and, thus, the New York City Human Rights Law didn’t apply to her.

Ms. Wang isn’t the first unpaid intern to have to deal with harassment at her internship. According to Newsweek, one intern was taken out to a bar by her supervisor to discuss career options, but instead he made advances toward her and put his hand on her thigh. Another was subjected to racial slurs while at work. Interns – talented young people who are selected for their enthusiasm, their work ethic, and their willingness to work for literally no pay – often feel like they are powerless to stop this kind of harassment. The most important way interns are usually “compensated” for their time is through a positive reference and/or contacts in the industry where they’re looking for find a job. Interns feel like complaining could damage or jeopardize those references and contacts, especially when the interns are given no redress by the court system. But, in New York City at least, this is about to change.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill into law on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 that provides NYC interns with protections from sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. As the mayor said before signing the bill, “this legislation will clarify that interns, paid or unpaid, are guaranteed the full protections guaranteed to employees under the human rights law.” Interns in New York will no longer be akin to fair game for harassment and exploitation as far as discrimination and harassment are concerned.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 18, 2014

Game Change? Judge Rules on Discrimination Protection for Gays

By The Erlich Law Office, PLLC

A United States District Court Judge in the District of Columbia issued a recent opinion that could radically change the discrimination protections afforded to members of the LGBT community, but perhaps not in the way that you would expect.

In a complaint filed in the federal district court in D.C., Peter TerVeer alleged that he was targeted and harassed by his supervisor, a particularly religious man, after Mr. TerVeer’s supervisor discovered he is gay. The supervisor allegedly harassed Mr. TerVeer in numerous ways, including:

Engaging in “religious lectures” in virtually every work-related conversation – to the point that it became clear Mr. TerVeer sought to impose his conservative religious beliefs on Mr. TerVeer.

Continue reading →