Newsletter November 2015

Newsletter November 2015


 

TITLE VII & LAD: WHAT IS AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION?

Ty Hyderally, Esq.November 2015 Newsletter

Many discrimination claims, under both federal and state law, require a showing that the employee suffered an adverse employment action. The Third Circuit, in a recent decision, issued an important ruling on an issue of first impression regarding what constitutes an adverse employment action in a discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (“Title VII”).

Michelle Jones sued her employer, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit framed the “linchpin” issue in the case as whether a paid suspension constitutes an adverse employment action in the “substantive discrimination context” under Title VII. Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, No. 14-3814 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2015).

The substantive discrimination context refers to Title VII’s provision forbidding employers “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In order to state a prima facie case of discrimination under the substantive provision, a plaintiff must prove “(1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he/she was qualified for the position; (3) he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) under circumstances that raise an inference of discriminatory action, the employer continued to seek out individuals with qualifications similar to the plaintiff’s to fill the position.” See Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003), citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). In Jones, the employer asserted that Plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie case of discrimination because could not establish that she had suffered any adverse employment action. Jones argued that she was subject to an adverse action when her employer placed her on a paid suspension pending an investigation of her alleged wrongdoing.

Concurring with the District Court, the Third Circuit ruled that “[a] paid suspension pending an investigation of an employee’s alleged wrongdoing does not fall under any of the forms of adverse action mentioned by Title VII’s substantive provision.” However, the Court limited its holding to a substantive discrimination action and expressly cautioned that it made no decision as to whether a paid suspension could be an adverse employment action in a retaliation action under Title VII.

The New Jersey District Court has not clearly ruled whether or not an unpaid suspension in a retaliation case under Title VII or the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) is sufficient to rise to the level of an adverse employment action. In Hargrave v. County of Atlantic, 262 F. Supp. 2d 393, 423 (D.N.J. 2003), the New Jersey District Court ruled that a 5-day suspension in a retaliation case constituted the type of tangible, adverse employment action contemplated by Title VII and the NJLAD.” However, the Court failed to discuss whether the suspension at issue was paid or unpaid. The suspension in Hargrave was also not pending an investigation, as was the suspension considered in Jones. Rather, the Hargrave Court found that the employer had suspended plaintiff as a form of punishment. Thus, the punitive nature of a suspension may also have bearing on whether or not a court finds an unpaid suspension to be an adverse employment action in a retaliation claim under Title VII or the NJLAD.

In short, other than a “paid suspension pending an investigation” in a substantive discrimination claim under Title VII, there remains uncertainty regarding whether courts in the Third Circuit will find other types of suspensions to be sufficiently adverse to satisfy the “adverse employment action” element of a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

By Isaac Graff and Francine Foner, Esq.

 
 

UPDATE: THE APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIES THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN AGUAS

Ty Hyderally, Esq.

Back in our March 2015 newsletter we discussed the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Aguas v. State, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 131. Aguas was seen primarily as a win for employers, as it provided for a safe haven affirmative defense for employers against sexual harassment hostile work environment claims if the employer had procedures in place for reporting sexual harassment, and the affected employee failed to follow those procedures. However, as we noted then, the news was not all bad for employees, as the Aguas Court also held that the defense would not apply if an employee shows that his or her failure to take advantage of the company’s procedures was “reasonable.” A recent Appellate Division decision, Jones v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1848 (App. Div. Aug. 3, 2015), demonstrates how courts are applying the Aguas Court’s ruling in determining whether an employee’s failure to follow an employer’s complaint procedures was reasonable.

Plaintiff, Anita Jones (“Jones”), worked as a temporary machine operator in defendant’s manufacturing facility from March 2011 to October 2011. In January 2012, defendant rehired Jones, first as a temporary employee, and then, on February 27, 2012, as a permanent employee. Jones then resigned on March 27, 2012, alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment by multiple supervisory employees throughout her employment. Jones had mentioned some of the incidents to an individual supervisor, but stated that she did not make any formal complaints because she was afraid she would be fired. Jones also alleged that she was not given an employee handbook setting forth the company’s sexual harassment policy and reporting procedures until after she was rehired as a permanent employee. Jones brought suit against her former employer, alleging, among other things, sexual harassment hostile work environment. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgement, wherein defendant argued that it could not be held vicariously liable for the supervisor’s sexual harassment because it had implemented an effective anti-harassment policy.

