Posts tagged with "employee rights"

Medical Marijuana Use in the Connecticut Workplace

The news this week that Connecticut has given its approval to four medical marijuana growers in Simsbury, West Haven, Portland, and Watertown, inches the state that much closer to full implementation of the medical marijuana law that was passed in 2012.

The state also reported that over 1600 individuals in Connecticut have been certified by the state to receive medical marijuana. That number is expected to grow once production begins in earnest.

Add to that news, the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington and employers now have a whole new area of law to familiarize themselves with.

It would be easy to just write some puns on the matter (and who can resist it in the headline) but it’s not such a laughing matter to employers struggling to figure out what the rules of the road are.

There are 5 important takeaways from CT’s medical marijuana laws:

Employers may not refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize or threaten an employee based solely on such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.

Employers may discriminate if required by federal funding or contracting provisions.

Employers MAY continue to prohibit the use of intoxicating substances, including marijuana, at work.

Employers MAY continue to discipline employees for being under the influence of intoxicating substances at work.

But employers MAY NOT presume that a drug test result that is positive for marijuana means that the employee used at work or was under the influence at work.

While it is clear under [state law] that an employer may terminate or discipline an employee who reports to work impaired on account of his/her medical marijuana use, the law does not address how employers are to treat employees … who use marijuana during non-work hours, but will inevitably fail routine drug tests administered pursuant to a drug-free workplace policy.

If the employer terminates [the employee] for violating its policy, it risks liability if she proves she was not under the influence at work. On the other hand, if it does not terminate …, the employer risks liability should [the employee] report to work under the influence and injure herself or others.

Another novel issue that is arising? Suppose your employee is on a business trip in Colorado. After a sales meeting, on the way back to his hotel, the employee legally purchases and then consumes some Rocky Mountain marijuana. Can you discipline the employee for engaging in a legal activity while on “company business”?

As long as we have disparate state laws on the subject, we’re not going to get clear cut answers. For employers, be sure to stay up to date on the developments and talk with your legal counsel about the implications for your business now that we are on the outskirts of implementation.

Credit to Daniel Schwartz of Shipman and Goodwin LLP.

If you are the victim of workplace harassment, wrongful termination, or any other labor law crime, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner. The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at jmaya@mayalaw.com

Keywords: discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office

Continue Reading

Deliberate Indifference Required for School to be Liable under Title IX for Student-Student Harassment

In a New York District decision earlier this year, a student’s cause of action under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act against the Monroe-Woodbury School District was denied because it did not show deliberate indifference in response to the student’s claim of student-to-student sexual harassment.[1]

Parents on behalf of their fifteen year old daughter brought suit against Monroe–Woodbury Central School District pursuant to Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was deprived of an educational environment free from sexual harassment as required by federal law.

Beginning in January 2010, when she was in the eighth grade, the student was subjected to teasing, taunting, and physical bullying by other students, which she reported to her guidance counselor.  She was sexually assaulted by a male classmate who requested a handjob and subsequently ran her  hands over the genital area of his pants and attempted to shove her hands down his pants.[2] As a result of the incident, the student alleges that she was subjected to more taunting and name-calling by other students and in response began to engage in self- injurious behavior by cutting herself. When she began attending Monroe–Woodbury High School in September, another student and friend of the first continued to harass her and in November sexually assaulted her by pinning her against a locker and pushing his hands down her pants and blouse, touching her genital area and breast.[3]  The student began missing school frequently to avoid continued harassment.  At some point she confided in her guidance counselor that her absenteeism and self-injurious behavior was the result of the persistent teasing and the two incidents of sexual assault by her classmates.[4]

The School District recommended that she attend the GO Program, an out-of-district academic program, to which her parents agreed. After her first day there, CF reported to her parents that she was uncomfortable with this placement because the students there were “in many cases, not attending their regular high schools due to serious disciplinary records and incidents.”[5] When her parents again met with the principal, they requested that their daughter be transferred to another public school to continue her high school education.  The principal refused saying there were no other options besides the GO program.[6]

The parent brought suit alleging the school failed to: (1) initiate an investigation upon the parents’ verbal complaint; (2) conduct a prompt, equitable, and thorough investigation of the charges; (3) ensure that immediate corrective action be taken, including subjecting the offending individuals to appropriate disciplinary measures; and (4) inform CF of her right to pursue legal remedies.

