Written by: Meena Saini

A change in civil rights history has been made as of January 2009.   President Obama has decided to take a stand against employment discrimination and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, despite the past resistance of former President Bush.

In a 5-4 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Inc., the Supreme Court held that Lilly Ledbetter’s claim was untimely.  Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at a Goodyear plant who was grossly underpaid compared to her male counterparts for performing similar work duties.  Ledbetter than filed a gender discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The defendant, Goodyear, argued that “the pay discrimination claim was time barred with regard to all pay decisions made before September 26, 1997—180 days before Ledbetter filed her EEOC questionnaire”.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that if an individual wishes to bring a Title VII lawsuit, they must first file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge within 180 days “after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred”.  Thus, a pay discrimination charge must have been filed within the time limit of the employer’s initial decision to pay an employee less than other employees.  This decision seriously hindered one’s ability to challenge pay discrimination since an employee is expected to discover the discrimination and promptly challenge it within a short period of time. Quoting Find Law, “The Court’s rule thus effectively immunized employers from Title VII liability for pay discrimination in many cases.”

Fortunately for all the employees in the United States, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act cancels out the Supreme Court ruling and in effect, improves our nation’s civil rights laws by providing victims of pay discrimination more opportunities for asserting claims under Title VII. The Act restores pay discrimination practices by declaring “that each paycheck that delivers discriminatory compensation is a wrong actionable under the federal EEO statutes, regardless of when the discrimination began”.  Therefore, a pay discrimination charge must simply be filed within 180 (or 300 depending on the jurisdiction) days of any discriminatory paycheck.  This legislation is another step into restoring discriminatory practices with regard to pay.  As this act has proven, a little step can go a long way.

Leeds, Morelli & Brown, PC, are experienced and strong advocates against discrimination in the workplace environment.  This law firm believes in closing the pay gap between men and women and promoting fair and equal workplace practices.

Leeds, Morelli & Brown, PC, has championed the fight against discrimination for over two decades.  If you or someone you know has been a victim of discrimination, please contact one of the employment discrimination law attorneys at Leeds, Morelli & Brown, PC, at 1-800-585-4658 to schedule a free consultation.

By Karen Best

This upcoming November, Manhattan residents will have an important election. Most people would naturally assume it is because current Mayor Michael Bloomberg is running for a third term. The race which is garnishing attention from many politicians is the election for Manhattan District Attorney. The current District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau will retire after 35 years of service.

While many political figures such as former New York Mayor David Dinkins and Caroline Kennedy already chose their candidates everyone wanted to know who Morgenthau believed would be a suitable successor. On Wednesday, Morgenthau made his long awaited public endorsement. His choice was Cyrus Vance Junior.

Ironically Morgenthau worked with and supervised all three candidates. The other two candidates are Richard Aborn and Leslie Crocker Snyder. Morgenthau said his reason for supporting Vance is “because he is the best qualified, by his experience and his views, to keep it the best.”

We at Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC may not hold ourselves out to be a “criminal defense law firm,” but many of the lawyers at our firm have experience as prosecutors.
Our criminal defense practice includes DUI/DWI charges, drug charges, assault and domestic violence charges, traffic and municipal violations, and a variety of other felonies and misdemeanors. For a free consultation please contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown PC at 1-800-545-4658.

The Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the landmark Voting Rights Act but sidestepped the issue of whether Section 5 of the act is unconstitutional. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District in Austin, Texas can now apply to opt out of the advanced approval requirement. The case was initiated because the District wanted to be able to opt out of the entire provision or have the entire provision declared unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts openly admitted the court did not want to decide on the issue of constitutionality.

As an anti discrimination law the Voting Rights Act is a sensitive issue to most thus any revisions are guaranteed to be controversial and has the potential to affect millions of black voters.

For two decades, Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC has championed the fight against discrimination. If you or someone you know has been a victim of discrimination contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-545-4658 for a free consultation.

Written By: Rodrigo C. Tordecilla

The Supreme Court seems to have created an obstacle for employees wanting to file lawsuits for being fired based on age discrimination. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prevents an employee from establishing age discrimination when age is only one of many motivating factors. The majority held that employees must now show that their age was the main determinative factor in their firing or for any other adverse action taken against them.

According to lawyers for both employees and employers, the purpose for this decision is to eliminate mixed-motive cases under the Act in which age is one of several factors that leads to an employer’s action. The words of the ADEA bar discrimination “because of” the employee’s age according to Justice Thomas.  Justice Thomas, along with fellow Justices Roberts Jr., Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito Jr., has emphasized that the plain language of the ADEA puts the burden on the plaintiff to show that but-for their age, the plaintiff would not have been terminated nor subjected to any other adverse action. 

Justice John Paul Stevens expressed vigorous dissent from the majority opinion explaining that the but-for standard decided by the vote was rejected by Congress when it amended Title VII in 1991. He went on to say that adopting such an interpretation of the causation requirement in the Age Discrimination Employment Act that differs from the language of Title VII was inappropriate.

Because of this recent development, it is important that all individuals who may have a viable age discrimination lawsuit against their employers retain competent representation. The lawyers of the law firm Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, located in Nassau County, New York, are well versed and very experienced in lawsuits involving any sort of employment discrimination. 

To schedule an appointment for free consultation with a lawyer at Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC regarding possible employment discrimination, please call 1-888-5-JOBLAW (1-800-585-4658).

It seems former University of Kentucky men’s basketball coach Billy Gillespie has a little more to worry about than his future prospects as a basketball coach after his firing from Kentucky.  He was fired in large part due to his 8-8 record in SEC play and an early exit from the NIT tournament in the 2008-2009 NCAA men’s basketball season.  Gillespie filed a breach of contract suit in Dallas, TX for his termination of employment and is seeking in excess of $6 million in lost salary and punitive damages.

One day after Gillespie filed his employment suit, the University of Kentucky responded with a counter-suit of its own in Franklin Circuit Court in Kentucky.  The University claims, among other things, that it never breached Mr. Gillespie’s employment contract because Gillespie never actually signed a long-term employment contract.  What they claim Gillespie signed upon his hiring in 2007 was actually a “memorandum of understanding,” and as such, this memorandum is not enforceable as a long term contract.

The University and its lawyers also claim that Gillespie rejected several long-term employment contracts because of the language of their termination clauses and therefore Gillespie is not entitled to the salary he believes he is owed.  What that means is that Mr. Gillespie may be out the $1.5 million per year over the remaining four years on his “contract.”

Before the courts decide whether or not Gillespie is entitled to his future salary, they must first determine whether jurisdiction is proper in Kentucky or Texas.  This determination will play a crucial role in deciding to whom the judge will be most sympathetic.  It seems like Gillespie is in store for a long battle; only this battle won’t be happening on the type of court to which he’s become accustomed.

The attorneys of renowned employment law firm Leeds, Morelli, and Brown, PC are well versed in the type of dispute in which Gillespie is involved.  They welcome anyone who believes they have been wrongfully terminated or have any questions regarding their legal recourse for disputes arising out of their employment.  To schedule a free consultation with an associate at Leeds, Morelli, and Brown, PC, please call 1-888-5-JOBLAW (1-800-585-4658) or visit www.lmblaw.com.