By Brandon Sipherd

Rhode Island’s Central Falls School Board of Trustees, in a 5-2 vote, fired every teacher at Central Falls High School.  In total, 93 employees were fired and each one stood as their name was read aloud in the auditorium after the decision was made.  The firings included 74 classroom teachers, as well as the principal, all three assistant principals, guidance counselors, reading specialists, physical education teachers, and the school psychologist.

Hordes of labor organizations gathered in Central Falls Tuesday to support the teachers and criticize the city’s education officials.  Even the American Federation of Teachers rallied support for the teachers of Central Falls.

Meanwhile, state and local education officials praised the city’s education officials for taking a stance and firing the teachers.  Arne Duncan, the United States Education Secretary, applauded officials for having the courage to do the right thing for the students.

Even teachers from across Rhode Island showed up to voice their own opinions.  Many are concerned these efforts taken by federal and state education officials only undermine their employment contracts and the collective bargaining agreements between teachers’ unions and school employers.

Central Falls is Rhode Island’s smallest and poorest city; yet, it is taking drastic measures to reform its schools.  Central Falls High School is among one of the lowest-performing schools in the country.

Education Secretary Duncan is requiring states to identify their lowest 5 percent of schools and fix them.  Schools who have chronic poor performance and low graduation rates must reform by using one of four methods: school closure; takeover by a charter or school-management organization; transformation which requires a longer school day; or turnaround which requires the entire teaching staff be fired and no more than 50 percent rehired in the fall.

Rhode Island’s Education Commissioner, Deborah Gist, quickly implemented Duncan’s new requirement.  On January 11, Education Commissioner Gist identified six of the persistently lowest-performing schools—Central Falls High School, which has rock bottom test scores and a graduation rate of only 48 percent, and five other schools in Providence.  Gist told these school districts they had until March 17 to decide which of Duncan’s four models they would implement.  As a result, Rhode Island is one of the first states to publicly implement the new dramatic federal education reform.

Central Falls High School’s education officials and teachers originally agreed on implementing the transformation model in order to protect the teachers’ employment.  However, neither side could agree on what transformation would entail and talks between the two sides fell apart.

Education officials suggested six conditions to improve the school.  Under these suggestions, teachers would be have to spend more time with students in and out of the classroom and attend after school training sessions with other teachers.  However, teachers would only be paid for some of the proposed additional duties.  Union leaders fought back by demanding the teachers be paid for the extra work and even receive higher wages for doing so—$90 per hour instead of $30 per hour.

Shortly after the negotiations broke down, education officials lost confidence that the school could be transformed and, therefore, proposed the turnaround model.  Eventually the school’s Board of Trustees voted in favor of the turnaround model, resulting in the dismissal of all the teachers.

Chronically failing schools are not limited to Rhode Island; rather this is a nation-wide crisis experienced in nearly every state.  One question remains unanswered: Whether this is a workers’ rights issue or a children’s rights issue?

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law.  Our firm has had considerable success in matters of employment discrimination throughout Long Island and the New York City area.  We take great pride not only in providing quality legal service and representation, but also in being there for clients when they need it most.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By Brandon Sipherd

Google, the company bent on making the world’s information more accessible to all, believes that the race and gender makeup of its workforce is a trade secret that must remain private.  Google and four other companies argue that because they are less mature companies in a highly competitive market and the structure of their business operations—race and gender makeup—allows them to compete with more established companies.

Two years ago, San Jose’s Mercury News attempted to gain data from 15 large commercial companies located in Silicon Valley, California.  Mercury News tried convincing federal regulators to release date concerning the companies’ racial and gender makeup.  Google, Apple, Yahoo, Oracle and Applied Materials fought and won an 18-month Freedom of Information battle with Mercury News over the release of this data.  These five companies convinced the United States Department of Labor that releasing the race and gender data would be commercially damaging by revealing the companies’ business strategy to competitors.  However, a sixth company, Hewlett-Packard, fought the release and lost, forcing it to turn over the race and gender data of its workers to federal regulators.

Among the 15 companies asked to provide race and gender data, nine—including Intel, Cisco Systems, eBay, AMD, Sanmina and Sun Microsystems—agreed to allow the Department of Labor to release the data.  According to these companies’ head officers, there was nothing in the data that needed to be kept hidden from the public.  In fact, many of these companies were proud of their diversity programs and their efforts to create an equal workforce.