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)[7]. Title IX contains an implied private right of action for plaintiffs who bring suit against educational institutions that receive federal funding, and liability may be imposed upon a school district if it is found to be in violation of this law.

Title IX funding recipients may be held liable for student-on-student harassment if the plaintiff can establish damages only where the school district: (1) was deliberately indifferent; (2) to sexual harassment; (3) of which it had actual knowledge; (4) that was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it deprived the victim of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.[8] A showing of deliberate indifference requires that the school had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment and either responded in a “clearly unreasonable manner in light of the known circumstances,”[9] or responded with remedial action only after a “lengthy and unjustified delay.”[10]

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s assertions that the GO Program was an “inappropriate” placement for her because it did not provide her with a “regular high school environment.” Saying even if it was inappropriate, “Title IX simply does not require recipient school districts to provide students with a ‘regular high school environment.’ Title IX does not prescribe any particular educational experience at all. Rather, Title IX merely prohibits schools from excluding anyone, on the basis of sex, from participating in an educational program that receives federal assistance; or denying the benefits of such programs on the basis of sex; or subjecting anyone in such programs to discrimination on the basis of sex.”[11]  Finding that the school did not cause the discrimination and the School District took some remedial action (not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances) in response to the student’s complaints, the Court dismissed the action.

Bullying and harassment in school should never be tolerated.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable education law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about bullying, student harassment, school liability or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 


[1] KF ex rel. CF v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist., 12 CIV. 2200 ER, 2013 WL 177911 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2013)

[2] Compl.¶¶ 10-11

[3] Compl.¶¶ 12-13

[4] Id.

[5] Compl.¶¶ 14

[6] Id.

[7] Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)

[8] Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 477 F.3d 1282, 1293 (11th Cir.2007)

[10] Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733, 751 (2d Cir.2003)

[11] KF ex rel. CF v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist.

 

Keywords: Title IX, bullying in schools, anti bullying, schools, principal, teacher, school, discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office

Faragher-Ellerth Defense Applied to Protect Employer from Liability for Sexual Harassment

In a recent 11th Circuit Court case decided this year, that Court applied the Faragher/Ellerthdefense to bar an employee’s sexual harassment suit under Title VII and state law.[1]

There, a male hairdresser filed suit against his employer alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and the Florida’s Civil Rights Act.  The employee alleged that his employer Creative Hairdressers was liable for allowing his former manager at a Hair Cuttery salon to sexually harass him. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact that Hair Cuttery exercised reasonable care to prevent and correctly promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and that White unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities or to avoid harm.

The Supreme Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton[2] and its companion case Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth[3] recognized certain affirmative defenses an employer can assert to preclude liability when an employee alleges sexual harassment by a supervisor.  Even if an employee establishes a prima facie case of sexual harassment, an employer can avoid liability under the Faragher/Ellerth defense if the employer shows (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior, and (2) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer, or to otherwise avoid harm. Both elements must be satisfied for the employer to avoid liability, and the employer bears the burden of proof on both elements.

In affirming District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, the 11th Circuit held that the Faragher/Ellerth defense applied to bar the employee’s claims under Title VII and the FCRA.  The Court recognized that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Hair Cuttery had promulgated and adequately disseminated sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures to its employees.  Further, the court held that the employee failed to promptly take advantage of Hair Cuttery’s sexual harassment policies and complaint procedures by not promptly notifying the company of his harassment.[4]

Failure to follow employer harassment policies can prevent a valid harassment claim.  If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York City, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.