Jones appealed and the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. The Appellate Division, citing Aguas, stated that to succeed on the affirmative defense that the employee failed to follow the company’s reporting procedures, “an employer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) it did not take any tangible employment action against the plaintiff; (2) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and to promptly correct the sexually harassing behavior; (3) and the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm.” Jones at *7-8, citing Aguas, 220 N.J. at 524. Here, according to Jones’ allegations, she did not receive an employee handbook and was not informed of defendant’s sexual harassment policies and procedures until she became a permanent employee in February 2012. The Court commented that “[p]laintiff may not have endured – or at least may have been able to minimize – the sexual harassment she experienced if defendant had advised her when initially hired as a temporary employee of the remedies available in the event she were harassed.” Id. at *10. Therefore, the Appellate Division reasoned that a factual question existed as to “whether the defendant’s policy [met] the standard necessary to enable it to take advantage of the safe haven affirmative defense, precluding summary judgment for the time period when plaintiff was a temporary employee.” Id. at *10-11. Having determined that there were disputed issues of fact precluding summary judgment regarding the reasonableness of Jones not following the defendant’s policy during the time period when she was a temporary employee, the Appellate division held that Jones’ damages were therefore limited to the time period that she was a temporary employee.

In one of the first decisions applying the standards set forth in Aguas, the Appellate Division was careful not to automatically apply the safe haven affirmative defense based solely upon the employer having a sexual harassment policy and reporting procedures in place. Rather, the Jones Court properly analyzed the facts surrounding the implementation of the employer’s policy to determine if, in fact, Jones’ failure to make a complaint in accordance with her employer’s policy was unreasonable. Thus, based upon the Jones holding, an employer’s failure to provide an employee with its reporting policy and/or harassment training for a period of time may preclude an employer from raising the safe haven affirmative defense for damages arising during that time period.

By Isaac Graff and Francine Foner, Esq.

 
 

Aguas Safe Harbor Defense Does Not Immunize Employer Where “Accommodations” Fail To Address the Alleged Harassing Acts

Ty Hyderally, Esq.

While the employer in Jones v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group was able to take advantage of the safe harbor affirmative defense outlined in Aguas for the time period subsequent to its providing plaintiff with its anti-harassment policy, the defendant in another recent decision, Schiavo v. Marina Dist. Dev. Co., 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 156 (App. Div. Sept. 17, 2015), was unsuccessful in asserting that defense. Schiavo was a class action suit brought by 21 female casino employees hired as “Borgata Babes,” alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49 (“LAD”). Plaintiffs alleged that the violations arose from gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and, as to some plaintiffs, resulted in adverse employment actions. Id. at *2. Plaintiffs’ claims were based upon the casino’s sexist dress and weight restriction policies, and its differential application those policies to its female casino employees.

The Appellate Division found that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that some of the plaintiffs failed to comply with the company’s weight standards due to medical conditions or post-pregnancy conditions. Therefore, the casino’s application of its weight policy was discriminatory and harassing, targeting those women when they returned from maternity and medical leave. Id. at *57. As the Schiavo Court further opined, “[d]espite defendant’s ‘accommodations' of these documented conditions, allegations have been presented showing the policy was used to harass these women” because of their gender. Id. The employer raised the Aguas safe harbor affirmative defense, arguing that it had a sexual harassment prevention policy and a hotline to make such reports. Id. at *55. However, the existence of a sexual harassment prevention policy and hotline was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The Appellate Division observed that the “record also contain[ed] some evidence of reported sexual harassment by customers and sexually harassing comments and actions by other associates, which although reported, went unaddressed by supervisors.” Id. at *55. Thus, under an Aguas analysis, it was reasonable for the employees to fail to take advantage of the company’s procedures, as there was evidence that they were ineffective.