Many employment law experts refute the idea that public disclosure of race and gender data would really allow competitors to discern a company’s business strategy, especially a large technology company.  Instead, they argue the social cost of releasing potentially damaging race and gender data is very real and large, and these companies are only trying to prevent the public from obtaining this information.

A company’s race and gender data is important in determining the existence of discrimination in today’s workforce.  The data provided in these releases help determine how society is fairing in racial and gender equality.  These companies are especially important because they are fairly new and did not exist when race and gender discrimination were accepted and pervasive in the United States.  The data from these companies would give a fresh look at how the workforce has really changed since discrimination based on a person’s race and gender became illegal.

The data obtained by Mercury News shows that while the collective workforce of the 10 companies grew by 16 percent from 1999 to 2005, the population of black workers decreased by 16 percent and Hispanic workers decreased by 11 percent.  In 2005, only 2,200 of the 30,000 workers in Silicon Valley were black or Hispanic.  Among the 5,900 managers during the same time period, about 300 were black or Hispanic—a decrease of 20 percent from 1999.  Woman in managerial positions dropped 20 percent during that time—a 28 percent decrease.

Recently, Google donated $8 million to help underrepresented minorities pursue careers in technology.  Yet, Google continues to decline making public the race and gender makeup of its 20,000 workers for competitive reasons.

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law.  We believe that discrimination based on a person’s race and gender has no place in a democratic society.  Our firm has had considerable success in matters of employment discrimination throughout Long Island and the New York City area.  We take great pride not only in providing quality legal service and representation, but also in being there for clients when they need it most.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By Brandon Sipherd

The YMCA of the United States has been accused of systemic discrimination against black employees in compensation, promotions, and other employment practices.  Black employees are unrepresented in mid- and upper-level positions at the YMCA, and are paid less and receive fewer promotions than their coworkers.

Since about 2003, black employees have consistently earned less than non-blacks holding similar job positions, received promotions less frequently than non-blacks, and were assigned lower-earning positions at disproportionately lower rates than non-blacks.  This resulted in a higher turnover rate of black employees than white employees.

Last week, present and former employees filed a lawsuit against the YMCA in federal court in Chicago.  The plaintiffs allege that there exists a culture of discrimination at the YMCA that resulted in denying black employees equal employment opportunities.

In August 2005, the YMCA ordered a salary review study of its various employees.  The results of the study showed an existing need to make adjustments in salary, including salary equity adjustments for black employees who were underpaid as compared to their coworkers.  The YMCA allegedly knew of the results but failed to take any corrective measures.   Instead, organization executives chose to ignore the studies’ results and continued with the status quo.

Representatives of the YMCA vigorously deny the allegations stating that such behaviors and actions are inconsistent with the core values of the organization.

It appears that this lawsuit will continue to move forward since neither side has yet to agree to any settlement offer.

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we believe that discrimination has no place in a democratic and free society.  Our employment law attorneys are dedicated to resolving issues of discrimination based on race in the workplace and elsewhere.  Our firm has had considerable success in handling matters such as these throughout Long Island and the New York City area.  We take great pride not only in providing quality legal service and representation, but also in being there for clients when they need it most.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658.

By Brandon Sipherd

Facebook, the most visited Internet site on the web, may pose problems for both employers and employees.  A recent national study found that employers were impressed by potential employees’ personality, creativity, and communication skills found on the Internet.  But employers have also rejected job applicants for inappropriate photos, content relating to drinking and drugs, and misrepresentation of skills found on Facebook.  By doing this, employers may be violating anti-discrimination laws that have protected employees for decades.

Currently, there is no established case law restricting an employers’ use of Facebook in making its employment decisions.  However, as employers continue to use Facebook to make their decisions, litigation will simultaneously increase with regards to this issue.

Since there is very little legal guidance on the issue of using Facebook or other social medial sites to screen potential employees, many employers have begun to craft company policies in order to protect themselves.  Because social media sites are aimed at friends and family, employers must be careful that the information obtained from the site does not result in discrimination of a protected class—namely race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation.  If an employer, for example, screened out applicants, even before interviewing them, based on racial or religious details obtained from social media sites, the employer would be guilty of discrimination.  Using such information to form the basis of an employment decision is against the law.

The same goes for employers who reject an applicant who discloses union organizing, smoking or drinking on a site such as Facebook because all these activities are lawful.

