President Obama weighed in on the controversy over a proposed Islamic community center/mosque to be built just two blocks from Ground Zero.  The property is owned by a Muslim Iman and a public utility company.  The proposed building would be a thirteen story facility used as an educational community center with a mosque included.  Obama made his first remarks on it at the annual White House dinner honoring the Islamic holy days of Ramadan.  Obama said that he supports the right of the property owners to build the mosque.  After the headlines hit the presses that Obama voiced his support of the building of the center, he “clarified,” saying he doesn’t necessarily think the project is wise.  Obama claims he meant to say he supports the right of the Islamic community to build an educational center and mosque there, but that he did not mean it was the right thing for them to do.  His point was meant to be the right of freedom of religion of all Americans would allow the center.  ABC News Full Article

On August 22, 2010, approximately a thousand or people gathered near the proposed building site, some supporting the building of a mosque at Park Place and more opposing it.  Protestors carried signs about freedom and religion, speaking for God and about America.  With such strong opinions surrounding the proposed Mosque, many New Yorkers are gaining resentment toward the Islamic Community.  It is important to remember that 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 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

The Obama administration is calling upon Congress to pass the new Paycheck Fairness Act, which will require businesses to inform the government about the payment of their employees as it relates to their gender, race, and national origin.  This Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and will aid the government in their efforts to end pay discrimination.  The Paycheck Fairness Act was first introduced January 2009 by then Senator Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro.  The Act was to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by expanding damages under the Equal Pay Act.  President Obama stated that employment discrimination is harmful to American families, as well as the economy.  The Paycheck Fairness, if passed, will put more responsibility on corporations to provide fair pay to their employees, regardless of gender.  CNS News 

According to census statistics, U.S. women earned only 77 cents on the male dollar.  African-American women earn only 68% and Latinas earn a mere 58% of their male counter parts.  The median weekly earnings of female full-time workers were $657, compared with male median weekly earnings of $819. Based on these data, the ratio of women’s to men’s median weekly earnings was 80.2.  Institute for Women’s Policy Research.  As the institution of the “Traditional Family” slowly disappears, and more women become the bread winners of their family, the necessity of gender equality becomes more evident.  Gaining the support from the President gives great hope to women in the workplace.

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

Jarretta Hamilton was fired from her job as a fourth grade school teacher at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Florida, for fornication — having sex before marriage. Hamilton and her husband were married on February 20, 2009. Three weeks before the wedding, she conceived her daughter, Sarah. In April 2009, Hamilton approached Principal Jon Ennis, requesting a standard six week maternity leave for the fall. As the conversation progressed, Ennis ask Hamilton is she had conceived prior to marriage, knowing Hamilton had only been married for a few weeks. Hamilton answered yes, seeing no reason to lie to her employer. Shortly thereafter, Hamilton was asked not to return to the Christian school because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage. The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before students the school requires all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of the Christian school. Hamilton alleges the termination violated federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition, they allege in a pending lawsuit, the school’s principal invaded Hamilton’s privacy by telling other teachers and the parents of her students the exact reason she was fired. Read more: MSNBC Article

Although private school teachers do not generally enjoy as much of the constitutional protection as public school teachers, statutes may provide protection against discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, protects teachers at both public and private schools from racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. Private school teachers may also enjoy rights in their contracts that are similar to due process rights, including the inability of a private school to dismiss the teacher without cause, notice, or a hearing.

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

A trial began last week in a Japanese courtroom, where a 36-year-old Japanese woman alleges she was fired from Prada Japan because she was not attractive enough.  Plaintiff Rina Bovrisse’s legal complaint against Prada Japan states Prada Japan’s CEO asked her to get rid of shop managers and assistant managers who called her “aged, ugly, fat, bad body shape, bad teeth, disgusting, and not cute.”   After she refused to do so, Prada Japan’s human resources manager gave most of those managers transfer orders that amounted to demotions.  Bovrisse’s lawyers said Prada offered Bovrisse around $107,000 in severance but she turned it down to fight for a public and pay compensation for emotional distress.  Article

New York is an “at will” employee State, meaning an employer can keep its employees for however long he wants but may fire them for any reason or for no reason at all, so long as it is not an unlawful or discriminatory reason.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.  So, can a New York employer fire a woman for being too ugly?  Technically yes, because ugly is not protected under Title VII.  However, it is best to consult with an experienced employment attorney to ensure there is no basis for a discrimination claim.