[1] White v. Creative Hairdressers Inc., 11-16121, 2013 WL 203312 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013)

[4] White v. Creative Hairdressers Inc. at 11-16121

 

Keywords: Faragher-Ellerth, discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office

The Best Employment Lawyers in Connecticut and New York

Discrimination
Employment Discrimination Lawyers in New York and Connecticut
State and national laws protect employees from being subjected to discriminatory treatment and termination in the workplace because of the employee’s gender, race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, sexual orientation, or disability. If you have reason to believe that you have experienced discrimination on the job, you should contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. right away. Mr. Maya has a national reputation for successfully handling employment discrimination matters. He can be contacted via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by dialing (203) 221-3100 in Connecticut or (212) 682-5700 in New York.

Laws Protect Employees from Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
These laws also protect employees from sexual harassment , a hostile work environment, and from being touched in an offensive manner in the workplace by supervisors, coworkers, or even clients. Employees have a right to stop discriminatory conduct in the workplace. If an employee tries to stop that conduct or notifies a supervisor that discriminatory conduct has occurred, that employee also has protection, under state and national laws, from retaliation by the supervisor or employer. In fact, any person who complains to his or her superior or employer has protection from the law against retaliation by his or her employer. If you feel you might be a victim of racial, gender, or sexual discrimination on the job, you should contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com or by dialing him at (203) 221-3100 or (212) 682-5700. Let our experience guide you and protect your legal rights at work.
Serving Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk and surrounding communities including Darien, New Canaan, Westport, Wilton & Weston; the greater Bridgeport area including Fairfield, Stratford, Monroe & Redding; the greater Danbury area including Ridgefield, Newtown & Bethel; and the communities surrounding Milford and New Haven. We also serve all of Westchester and New York Counties.

Continue Reading

Failure to “Check the Box” on EEOC Complaint Bars Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Claim

In a pro se case decided a few months ago, the United States District Court of Florida granted summary judgment for Target Corp., the employer of the plaintiff, denying the employee’s Title VII claim of hostile work environment for checking the wrong boxes on her EEOC claim.[1]

The plaintiff in the case was employed by the defendant, Target Corp.  During the period before her pregnancy in 2008 and 2009, she received positive performance reviews of “meets expectations” and “effective.”[2]  In 2010, she informed Target that she was pregnant. On May 19, 2010, the employee received another “effective” on a Team Member Performance Review, but that review also contained several comments, including:

I challenge you to focus on communicating with your supervisors about any conflicts with your availability. The store is staffed according to the guest traffic and business. When team members do not show for their shifts or do not communicate with their ETL about conflicts with their availability, it makes it difficult for the team to successfully accomplish their tasks….[3]

The employee claimed that her supervisor told her that any further absences could cost the plaintiff her job. In her deposition, the employee stated:

[Supervisor] told me that I could not ask for a day off under any circumstances. That I could not call in to request an absence. And that I knew what would happen to me if from that day on I would call saying I was not going to work. During [t]he meeting she repeated those phrases about five or six times. She told me that the Target schedule was already set, and the fact that I called, that I would call in a certain day for an absence, it would send, it would make the Target schedule out of control…. She wanted me to work under any condition. Placing my life and my baby’s life at risk.[4]

The employee also stated that her supervisor placed her on a “one-week probation and if during that week I missed work for any reason, that I would be terminated. The employee did not present any medical notes to her supervisor during the meeting on June 11, 2010; in fact, the employee was not told that her pregnancy was high-risk until June 14, 2010.[5]  On June 14, 2010, she delivered another letter to Target, this one alleging pregnancy discrimination and informing Target that a charge would be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[6]  The employee filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on June 15, 2010. On the charge, she checked only the box labeled “sex,” but not the box for “retaliation,” or the box labeled “continuing action.”[7]

Before filing a suit under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust her available administrative remedies by first filing a charge with the EEOC. “The starting point of ascertaining the permissible scope of a judicial complaint alleging employment discrimination is the administrative charge and investigation.”[8] Circuit Courts has stated that a plaintiff’s complaint is “limited by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” New claims “are allowed if they amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus the allegations in the EEOC complaint….” [9]