Although successful in defeating summary judgment on sexual harassment hostile work environment claims based upon the casino’s discriminatory and harassing application of its dress and weight standard policy, the class lost its claim that the casino’s policies were discriminatory on their face, because they were either time barred or unsupported. The Appellate Division also concluded that the LAD does not encompass allegations of discrimination based on weight, appearance, or sex appeal.

By Francine Foner, Esq.

 

These articles are for informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice, and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice with regard to your particular set of facts. This newsletter may constitute attorney advertising. This newsletter is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a newsletter may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state of jurisdiction.

  • “I want to sincerely thank you and your staff for your resolve and professional zeal in resolving my issues with [company name removed for privacy reasons]. I especially want to thank Rob Szyba who handled these proceedings with dignity and a great deal of knowledge and professionalism. He knows what buttons to push and when to push them. He is an asset to your organization. I will gladly recommend your services to anyone in need. It was a privilege to deal with you and your team.”
    J.B.
  • “It has been my pleasure to work with Ty through the ABA's Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee. His contributions to the Committee have been significant due to his knowledge of employment law and his tireless devotion to teaching trial skills. His service to the profession and his clients is commendable.”
    Paula Ardelean
  • “Ty is dedicated to his work and his clients. He knows his stuff, and he goes the extra mile to do the best job possible. Ty is a pleasure to work with!”
    Piper Hoffman
  • “It is with pleasure that I recommend Ty. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of employees and their concerns. His efforts are demonstrated not only in his practice, but also in his exceptional additional efforts to represent this community in professional associations, such as the ABA. He has the knowledge base and the tireless effort that makes working with him productive, but always enjoyable too.”
    Darlene Vorachek
  • “I have worked with Ty on several legal presentations. I represent employers, and Ty has invited me to participate as a panelist representing employers' perspectives on labor and employment matters. Ty is always well-prepared and very knowledgeable about developments in employment law, and is always a pleasure to work with.”
    Chris Dalton
  • “Ty is an excellent lawyer who completely understands the legal process and does everything in his power to help his clients. He was a pleasure to work with and would recommend him to anyone seeking his expertise.”
    Joseph Alvaro
  • “Ty is a widely recognized expert in the area of employment law. His aggressive representation of clients is backed up by an extraordinary breadth of knowledge and attention to detail.”
    Edward Kopelson
  • “I have known Ty professionally for more than two years. He is nationally recognized as one of the best employment attorney's in the country and I know his practice will continue to grow!”
    Betsy Zaplin
  • “ - Ty was a great help for my associate and I during litigation. He showed the highest degree of professionalism and did in fact help us to achieve the best end result possible. Mr. Hyderally comes highly recommended.”
    Christopher Power
  • “Ty is an exceptional attorney. Ty strives for and attains great results, in a fair and ethical manner. I value his professionalism, integrity and creativity. His ability to relate to the client and colleagues on various levels makes him very personable and a real asset.”
    Betty MacKnight
  • “Ty Hyderally is a light of hope at times when all seems grim and hopeless. A brilliant lawyer focused on labor and business law. Mr. Hyderally has the ability to combine his knowledge of the law with economic sense, strategic thinking and level headed decision making that more often than not results in a sensible conclusion that ultimately equates to a positive result for his client. Mr Hyderally is a pleasure to work with and a person you would want to have on your side of the table.”
    Richard Sapienza
  • “I have known Ty Hyderally and his firm for a number of years through our shared affiliation with the National Employment Lawyers Association. Ty has consistently impressed me both with his leadership qualities as well as the quality of workmanship that he and his firm generate. I have reviewed some of his firm's work product, including a sample initial client letter, which not only contained excellent advice to new clients but also included cutting edge information as to how to properly address social networking issues. Without hesitation, I would highly recommend Ty Hyderally.”
    Fred Shahrooz Scampato
