Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Settlements
If you are being harassed or discriminated against at your place of employment or in an organization, your civil rights are being violated. Age, pregnancy, place of origin, sexual orientation, gender, race, and religion are reasons people are harassed or discriminated against. Employment and labor attorneys cover such issues as well as federal regulations as governed by the US Department of Labor. It takes a lot of courage to speak up if you are a victim of harassment or discrimination, or if your employer is not following federal and state guidelines.
Employment Law Litigation vs Arbitration
Arbitration vs. Litigation
As with litigation, one of the primary factors of arbitration is the presentation and consideration of evidence. Unlike a trial, however, there are no formal rules as to what types of evidence are acceptable. This fact can mean greater flexibility for the parties involved as well as for the arbitrator. It can also, however, lead to increased confusion and conflict.
Basis for Conflict
In the most general terms, the lack of a rule structure with regard to evidence is the biggest problem in arbitration. More specifically, trouble arises from a variety of places. First, many arbitration cases are argued by NYC discrimination attorneys, whose approach is grounded in the legal rules of evidence. Second, there are those arbitration participants without any legal background, presenting what they consider to be evidence opposite a seasoned attorney. Finally, and probably most importantly, the nature of arbitration itself--dispute resolution--means that the parties do not agree on key pieces of information. Hence, they are both looking to strengthen their cases and weaken those of their opponents.
Role of the Arbitrator
In addition to the parties seeking a resolution through arbitration, the arbitrator himself plays a fundamental role in how evidence in presented and reviewed. There are those arbitrators, for instance, who believe that any consideration of the legal rules of evidence is inappropriate for arbitration. That is, they feel that the very nature of arbitration (and its ability to work) lies in its lack of rules and formality. In the case of evidence, anything goes.
More commonly, however, there is the belief that, for the sake of time and fairness, arbitrators must offer some guidance as to what types of evidence will and will not be considered. For most arbitrators, the solution lies in finding a balance between maintaining a working dialog with both parties while moving the case forward. He will seek to avoid, for example, lengthy arguments about what may or may not be admissible, but will share with the parties when a piece of evidence presented will not be weighed as heavily as others.
Evidence
Regardless of the rules regarding its presentation, the actual evidence presented in an arbitration hearing is quite similar to what one would expect in a trial--live testimony, depositions and affidavits, personnel records and employment agreements, and the rulings of other bodies and agencies. As in a trial, the more direct the information, the better.
Where arbitration and litigation part ways is in the way specific types of evidence are considered. Hearsay, for example, is almost always inadmissible in court, but may be deemed acceptable by an arbitrator. The specific circumstances of hearsay vary greatly, of course, but the arbitrator has the leverage to determine what information is reliable and relevant to the proceedings.
Contact the New York employment lawyers of The Watanabe Law Firm for legal assistance with employment law and discrimination cases in New York City.
Understanding Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is perhaps the least clearly defined and most controversial concept in San Francisco discrimination law. It has no strict legal definition. There is no agreed upon means to apply it. And over the years even the Supreme Court has contradicted its own and other court decisions regarding its fairness and how far an institution can go in applying it.
A History of Good Intentions
The first public use of the term affirmative action was in a 1961 Executive Order from President John F. Kennedy that created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that projects financed by federal funds “take affirmative action†to ensure hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias. But it was President Johnson who perhaps best captured the heart of affirmative action, in a graduation address in June of 1965, when he said:
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Education and Employment Targeted for Reform
Outside of requiring government agencies to take affirmative action, policies initially focused on leveling the playing field in education and employment, to ensure minorities shared in opportunities (jobs, admissions, scholarships, financial aid) and rewards (degrees, salary, promotions, career advancement).
Private and government employers, universities and other educational institutions began to implement affirmative action plans to redress and eliminate discrimination. Plans typically covered guidelines for hiring and promoting members of minority groups, and some specified that a representative minority (quota) be employed or enrolled in a business, agency, or institution.
The Application of Affirmative Action Programs Becomes Controversial
The difficulty with applying an affirmative action plan is doing so in a way that provides greater opportunities for minorities, but ensures that those opportunities do not come at the expense of the majority.
What was good in theory became controversial and led to court challenges when it was seen as reverse discrimination. In recent years, the trend has been to move away from affirmative action, and some states, including California, have gone so far as to ban affirmative action.