The Court reasoned the proper inquiry was whether her Amended Complaint was like or related to, or grew out of, the allegations contained in her EEOC charge. The checked only the box labeled “sex” on her EEOC charge of discrimination; but did not check the box for “retaliation,” or the box labeled “continuing action.”  While the Court found that her claim for retaliation under Title VII was not barred because it grew out of her earlier charge, the Court stated that her failure to check “continuing action” precluded her from asserting a Title VII claim for sexual harassment through hostile work environment.[10]

Failure to follow proper administrative procedure when filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC can bar an otherwise valid claim.  If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York City, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions workplace discrimination, Title VII discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 

Keywords: discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office


[1] Penaloza v. Target Corp., 8:11-CV-2656-T-33AEP, 2012 WL 6721011 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2012)

[2] Doc. # 45–3 at 2

[3] Doc. # 45–3 at 3

[4] Penaloza Dep. Doc. # 35 at 19

[5] Doc. # 34 at 6, 9; Penaloza Dep. Doc. # 35 at 13–14, 22

[6] Doc. # 35–2 at 17

[7] Doc. # 35–2 at 8

[8] Anderson v. Embarq / Sprint, 379 F. App’x 924, 926 (11th Cir.2010)

[9] Id.

[10] Penaloza v. Target Corp., 8:11-CV-2656-T-33AEP, 2012 WL 6721011 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2012)

Claim Denied for Not Notifying Her Employer of Harassment

In a case decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court of New York denied a female employee’s complaint for sexual harassment and constructive discharge because she failed to inform her employer of the alleged harassment, thereby not allowing it to take any corrective measures.[1]

In 2009 the female employee was hired as a bookkeeper to work for Bulletproof, a large horse breeding and racing company owned by Jeffrey.  Jeffrey’s brother David owned two businesses, a hedge fund and his own horse racing business, Perfect World. The employee worked at Bulletproof for two week, then did not go back or even call to quit.  Instead, she filed a complaint of sexual harassment and constructive discharge against the two brothers and their respective companies, alleging that David was her boss and he sexually harassed her to such an extent she could not return to work even though she needed the money.[2]

At issue in the case was identity of the plaintiff’s employer.  All of the female employee’s claims arose from sexual advances made by David and were premised on the contention that David was her supervisor.  However, as the Court indicated David, the alleged harasser, had neither an ownership interest in Bulletproof, which paid plaintiff’s salary, or the power to do anything in that company.  Jeffrey testified that David had absolutely nothing to do with Bulletproof.   Similarly, the employee testified that when she started work, she understood that her supervisor would be Jeffrey.

As the Court noted, this was the “first time that the identity of the plaintiff’s supervisor is the subjective element” of a sexual harassment claim in New York.  To resolve this threshold issue the Court turned to the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “If, in the unusual case, it is alleged there is a false impression that the actor was a supervisor, when he in fact was not, the victim’s mistaken conclusion must be a reasonable one…. Apparent authority exists only to the extent it is reasonable for the third person dealing with the agent to believe that the agent is authorized.”[3] While the Court had doubts as to whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have thought that David was her supervisor, it resolved the uncertainty in her favor and proceeding as if David where her supervisor.

The Court, nonetheless, denied the employee’s claim, finding that the Faragher–Ellerth defense applied to Bulletproof to excuse any liability.  Under federal and state law, an employer vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of a managerial or supervisory employee may elude liability by asserting the so-called Faragher–Ellerth defense.  For this defense to succeed, the employer must show that (i) no adverse employment action (e.g., termination) was taken as part of the sexual harassment; (ii) the employer took prompt corrective action; and, (iii) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of “corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise”[4]