  • “I would highly recommend the Law Office of Ty Hyderally to anyone who is in need of representation in a legal matter. Ty is one of the most knowledgeable and professional individuals that I have ever met. He not only protected my rights, but also added a personal touch in his approach which helped in relieving some of the stress of my situation. He is a hard working, kind hearted individual who goes out of his way to make your problem his and provides great results in the end.”
    Mike Fischer
  • “What impressed me most about Ty was that he delivered exactly what he promised! Very well versed in his area of practice, and extremely respected by his peers and colleagues, which put me at ease knowing he was representing me! Thank you Ty!”
    Dan Verdun
  • “I have been involved with Ty Hyderally both as an adversary in employment litigation, and when I have acted as a Court appointed Mediator in employment litigation matters in which Ty represented plaintiffs. In both types of situations, he has represented his clients very well, with an excellent command of the issues, and he has shown himself to be well-prepared, reliable, and sensitive to the concerns of his clients. He has conducted himself in a highly professional manner at all times. I have referred potential plaintiffs in employment matters to him (I represent management/defendants in such matters), since I believe he is highly qualified to consider their circumstances.”
    Wayne Positan
  • “Ty helped us in my small business with a very delicate matter involving what was once a very cherished employee who had made some bad choices. Because it was also emotional for me and my management team, we valued the professionalism and expertise that Ty offered. It was comforting to know we could rely on his service through that very challenging time and handle it with compassion and in compliance with the law. I would use him again and recommend him wholeheartedly!”
    Sherry Blair
  • “Ty is detail oriented yet moves quickly to get results. He contemplates each step and what action should be taken. Ty looks out for his client's best interest and is available to talk during evening hours when it is more appropriate to discuss options to take from home. Also, Ty is expedient in getting information needed in order to be cognizant of finances. I highly recommend Ty for legal services, especially with employment law.”
    Jeff Martens
  • “If the opportunity arises where a "name brand" attorney is needed, then Ty Hyderally is the only choice. Those in the know are aware that his record of success for his clients is outstanding and that his knowledge of his field is way above the rest”
    Jeff Baron
  • “Ty Hyderally is a lawyer's lawyer. I, also, used to handle plaintiffs' employment cases, but over time, those cases became more and more complicated and costly to pursue. They began to require the attention of a legal specialist. I decided against handling them personally. I was delighted when I met Ty. Now, I refer people to him all the time. I know that he will give the best advice and get the best results possible. I hope my employees don't have his card.”
  • “Many of my executive clients need to negotiate employment contracts or employment confilcts with their employer. As an executive coach, I support their efforts in all domains of their lives including recommending a lawyer when they have these employment contractual needs, I recommend Ty. Not once have I had any negative feedback from any client and all of my dealings with him have been very satisfying.”
    Dan McNeill
  • “Ty is a very knowledgeable Attorney, who has demonstrated a very proven track record in handling Employment cases. His knowledge and assertive approach have made him a very successful Attorney.”
    John Mcnamara
  • “I actually first worked with Ty at McKenna McIlwain LLP in 2008. Already I was impressed by his professionalism, client list and reputation. In 2011 I moved back to Montclair after a few years back home in Oregon. Ty was in need of a temporary administrative assistant and invited me to join his team at their new, independent location. I learned a great deal working with Hyderally & Associates, P.C. They have earned their reputation as the hardest hitting, best representation available for employment matters in New Jersey and New York alike. They are attentive, fair, and go every extra mile to ensure due diligence. I am proud to have them on my resume and am happy for the experience of being part of such a busy, professional and fast paced team.”
    Mary Otte
  • “Ty secured settlements that were nothing less than outstanding for my clients/contacts that I have referred to him. The quick speed with which he achieved his results was a huge bonus to those clients.”
    Robert Kornitzer
  • “I have worked with Ty for years through the ABA Labor & Employment Law Section Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee. Ty is a go-to source for exemplary presentations on trial practice. A tireless advocate for employee rights, Ty is an accomplished trial attorney and someone we can rely on and have repeatedly relied upon in mock trial presentations at our yearly conferences.”
    John Beasley