For an experienced, caring, and dedicated San Francisco employment discrimination lawyer, contact the Law Office of Pamela Pitt to discuss your case with us.
Sexual Harassment is No Longer Tolerated
A recent case brought by NYC sexual harassment lawyers
In a recent sexual harassment lawsuit filed by New York sexual harassment attorneys on behalf of a female correction officer, the officer turned down a $125,000 offer to settle the case she brought against union President Norman Seabrook. New York sexual harassment lawyers are taking the case to trial in Manhattan federal court.
Collette Scott said she refused the settlement offer because she wants to tell a jury the details of the harassment. Scott claims Union President Seabrook forcibly tongue-kissed her during a meeting behind closed doors that took place almost 14 years ago. Scott’s sexual harassment attorneys in New York filed suit in 2004.
According to Scott, who retired from the Correction Department in 2006, the forcible kiss occurred when she went to Seabrook’s office in 1996 for help about pending disciplinary charges against her. After she told another officer about what happened, she was then told by the financial secretary of the union that the departmental charges would be dropped if she agreed not to file a complaint against Seabrook. New York City Equal Employment Opportunity officials reviewed the allegation and found no evidence it happened. Scott’s sexual harassment lawyers in New York City believed otherwise.
While Scott claims she is not in it for a big award, the fact remains that New York City sexual harassment attorneys can in some cases recover large sums for their clients. These damages include compensatory damages for back pay, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs, with the assistance of their sexual harassment attorneys in New York City, can also collect punitive damages in some cases where they demonstrate that an employer acted with malice or with reckless or callous indifference. Â A sexual harassment attorney in New York City can advise you on what options are available to you. The sexual harassment lawyers in NYC at the law firm of Akin and Smith, LLC can tailor a strategy to suit your individual needs.
If you have questions sexual harassment, contact one of our skilled NYC sexual harassment attorneys
Are you seeking sexual harassment attorneys in NYC? If you feel you have been the victim of sexual harassment and your employer has not been responsive at addressing the behavior, a sexual harassment lawyer in New York City at Akin & Smith, LLC can help. Our New York City sexual harassment lawyers can advise you about your options under federal, state and NYC harassment laws. Contact Akin & Smith, LLC at their New York City law offices today to speak with a personal sexual harassment attorney in NYC.
Derek T. Smith Law Group, LLC
30 Broad Street
35th Floor, New York
New York 10004
Who Can Be Liable – Sexual Harassment Law
New York Sex Harassment
Sexual harassment is illegal in the workplace. An employer may be liable to an employee for instances of sexual harassment pursuant to federal, New York State, and New York City sexual harassment law. Sexual harassment can include the following:
- Sexual advances: An employer making direct sexual advances or statements to an employee
- Quid pro quo sexual harassment: When job-related benefits are offered in exchange for sexual conduct
- Hostile work environment: An employer maintains an overly sexual work environment
New York sexual harassment complaints can be brought through several avenues
Victims of sex harassment in New York City can bring charges in a local office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In addition to the protections afforded by federal law, the New York State Division of Human Rights enforces the New York State Human Rights Law, a law that only applies to New York State and has provisions that prohibit sexual harassment. New York City also has a strong Human Rights Law that protects workers from sexual harassment in NYC.
The New York City Human Rights Law applies to any employer in New York City who employs four or more individuals. This provision makes its protection broader than that under Federal law that only applies to companies with at least fifteen employees.
Personal liability
While there is no personal liability for managers under federal law for sexual harassment in NYC, there are some situations concerning unlawful sexual harassment in New York where a supervisor or executive may be held individually liable for harassment as an aidor or abettor. This area of the law is unsettled and evolving, and is best discussed with a skilled New York City sexual harassment attorney.
If you have questions about sex harassment contact a skilled New York City sex harassment law firm
If you feel you have been the victim of sex harassment in New York City and your employer has not been responsive at addressing the behavior or have questions concerning New York sexual harassment law, contact Akin & Smith, LLC at their New York City law offices. Our NYC sex harassment lawyers can advise you about your options under NYC sexual harassment law.
Akin & Smith, LLC
30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
New York , New York 10004
Phone: 1-877-4NYLAWS