According to the Court, the employee could not substantiate her claim of constructive discharge, and there was no evidence of any other adverse employment action. She was not fired; she left of her own volition. “Unless conditions are beyond ordinary’ discrimination, a complaining employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress.” Here there was no evidence to support a claim for constructive discharge, where a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a defendant “deliberately created working conditions so intolerable, difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign.”[5]

Further the Court observed that “Since the plaintiff deprived Bulletproof of the opportunity to take ‘prompt corrective action’ by not informing anyone of David’s harassment, she cannot show that Bulletproof ‘acquiesced in the discriminating conduct or subsequently condoned it’ instead of taking corrective action.”[6] Similarly, plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of whatever corrective opportunities Bulletproof could have offered her if it had been given the chance. The employee did not even resign; she just left work one day and did not return the next, and when Jeffrey called her multiple times to find out what happened, she did not return his calls.  The Court held “under these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot state a claim against Bulletproof even assuming that David was her supervisor.”[7]

 

If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 

[1] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

[2] Id.

[3] Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 759 (1998)

[4] Zakrzewska v. The New School, 14 N.Y.3d 469, 476–477 (2010)

[5] Polidori v. Societe Generale Groupe, 39 A.D.3d 404, 405–406, 835 (2007)

[6] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

[7] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

Claim Denied for Not Notifying Her Employer of Harassment

In a case decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court of New York denied a female employee’s complaint for sexual harassment and constructive discharge because she failed to inform her employer of the alleged harassment, thereby not allowing it to take any corrective measures.[1]

In 2009 the female employee was hired as a bookkeeper to work for Bulletproof, a large horse breeding and racing company owned by Jeffrey.  Jeffrey’s brother David owned two businesses, a hedge fund and his own horse racing business, Perfect World. The employee worked at Bulletproof for two week, then did not go back or even call to quit.  Instead, she filed a complaint of sexual harassment and constructive discharge against the two brothers and their respective companies, alleging that David was her boss and he sexually harassed her to such an extent she could not return to work even though she needed the money.[2]

At issue in the case was identity of the plaintiff’s employer.  All of the female employee’s claims arose from sexual advances made by David and were premised on the contention that David was her supervisor.  However, as the Court indicated David, the alleged harasser, had neither an ownership interest in Bulletproof, which paid plaintiff’s salary, or the power to do anything in that company.  Jeffrey testified that David had absolutely nothing to do with Bulletproof.   Similarly, the employee testified that when she started work, she understood that her supervisor would be Jeffrey.

As the Court noted, this was the “first time that the identity of the plaintiff’s supervisor is the subjective element” of a sexual harassment claim in New York.  To resolve this threshold issue the Court turned to the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “If, in the unusual case, it is alleged there is a false impression that the actor was a supervisor, when he in fact was not, the victim’s mistaken conclusion must be a reasonable one…. Apparent authority exists only to the extent it is reasonable for the third person dealing with the agent to believe that the agent is authorized.”[3] While the Court had doubts as to whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have thought that David was her supervisor, it resolved the uncertainty in her favor and proceeding as if David where her supervisor.

The Court, nonetheless, denied the employee’s claim, finding that the Faragher–Ellerth defense applied to Bulletproof to excuse any liability.  Under federal and state law, an employer vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of a managerial or supervisory employee may elude liability by asserting the so-called Faragher–Ellerth defense.  For this defense to succeed, the employer must show that (i) no adverse employment action (e.g., termination) was taken as part of the sexual harassment; (ii) the employer took prompt corrective action; and, (iii) the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of “corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise”[4]

According to the Court, the employee could not substantiate her claim of constructive discharge, and there was no evidence of any other adverse employment action. She was not fired; she left of her own volition. “Unless conditions are beyond ordinary’ discrimination, a complaining employee is expected to remain on the job while seeking redress.” Here there was no evidence to support a claim for constructive discharge, where a plaintiff must allege facts showing that a defendant “deliberately created working conditions so intolerable, difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign.”[5]

Further the Court observed that “Since the plaintiff deprived Bulletproof of the opportunity to take ‘prompt corrective action’ by not informing anyone of David’s harassment, she cannot show that Bulletproof ‘acquiesced in the discriminating conduct or subsequently condoned it’ instead of taking corrective action.”[6] Similarly, plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail herself of whatever corrective opportunities Bulletproof could have offered her if it had been given the chance. The employee did not even resign; she just left work one day and did not return the next, and when Jeffrey called her multiple times to find out what happened, she did not return his calls.  The Court held “under these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot state a claim against Bulletproof even assuming that David was her supervisor.”[7]

 

If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 

[1] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

[2] Id.

