Published on:

Lev Craig

On February 15, 2018, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification in Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a suit filed in February 2017 alleging that Uber’s pricing and payment model deprives drivers of fair pay for their work. This decision will allow as many as 9,197 Uber drivers from across the United States to pursue their claims as a class.

Uber is among the most successful of a number of rapidly growing companies that are part of the so-called “gig economy.” The U.S. Department of Labor defines a “gig” as a “single project or task for which a worker is hired, often through a digital marketplace, to work on demand.” Gig economy and freelance workers, such as Uber drivers, are becoming an increasingly visible and important component of the U.S. workforce; an estimated nearly four million freelancers work in the New York City area alone. Yet while gig economy workers may enjoy certain benefits—such as scheduling flexibility—they are also often at a disadvantage in comparison to traditional employees. Gig economy workers are almost invariably classified as independent contractors and are thereby cut off from most of the legal protections afforded to employees, including minimum wage and overtime laws, as well as employment benefits like health insurance—and many freelancers report difficulty getting paid for their work on time or at all.

Published on:

By Owen Laird

Employees across the country are protected from discrimination by three main federal laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 (Title VII) protects against discrimination based on race and color, national origin, sex, and religion, while the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect against discrimination based on disability and age, respectively. Workers in New York City, however, enjoy the protections of one of the most expansive anti-discrimination statutes in the nation: the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), a city law that is extensive as well as adaptive to their needs.

In addition to those federally protected characteristics listed above, the NYCHRL provides additional protection against sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and partnership status discrimination (to name a few). Protection against sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination is essential as these characteristics are not protected by other statutory regimes, and New Yorkers cannot rely on federal laws to provide this security.

Published on:

Leah Kessler

On December 9, 2017, The New York Times published an article titled “The Steeper Obstacles Faced by Women in Medicine,” which examines workplace conditions for female physicians. As the author, Dhruv Khullar, elucidates, gender discrimination not only manifests in hostile remarks, but is embedded in the structural and systemic foundations of the workplace. Moreover, Khullar’s article should compel us to examine and critique working conditions in general: While the status quo advantages men over women, the current workforce, and the conditions we currently espouse, have a long way to go.

Khullar’s article highlights a new study in JAMA Internal Medicine, conducted by Dr.  Constance Guille and his colleagues, who researched gender-based differences in depression among physicians. According to the study, men and women had similar levels of depressive symptoms before starting residency, but after six months on the job, both genders experienced a sharp rise in depression scores: One-third of residents experienced symptoms of depression, and more than ten percent of medical students reported having suicidal thoughts. These results, however, were more pronounced among women.

Published on:

Lev Craig

On December 19, 2017, Microsoft announced that it was eliminating forced arbitration agreements for employees making sexual harassment claims and voiced its support for a recently proposed bill—the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017—that would make such agreements unlawful in many workplaces. The announcement makes Microsoft one of the first major corporations to eradicate mandatory arbitration agreements, which are at present nearly ubiquitous in the landscape of employment discrimination and harassment claims.

Earlier this year, we reported on the increasing prevalence of mandatory employment arbitration agreements, which approximately 55 percent of U.S. workers are now subject to, according to a recent Economic Policy Institute report. On its face, an arbitration agreement simply requires an employee to handle future discrimination and harassment claims in a private forum, rather than in court, and many employees don’t think twice about signing such agreements in the stack of onboarding documents they receive from HR at a new job.

Published on:

By Owen H. Laird, Esq., and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Recognizing the unequal bargaining power between employees and employers, employment laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) create rights and protections for employees. And, while identifying whether a worker is an employee or not may seem relatively straightforward at first glance, the question can, in reality, be surprisingly complicated. Between traditional employees, independent contractors, and paid and unpaid interns, modern workplaces include a variety of different types of workers, only some of whom are entitled to the rights and protections created by laws like the FLSA.

A recent decision by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) changed the standard by which the DOL determines whether interns qualify as employees under the FLSA for the purposes of minimum wage and overtime rights. In 2010, the DOL adopted a six-factor conjunctive test for interns, whereby a legitimate internship relationship would exist only if all six factors were met. Those factors were:

Published on:

Leah Kessler and Lev Craig

On the third Monday of January each year, we observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, an occasion to remember, reflect on, and do our best to promote the vision for which Martin Luther King Jr. fought and died. Yet, as a nation, our remembrance of Dr. King’s work often ignores (or, perhaps, those with the power to write history, decided to elide) some of the core goals and values of his activism—among them, his commitment to anti-poverty work, labor organizing, and workers’ rights, issues he viewed as inextricable from his civil rights activism.