In 2008, a New Jersey employer was sued for the improper use of information obtained from a social media site.  Employees of a local restaurant created a password-protected blog to complain about customers and management.  One manager learned of the blog and persuaded one of the employees to allow him to read the blog.  This resulted in two employees being fired for their written comments posted on the blog.  The two employees then sued the employer and won a $17,000 judgment.

Employers use social media sites like Facebook because there is a need and pressure to hire carefully, especially in an economy where applicants are plenty and jobs are few.  Sites like Facebook also make it easy for employers to discover information that is usually difficult to obtain because of privacy restrictions.

Prudent employers should disclose to potential employees that the applicant process will include reference checking from information found in the public domain, such as Facebook.

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law.  We believe that discrimination based on a person’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity or disability has no place in a democratic society.  Our firm has had considerable success in matters of employment discrimination throughout Long Island and the New York City area.  We take great pride not only in providing quality legal service and representation, but also in being there for clients when they need it most.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By GetLegal.com

In January, 2010, John Edwards finally admitted to fathering a child, Frances Quinn Hunter, with a former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter, during his 2007 run for Democratic Presidential nomination.  Edwards had admitted to having an affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006, but denied being the father of her child.  In his tell-all book, “The Politician” Andrew Young, Edward’s campaign aide, reveals that shortly before the 2008 presidential primaries began, Edwards asked Young to take responsibility for fathering Hunter’s baby.  Later, Edwards asked Young to fake a paternity test that would prove Edwards was not the father.  Recently, Young alleges he is in possession of a sex tape of Edwards showing the senator with a naked pregnant woman that Young claims is Hunter. CNN Article

In 2007, during the course of Edward’s infidelities, his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, was diagnosis with stage IV breast cancer.  Despite Edwards’ affair and rumors of a love child, the couple remained together during the 2007-2008 presidential nomination campaign.  However, after Edwards’ January 21, 2010, admission that he fathered a child with his mistress, Elizabeth legally separated from him and intends to file for divorce after North Carolina’s mandatory one year separation.  CNN Article

New York has six grounds for divorce, four of which are based on the fault of one of the parties.  The fault grounds include cruel and inhuman treatment, abandonment for one or more years, imprisonment for three or more years, and adultery.  The other two grounds enable a divorce to be obtained on a no fault basis, meaning neither spouse will be judged to be at fault.  These grounds include one year of living apart under a separation judgment granted by a Court, or under a separation agreement signed by the parties.  See New York Domestic Relations law § 170.

The attorneys at Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. know that getting a divorce can be a very difficult time for both spouses and their children.  Dealing with the emotional aspect further complicates the logistics of getting divorced.  The law firm of Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C. have represented clients in Nassau and Suffolk counties, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, and Staten Island.  For any questions concerning divorce or other domestic relations matters, contact an attorney at the Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C. law firm for a free consultation at 1-888-585-4658. Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C.’s divorce website is located at www.lbdivorcelaw.com.

By GetLegal.com

A former Nashville schools Payroll Coordinator was awarded about $1.5 million dollars by a Federal jury on Monday, January 25, 2010 based on a claim that she was wrongfully terminated in 2003 when she cooperated in a sexual harassment investigation of a school official.  The former employee, Vicky Crawford, who worked for the district for thirty years, sought lost wages, future wages and pension benefits.

Court documents indicate that Crawford told investigators that a co-worker would ask to see her breasts, grab his crotch saying, ”You know what’s up,” and on one occasion even pulled her head to his crotch.  Human resources officer Veronica Frazier asked Crawford to cooperate in an investigation and assured her that she would be protected from retaliation.  However, Frazier testified that no action was taken against the co-worker because there were no witnesses to his behavior.  Attorneys for the city claimed that Crawford was once a good employee, but was fired for poor job performance since her work had become subpar.  Crawford has been unable to get a job since 2003, has lost her house, car, and her professional reputation since an article in The Tennessean quoted Metro officials stating that she might have embezzled from the district’s payroll department.  New York Times Article

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the main federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on sex and sexual harassment.  States and cities may also have their own statutes that prevent sexual harassment provided they do not conflict with the federal law.