[3] Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 759 (1998)

[4] Zakrzewska v. The New School, 14 N.Y.3d 469, 476–477 (2010)

[5] Polidori v. Societe Generale Groupe, 39 A.D.3d 404, 405–406, 835 (2007)

[6] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

[7] Poolt v. Brooks, 38 Misc. 3d 1216(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

Denial of Additional Shifts Could Constitutes Adverse Action for Retaliation Claim under Title VII

In a U.S. District Court decision earlier this year, that Court found that a restaurant’s denial of an employee’s opportunity to work additional shifts could satisfy the adverse action requirement to support a Retaliation claim under Title VII. [1]

The employee worked as a server at a restaurant. During the period the plaintiff was employed, she alleged that on multiple occasions she was subject to sexually humiliating comments and unwanted physical contact, including inappropriate touching, by her immediate supervisor.[2] The plaintiff informed management repeatedly of the sexual harassment by her supervisor.  When her employer learned that she had had received legal advice based on the sexual harassment, the plaintiff alleged that she was no longer able to pick up additional shifts at the restaurant.  On July 8, 2010, she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in which she alleged discrimination based on sex and retaliation under Title VII.  The employer moved to dismiss the claims.

To support a Retaliation claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) engagement in a protected activity; (2) adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the protected activity.  “Adverse employment action includes any retaliatory act or harassment if, but only if, that act or harassment results in an adverse effect on the terms, conditions, or benefits of employment.”[3] An adverse action can also include an employer’s decision to demote an employee or relegate him to “reduced pay, diminished opportunity for promotion, reduced responsibility, or lower rank.”[4]

The District Court held that it was plausible that “a plaintiff serving in a job with a fluctuating schedule where pay is tied closely to the amount and type of hours worked (and where certain shifts are more remunerative than others), could make a showing that the failure to assign additional shifts effectively subjects the plaintiff to ‘reduced pay, diminished opportunity for promotion, reduced responsibility, or lower rank.’”[5] The Court accordingly found that the employee had sufficiently alleged an adverse action and the facts demonstrated a link between her seeking legal advice and the adverse action by the employer.

If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.



[1] Ortiz v. Big Bear Events, LLC, 3:12-CV-341-RJC-DCK, 2013 WL 247444 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2013)

[2] Doc. No. 1–1: Complaint at ¶¶ 23, 36

[5] See Footnote 1.

Keywords: shifts, adverse action, discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office

Employee Alleging Quid Pro Quo Harassment Could Not Show Her Termination Was Linked to Sexual Relations with Employer

In a Connecticut case decided earlier this year from the Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, where a female employee was sexually involved with her employer, her claims of quid pro quo harassment and constructive discharge were dismissed because she could not demonstrate sex was an implicit condition of her employment and the cessation of their relations caused her termination.[1]

From February 2008 to February 2010, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, Post Road, as an office assistant.  Beginning in 2006 before the employment relationship began, the plaintiff and Mr. Castellana, the president of her later employer, had sexual relations on numerous occasions.  At some point in 2009 the casual relations developed into a dating relationship.  In May of 2009, the plaintiff moved into Castellana’s home and while there, the parties engaged in sexual relations on a regular basis. In September of the same year she moved out of Castellana’s home and into his condominium with her children pursuant to a month-to-month tenancy.  The sexual relationship continued roughly until her the time of her termination.  The plaintiff alleged that on February 19, 2010 they had an argument over their relationship which culminated in his request that she discontinue working for Post Road. She believed that although their sexual relationship had ended she could have continued working for Post Road by separating her personal life from her business life.[2]  Castellana testified that it was her decision to break off the relationship and that his decision to terminate her employment had nothing to do with the cessation of their sexual relationship.