While U.S. states and employers now observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this was not accomplished easily or without resistance. While President Ronald Reagan officially recognized Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a U.S. holiday in 1983, he initially opposed the holiday (citing “cost concerns”), despite a petition to Congress with more than six million signatures in favor of the holiday. Though President Reagan ultimately passed Martin Luther King Jr. Day into law, it was not actually observed until three years later, and many states continue to resist doing so; in fact, the holiday was not officially observed in all 50 states until 2000. Even today, several states—including Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia—still choose to “combine” Martin Luther King Jr. Day with observances of holidays recognizing Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

Published on:

By Leah Kessler

On January 2, 2018, five detained immigrants filed a class action against CoreCivic, Inc. (CoreCivic), the second largest private corrections company in the United States. In Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., the plaintiffs allege forced labor practices and violations of federal and state anti-trafficking laws.

CoreCivic operates nation-wide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, which hold detained immigrants as they await their immigration hearings. The plaintiffs were placed at Otay Mesa Detention Center, a privately-run, 1,500-bed detention facility in San Diego. According to the complaint, CoreCivic forced plaintiffs and other detainees to provide labor at a daily rate of $1 to $1.50 upon threat of solitary confinement. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that CoreCivic’s practices also violate state and federal regulations by forcing detainees to work so they can obtain basic necessities, such as warm clothing, water, food, medicine, and hygiene products, that CoreCivic would otherwise withhold from them.

Published on:

Owen H. Laird

As we move into 2018, it is worth reflecting on one of the most significant developments of 2017: sexual harassment becoming a topic of national discussion. In the past year, scores of people—primarily, but not exclusively, women—came forward and told their stories of harassment, abuse, and assault. As a result, dozens of high-profile individuals were fired, suspended, or forced to resign. Politicians, business leaders, media personalities, actors, writers, and other celebrities all faced public disgrace for their actions.

While these cases focus public attention on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, the unfortunate reality is that these high-publicity cases represent only a miniscule fraction of the incidents of sexual harassment and assault that people in the workplace face. The media rarely covers the stories of people working in low-wage, low-profile jobs who face sexual harassment or assault. Restaurant workers, office workers, home health aides, and hospitality workers all face high levels of harassment, and—as many Americans cannot afford to lose their jobs—victims go silent out of fear of retaliation.

Published on:

Edgar Rivera, Esq. and Leah Kessler

On December 18, 2017, in Swiderski v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York denied the majority of defendant Urban Outfitters’ motion for summary judgment. Although Judge Oetken ruled that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Plaintiff Tatiana Swiderski was constructively discharged from her position as a sales associate at Urban Outfitters, he allowed her hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed to trial. This decision is important because it reaffirms an employer’s responsibility under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to take proactive measures to prevent discrimination from customers where the discriminatory conduct is previously known to the employer’s managers.

Tatiana Swiderski was hired as a sales associate at a Manhattan Urban Outfitters store in 2013.  Shortly after her hire, a male customer was caught photographing or videotaping up Ms. Swiderski’s skirt while she was on the stairs. Brian McCabe, a loss prevention agent employed by Urban Outfitters, escorted the customer out of the store and deleted all the pictures and videos of Ms. Swiderski from the customer’s phone. Mr. McCabe, however, repeatedly refused to give Ms. Swiderski the customer’s identification information so that she could file a police report. Later, an assistant store manager told Ms. Swiderski candidly that Urban Outfitters was aware of least one other customer that used to come in and regularly sit under the stairs to look up the skirts and dresses of female employees. Ms. Swiderski then went to Emily McManus, a manager, who confirmed this to be the case. Ms. Swiderski made repeated complaints to Ms. McManus about how both Urban Outfitters and Mr. McCabe had handled the incident, and, after Urban Outfitters reluctantly gave her the customer’s contact information, she filed a police report against the customer.

Published on:

Lev Craig

Earlier this year, we reported on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital affirming the dismissal of a former security guard’s claims that her employer had discriminated against her because she is a lesbian and did not conform to gender stereotypes. This Monday, December 11, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Evans, leaving unanswered the question of whether Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination.

Plaintiff Jameka Evans, who is a lesbian, worked at an Atlanta regional hospital as a security officer. She was open about her sexual orientation with her coworkers and dressed in a masculine manner, wearing the men’s security guard uniform, men’s shoes, and a short haircut. According to Evans’s complaint, the hospital discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation and nonconformity with gender stereotypes by denying her equal pay, harassing her, physically assaulting her, and targeting her for termination, then retaliated against her after she complained about the discriminatory treatment.