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

President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court has triggered much media scrutiny.  One of the things in her record that is being given a great deal of attention is a widely circulated 2003 memo, that Kagan drafted while serving as the Dean of Harvard Law School.  The memo condemned the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gay soldiers as “a moral injustice of the first order.”  Essentially, the military’s policy effectively permits deeply closeted gays and bisexuals to serve in the military as long as they do not “out” themselves and they are not “outed” by others.  Kagan’s remarks were made during the 2005 controversy over whether Congress could withhold federal funding from universities that discriminate against the military.  Kagan joined a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the government.  Now, her comments are drawing a great deal of attention as the Military’s policy is under fire and the issue of gay marriage seems to be coming to head.  CNS News 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the only law in this country that authorizes the firing of an American simply for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation.  To date, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.  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.

Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into Arizona law a statute which gives the local police to the right to verify immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally. Brewer stated Arizona was forced to pass the law because the federal government has failed to act on it the state’s high influx of illegal immigrants.  Civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, say the law will equate to racial profiling which unfairly targets Hispanics who are in the country legally or were born in Arizona.  President Obama has ordered a review by the Justice Department to determine whether the Arizona law is Constitutional before the law goes into effect in July.  The Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund is a civil rights group which claims that the law infringes on federal responsibility and violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause.  Other states such as Arizona, Ohio, Utah, Delaware, Missouri, and Texas are planning to sign similar laws.

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-02-immigration_N.htm

According to the United States Department of Labor, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In addition, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This law is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.

See: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc.htm

As well established equal opportunity and anti-discrimination firms in New York, Leeds Morelli & Brown P.C. works to achieve successful judgments that are in the best interests of their clients.  If you or someone you know has been affected by employment discrimination or seeking a class action please feel free to contact Leeds, Morelli & Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation or view their web page at www.lmblaw.com.

On Monday, April 26, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a federal judge’s decision to award class action status to potentially one million women or more in a bias lawsuit against Wal-Mart.  The class action status will aggregate many claimants with similar experiences into one action as opposed to presenting each lawsuit individually, thus allowing individuals with relatively small sums at state to participate in the lawsuit.  The initial suit was filed in June 2001 by six former and current female hourly workers and managers who accused Wal-Mart of systematically denying women workers equal pay and opportunities for promotion.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.  Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person’s sex.  The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.  Please visit the EEOC’s website for further information: www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html.

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

By: Brandon Sipherd

McDonald’s restaurant in Dearborn, Michigan, which has a large Muslim community, allegedly denied two Muslim women jobs because they wore Islamic headscarves. The store manager, who interviewed Toi Whitfield and Quiana Pugh for the jobs, told the applicants, “You’re not going to work here if you don’t remove [the headscarf].” In addition to being told that wearing the hijab, or headscarf, would be an issue, during the interviews the applicants were asked by restaurant managers about their nationality and ethnicity. Within a week after the interviews, the two women were told that the position had already been filled.

Many corporate restaurants in the area also sell halal foods to accommodate the large and growing number of Muslim customers. The Dearborn McDonald’s is only one of two McDonald’s in the United States that sells halal foods, the Muslim equivalent of kosher.

A McDonald’s spokesperson said that the management company in charge of the Dearbon McDonald’s “has a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination.” However, it is alarming that a restaurant in such a large Muslim community would discriminate against two Muslim women looking for employment.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the Dearborn McDonald’s alleging that the restaurant engaged in ethnic and religious discriminatory hiring practices. Dawud Walid, CAIR-MI’s Executive Director, urged “McDonald’s to take immediate action to bring its hiring policies into compliance with long-established legal guidelines on reasonable religious accommodation in the workplace”. He also said this is not the first incident involving McDonald’s. In 2008, CAIR-MI raised similar concerns with McDonald’s involving two incidences where Muslim women were denied jobs because they wore the Muslim headscarf.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals because of their religion and ethnicity in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must also reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” for the employer.

The EEOC, in 2008, promulgated new guidelines for accommodating religious practices and beliefs in the workplace. These guidelines protect workers who wear religious clothing like the hijab.

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law.  We believe that discrimination based on a person’s religion or ethnicity 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.

On March 4, 2010, the recently elected Attorney General of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli, sent a letter to Virginia’s Public Colleges and Universities writing that, “the law and public policy of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” “gender expression,” or like terms in its non-discrimination policy unless the General Assembly of Virginia specifically authorize doing so.  The letter was reprinted in The Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/Cuccinelli.pdf

Reacting to this letter, more than 1,000 students gathered in the state capitol of Richmond, Virginia to protest the Attorney General’s prohibition on expanding anti-discrimination rights absent legislative authorization.  National news outlets published the story and Jon Stewart lampooned the policy on his television show.

Responding to this outcry against the Attorney General’s legal opinion, Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) issued a directive on March 10, 2010 to all 102,000 Virginia state employees that prohibits discrimination in the state workforce, including on the basis of sexual orientation.

Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC is a nationally recognized leader in the area of employment law.  We believe that discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, ethnicity age 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 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.