The female employee sued her former employer, alleging that her employment was terminated in violation of Gen.Stat. § 46a–60(a)(8).  She alleged that the sexual relationship was an “implicit term or condition of plaintiff’s employment” and that “the termination of the relationship was the sole basis for the defendant’s decision” to terminate her employment.[3]

Connecticut’s Employment Discrimination Law at Section 46a–60(a)(8), provides:

“It shall be a discriminatory practice in violation of this section: For an employer, by the employer or the employer’s agent, for an employment agency, by itself or its agent, or for any labor organization, by itself or its agent, to harass any employee, person seeking employment or member on the basis of sex or gender identity or expression. “Sexual harassment” shall, for the purposes of this section, be defined as any or any conduct of a sexual nature when (A) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of any individual’s employment, (B) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (C) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.”

In applying this statute Connecticut courts followed federal case law for guidance. [4] Traditionally, a claim of sexual harassment under federal law proceeded on one of two theories: (1) quid pro quo—e.g. favorable treatment in return for sexual favors-or (2) hostile work environment. “In the typical case of quid pro quo sexual harassment the superior … extort(s) sexual consideration from an employee.”[5]  The 2nd Circuit’s decision in Gallagher v. Delaney [6] supported the plaintiff’s position that Section 46a–60(a)(8) is violated when the sexual relationship is a motivating factor in the employment decision.  There the Court stated, the discontinuance of sexual favors by either the employee or employer “was used as the basis for decisions affecting … the conditions or privileges of her employment.”

In denying the employee’s claim for quid pro quo harassment under Section 46a–60(a)(8) the Court held, “There was no evidence from which an inference may reasonably be drawn that sex was a condition of the plaintiff’s hiring or retention of her employment. Although unquestionably the parties engaged in sexual relations during the employment relationship both on and off the premises, there was no credible evidence that the cessation of the sexual relationship was the cause of the termination.”[7] The Court based its conclusion on two facts: prior to and during the plaintiff’s employment both parties were nonexclusive and sexually active with other partners and the plaintiff’s email sent on March 1, 2010 to the Castellana apologized to her hurtful treatment to him and thanked him for his years of care and attention.  The Court found her approbation of their relationship belied her assertion that the discontinuance of the sexual relationship caused her termination of employment.  Similarly, her testimony that she would have continued working for the defendant after the relations because she could have kept her business life separate from her personal life suggested that the sexual relationship was not an implicit condition or term of her employment.  Sex was not implicit in the employment relationship and therefore did not constitute quid pro quo harassment under Section 46a–60(a)(8).

Sexual relations in the workplace can be the product of quid pro quo sexual harassment; it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about sexual harassment and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 


[1] Meyer v. Post Rd. Auto Body Shop, Inc., FSTCV106007251S, 2013 WL 538954 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 8, 2013)

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Brittel v. Department of Correction, 247 Conn. 148, 164 (1998).

[5] Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 910 (1982).

[6] Gallagher v. Delaney, 139 F.3d 338, 346 (2d cir.1998)

[7] Meyer v. Post Rd. Auto Body Shop, Inc., FSTCV106007251S, 2013 WL 538954

 

Keywords: discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office

Court Allows Title VII Claim of Hostile Work Environment Where Sexual Relationship with Supervisor

In a Federal District Court case decided this year, the Court held that an employee engaged in a sexual relationship with her supervisor, of which other managers had knowledge, could proceed with a claim for hostile work environment and constructive discharge against her employer.[1]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought an action on behalf of three female former employees of a sports apparel retailer, alleging claims for sexual harassment by the store general manager, Fulton, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The employer, Finish Line, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.[2]

Fulton was General Manager for the Cool Spring location of Finish Line.  As General Manager, thirty-eight-year-old Fulton, hired and fired all store employees, set weekly work schedules, disciplined employees and supervised all store employees.  In 2008 and 2009 Fulton hired two Assistant Managers who had a duty to report any allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct that violated Defendant’s policies.