Sexual harassment can occur in one of two ways:
I.    Quid pro quo harassment which can constitute a one-time occurrence or involve repeated behavior requiring a person to tolerate some form of sexual harassment in order to get a job, keep a job, get a raise or promotion, or to receive some other benefit. This harassment can come from a prospective employer, a current employer, a manager or supervisor, or a co-worker. The sex and sexual orientation of your harasser does not matter.
II.    Hostile work environment which involves repeated behavior that is abusive or offensive, or that interferes or alters the victims’ ability to perform their job.

Employers that foster or allow these conditions to continue can be found liable for the conduct of the offending employees. Please see http://www.lmblaw.com/new-york/sexual-harassment.php for more information.

The lawyers at Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C. strive to secure successful judgments for their clients, including any former employees or recently fired workers who have been sexually harassed in the workplace.  If you or someone you know has been faced with sexual discrimination or sexual harassment, please contact the offices of Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, 1-888-5-JOBLAW, One Old Country Road, Suite 347, Carle Place, NY, 11514-1851.

By Brandon Sipherd

As the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate continue the battle over healthcare reform, many employers are taking the initiative to lower the costs of healthcare offered to employees.  Companies are now encouraging employees to participate in wellness programs.  However, these programs interfere with a recent federal law that prevents discrimination based on a person’s genetics.

Employers offer employees incentives, such as cash or insurance-premium reductions, to fill out health surveys.  Some employers use the information gathered from the surveys to offer health advise or direct at-risk employees to disease-management programs.  However, last year the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) limited and restricted the ability of employers and health insurers to gather and disclose genetic information, including family medical history.

GINA prohibits employers and insurers from using genetic information for coverage and employment decisions, including hiring, firing, and promoting.  Employers complain this law prevents them from promoting employee wellness plans because employers can no longer use financial incentives to encourage employees to fill out health surveys asking about their family’s medical histories.  Without these financial incentives, employers cannot increase participating in wellness programs, which may increase overall healthcare costs for employers.

According to a 2009 survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, about 70% of employers offer wellness programs and 64% of those offer their employees incentives to complete health surveys.  Many employer wellness programs include stop smoking, weight-loss, and disease-prevention programs as well as programs for diabetes and cardiac ailments based on family medical history.  While employers argue that employee participation in wellness programs decreases total healthcare costs, GINA supporters contend that using financial incentives is an improper method of encouraging employees to disclose their family medical histories and genetic information.

Wellness programs can decrease the number of employee visits to the doctors; yet, employers argue that GINA prevents them from directing employees to wellness programs.   Many employers are attempting to get around GINA by offering reduced premiums to employees who are screened for their health.

On the other hand, over 250 medical and advocacy groups, such as the American Medical Association and American Heart Association, support GINA and continue to urge government regulators not to excuse wellness programs from the legal restrictions on collecting information such as family medical history.

This is not a small issue in the ongoing healthcare debate on Capital Hill.  The outcome of the impending healthcare reform bill may have costly consequences for employers as well as employees.

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law. We believe that discrimination based on a person’s genetic makeup or family medical history has no place in a democratic society.  Our firm has had considerable success in matters of employment discrimination throughout Long Island and the New York City area.  We take great pride not only in providing quality legal service and representation, but also in being there for clients when they need it most.

For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By GetLegal.com

French lawmakers are moving toward a ban on women wearing full-faced veils in public office buildings, schools, hospitals and while using mass transit.  The movement was started last June when French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the full-face veil was “not welcome” in France, as many view the veil as a gateway to extremism and a threat to gender equality and secularism.  Sarkozy commented that “In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.”  With more than 5 million Muslims living in France, this controversial ban has been highly criticized by Muslim leaders.  Surprisingly, however, the ban is supported by French Muslim women.

The question becomes whether this French ban on full-face veils is constitutional.    In 2004, French lawmakers passed a law that banned headscarves in schools and for government workers in state offices.  Generally, in the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens from bans on religious clothing.  However, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Nebraska have upheld laws that prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms.  The law requires neutrality regarding religion, meaning the states or schools can neither favor nor disfavor religion.  Discriminating against an individual based on race or national origin may be prosecuted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Please visit the EEOC’s website for further information: www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html.

The attorneys at Leeds Morelli & Brown, P.C., dedicate a large amount of their practice to employment discrimination claims.  For any questions, contact an attorney at the Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C. law firm for a free consultation at 1-800-585-4658. Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C.’s website is located at www.lmblaw.com.