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 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 Lee Hagy

HOLLYWOOD, CA — Last Friday, a $70 million settlement was reached between 17 major networks and production studios, along with seven large talent agencies, and a class of plaintiffs representing writers over the age of forty in Hollywood, sending a bold message that age discrimination in hiring will not be tolerated.  The decade long battle to change the industry bias toward only hiring younger writers to work on popular television and movie projects ended in a landmark victory that will positively affect future generations of older Americans and writers.

According to the LA Times, approximately $2.5 million of the settlement will be used to establish a “Fund for the Future” that will issue grants and loans to older writers to aid their careers and study ways to supplement pension plans.  The case was helped out by the Writers Guild of America, which provided critical statistical information showing the age-hiring bias in Hollywood for the past few decades.

Although knowing about age discrimination in Hollywood for years, The LA Times reported that many writers were afraid to file a lawsuit for fear of losing their jobs.  Decisions like these will encourage more Americans who suspect age discrimination as the reason for their not being hired or for being let go to stand up and proclaim their rights as well.

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we believe that age discrimination at work, or anywhere else, has no place in a free and democratic society. The law agrees. More employers might agree too — if only they could feel the same kind of personal devastation, loss of self-esteem, desperation and depression that their victims do. If you have been discriminated against by an employer, talk to us.  Contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.

By Brandon Sipherd

This last week marked the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama’s victory over Senator John McCain.  Reflecting on this past year, we cannot help but ask if President Obama’s victory really brought about change?  Despite the many criticisms the President has received this last year, he has left a mark on one important area: pay equity.

Over 45 years ago, President Kennedy singed the Equal Pay Act, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform the same work.  At that time women received 59 cents to every dollar earned by men.  Today that has increased to about 78 cents for every dollar paid to men; in New York the average is slightly higher as women receive 82 cents for every dollar.  Although the pay gap is closing, women across America continue to suffer from this discriminatory practice.

In January 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is a step forward in improving pay discrimination laws.  This substantive piece of legislation reverses the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which severely limited a worker’s ability to vindicate her rights under federal anti-discrimination laws.  This reversal of the Supreme Court’s ruling restores the protections against pay discrimination that used to exist.  Now people who suffer pay wage discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, age, religion and disability may file a claim when they became subject to discriminatory practice or affected by a discriminatory practice.  This includes any time an employee receives a discriminatory paycheck.  Therefore, the 180-day statute of limitations for filing a pay discrimination lawsuit resets with each new discriminatory paycheck.  Thanks to President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, anyone who is subjected to pay discrimination will now have a greater ability to challenge and vindicate their rights in a court of law.

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 wage discrimination and pay equity 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: Elizabeth Lopez

AT&T Services, Inc., doing business as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, L.P. (AT&T), a major telephone company, violated federal law by refusing to hire an applicant simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit.

According to the suit, AT&T violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to hire an applicant as a cable splicer technician only because of his “insulin use” for type 2 diabetes.

The applicant indisputably had the necessary experience and expertise to perform the job and had previously safely performed a similar job for AT&T for many years after he was diagnosed with diabetes, however he was still denied employment. Refusing to hire a qualified individual because of his or her disability, record of disability, or because the employer perceives a person as being disabled, violates the ADA.

After the EEOC’s San Antonio Field office determined that AT&T had violated the law, it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the victim, as well as injunctive relief.

Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC is an established employment and civil rights law firm representing victims of discrimination throughout Long Island, the entire New York City area and nationwide. We understand the distinction between the words, “inability” and “disability” and have been working to get that message across to employers for more than two decades.

If you believe you are a victim of discrimination call Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free and confidential consultation.

By: Elizabeth Lopez

Former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean sued pageant officials for libel, slander and religious discrimination, accusing them of telling her to stop mentioning God. Prejean sued California pageant executive director Keith Lewis and former Miss USA Shanna Moakler after she was fired in June by pageant officials who claimed it was a result of her missing several scheduled appearances. Prejean claims that it was “not true and that she was ousted because of her controversial remarks.”

She was named first runner-up and many believe that she lost her shot at the crown because of her answer regarding her religious views and gay marriage. Prejean’s attorney found no proof that Prejean missed any events nor were “there any contract violations,” he said.

The lawsuit claims that Lewis and Moakler both told Prejean not to mention God on her Miss USA application or at public events. Moakler’s attorney said in a statement that Prejean’s lawsuit was without merit, however for her love of God Prejean looks forward to proving that she did nothing wrong in a court of law.

Leeds, Morelli & Brown is always available to advise you about your First Amendment rights regarding the freedom of religious expression.
For any questions, contact an attorney at the Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC for a free consultation at 1-800-585-4658.

By: Lee Hagy

Have you been demoted or laid off from a job and felt that your age was a factor in your employer’s decision?  Congress today took action to prevent this type of age-discrimination to protect your rights and to make workplaces fair.

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a proposed bill that would reverse the outcome of the Supreme Court’s June finding in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.  In that controversial 5-4 decision, the Court held that plaintiffs bringing an age-discrimination case must meet the tough burden of proving that their age was the deciding factor in their demotion or termination.

Prior to this decision, an employee only had to show that age was one of the factors that motivated his or her employer’s adverse employment decision.  Once this fact had been established, the burden then fell on the employer to show that it had acted for a valid reason other than age discrimination.   The three Congressmen bringing the bill said that the ruling of the Supreme Court created unfair obstacles to the victims of age-discrimination’s ability to hold employers accountable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we believe that discrimination at work, or anywhere else, has no place in a free and democratic society. Our firm has won precedent-setting decisions involving employment discrimination and is an established authority on this subject. In every matter, whether it involves filing an ADEA complaint on behalf of one individual or litigating a class action lawsuit — we take great pride not only in providing outstanding legal service and representation, but also in simply being there for clients at a time when they need it most.

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

By Karen Best

On a trip to Ukraine to do charity work Elton John visited a hospital for HIV-infected children. While touring the hospital John and his partner David Furnish met and fell in love with a baby named Lev. The couple took to Lev so much they decided they wanted to adopt him.

Unfortunately for John, he did not meet the qualifications to adopt under Ukrainian law. Ukrainian family minister, Yuriy Pavlenko, informed John that because he is over 45 years older than Lev and isn’t in a traditional marriage he was ineligible to adopt. In Ukrainian homosexual marriages are not recognized. Also, the adopting parents must not be over 45 years of the adopted child and John is 62.

Pavlenko stated, “Foreign citizens who are single have no right to adopt children … and the age difference between the adopter and the child cannot be more than 45 years.” “The law is the same for everybody: for a president, for a minister, for Elton John.”

At Leeds Morelli & Brown, PC, we try to accommodate as many of our clients’ legal needs as possible. This builds trust and provides value to the client in many ways. And although our firm has earned a tremendous reputation in cases that can generally be described as civil rights or employment litigation, the experience and skills we have developed in those matters translate very well to matters involving family law. For more information, contact Leeds, Morelli and Brown, PC at 1-800-585-4658 for a free consultation.