  • “Ty is a regular lecturer at continuing education programs for lawyers. This means that because of his abilities he is called upon to enhance the skills of lawyers who are already experienced. He is well regarded as a trial lawyer and as a provider of legal advice to clients. I find that his companionable persona makes it easier to accept and understand his thoughts and advice.”
    Arnie Pedowitz
  • “I have known Ty Hyderally for several years and can only describe him as an expert in all areas of Employment law. I have referred several people to him in connection with their legal concerns and on each occasion I have been met with very positive feedback from these individuals and businesses. I have personally sought his counsel relating to a variety of business strategy issues within my own Insurance practice. With his substantial experience and proven track record, I wholeheartedly recommend his services.”
    Matthew McGovern, Esq.
  • “Ty has represented me numerous times and I have always come out with positive results. He keeps you well informed at each step of the process and always makes you feel confident and secure. I highly recommend his services.”
    John Scardino Jr
  • “Ty and I worked at the same law firm Friedman Siegelbaum. I found him a pleasure to work with and an able and diligent attorney.”
    Joel Glucksman
  • “If ever someone needs an exceptional employment litigator, Ty is the first person that I think of. Not only is he incredibly intelligent, but he is able to craft litigation strategies to maximize his client's outcome. He is a relentless litigator, with great passion for his work. If you hire Ty, you will not be disappointed.”
    Noah B. Rosenfarb, CPA, ABV, PFS, CDFA
  • “Ty has been invaluable to me as a business owner with employee issues. His advice has been on point and redirected me in the midst of employee concerns. I would highly recommend him and his firm whenever you have employment concerns.”
    Philip Seaver
  • “If you are looking for one of the best attorney's in an employment related issue, look no further. Ty is national recognized as one of the best employment attorney in the country and I am thrilled to see his practice continue to grow!”
    Jon Lamkin
  • “Ty, has been a great help to me in times of need when I needed his advice on some business matters. He is always available 24-7 to help out whether it is a small/large task. I would highly recommend him and his firm in any legal matter that he specializes in.”
    Eric Reinstein
  • “I have been working with Ty for over 4 years. Ty is one person I would say pays attention to detail, works hard for his clients and gets the job done on time and with amazing results. I have referred clients to him and he has always given them star treatment was always up front and honest with them and they are so pleased with their outcomes and glad I made the introduction.”
    Carmen Bucco
  • “Ty was an adversary and never lost sight of his client's needs in seeking a resolution. I would not hesitate to recommend for plaintiffs in employment work. He is methodical and tenacious but fair and amenable to a just resolution.”
    Roger Jacobs
  • “My Husband and I hired Ty at a time when we thought all was lost. We had a different attorney on our case that just gave up on us. My husband contacted Ty and once he heard our case he immediately took action. Our case was settled within 3 months of Ty taking over. His experience and knowledge of employment laws are not only impressive but it is why he is very successful. Ty is also very compassionate about his clients and communicated with us every step of the way. I would recommend Ty Hyderally to anyone and everyone who is need of a great attorney. You too!! Will be satisfied.”
    Cynthia Ortiz
  • “I have referred clients to Ty for employment issues. They told me that Ty was knowledgeable, courteous and promptly handled their matters. I can easily recommend Ty for people with difficult employment cases.”
    Eileen Kohutis
  • “Working with Ty on various projects has been fantastic. He and his team are thorough and they understand how to get the job done correctly. When you have the chance to work with Ty you understand the meaning of not taking no for an answer. They work to understand clients needs and the resolve the issues at hand. I have seen firsthand what Ty and his associates bring to the table and I would recommend them to anyone needing assistance with employment law.”
    Darren Magarro
  • “I have worked with Ty Hyderally on the executive board of the New Jersey chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association, and have discussed various employment matters with him. He is an excellent leader, always coming up with new ideas. Ty is truly an expert in employment law and I have found his analysis of both complex and simple matters to be dead on.”
    Leslie A. Farber
  • "Ty and I have worked together on a case getting ready for trial. We have also worked on trial advocacy presentations for the ABA. Ty is a very experienced litigator. He has great trial skills and connects well with his clients, the court and jury. He blends a sense of humor with knowledge of the law and facts. He is a very effective advocate.”
    Vanessa Kelly