Between December 2008 and March 2009, Fulton hired three minor females.  Within weeks of hiring the first employee, 16 year-old Roberts, Fulton began making unwelcome comments toward Roberts and initiating physical conduct.  Roberts alleged that while at work Fulton would rub her back, hug her multiple times in a day, and run his hand down her back to her buttocks.  Roberts found Fulton’s touching of her unwelcome for approximately a month, and initially stated her opposition to Fulton’s touching.[3] In April 2009, Roberts accepted an invitation to watch a movie at Fulton’s home and while there voluntarily engaged in intercourse with Fulton.  Fulton and Roberts began having sex on a weekly basis.[4]  Roberts continued to maintain her physical relationship with Fulton out of fear of being transferred to another store location.  In October Roberts’ parents learned about the relationship and reported the matter to the police who arrested Fulton and charged him with statutory rape.[5]  Roberts never returned to work at the Defendant’s store.  While the Assistant Managers of Finish Line were aware of “rumors” that Roberts and Fulton were engaged in a romantic relationship outside of work, neither reported this information as a violation of company policy.

To establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment or a sexually hostile work environment under Title VII, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on her sex; (4) that the harassment created a hostile work environment; and (5) that the employer failed to take reasonable care to prevent or correct any sexually harassing behavior.[6]  To be actionable, sexual harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment.

In finding that Fulton’s alleged touching by the minor employee could be unwelcome, the Court noted the sexual conduct took place in the employment setting, Fulton’s role as a supervisor, Roberts’ 16 year-old age, and the twenty two age difference between Roberts and her manager.[7]

Finish Line asserted that it could not be found liable because it satisfied the Ellerth’s requirements by exercising through its harassment policies reasonable care to prevent and correct sexually harassing behavior and Roberts did not report any alleged harassment.  The District Court stated with regard to supervisors in the workplace, “it is no longer enough for an employer to take corrective action; employers now have an affirmative duty to prevent sexual harassment by supervisors.”[8] The widespread “rumors” the assistant managers heard triggered their affirmative duty to take steps to prevent any harassment. The Court concluded there is sufficient evidence the assistant managers had knowledge of unwelcome sexual harassment the managers had an affirmative duty to inform Finish Line of any alleged romantic relationship between Roberts, a minor, and Fulton about which they may have known.[9]  With these determinations made, the Court allowed the employees’ claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge to proceed.

If you are the victim of sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace, it is imperative that you consult with an experienced employment law practitioner.  The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about Title VII and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.


[1] E.E.O.C. v. Finish Line, Inc., 3:11-CV-00920, 2013 WL 139523 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 10, 2013)

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[7] E.E.O.C. v. Finish Line, Inc.

[8] Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 561 (6th Cir.1999).

[9] E.E.O.C. v. Finish Line, Inc.

Keyworsd: discrimination, harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, gender, gender discrimination, gender inequality, gender equality, equal pay, equal opportunity, civil rights, sexual orientation, work discrimination, workplace discrimination, harassment in the workplace, harassment at work, workplace harassment, discrimination in the workplace, discrimination law, age discrimination, sex discrimination, touching, inappropriate, women discrimination, women, pregnancy, racial discrimination, abuse, sexual harassment attorney, employment, employment discrimination, hiring discrimination, job discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, employment, work, workplace, employer, employee, supervisor, hostile work environment, retaliation, EEOC, CHRO, Civil Rights Act, quid pro quo harassment, Title VII, bullying, bullying workplace, gender workplace, harassment policy, workers rights, attorneys at law, employee rights, employee lawyer, discrimination lawyer, employment lawyer, employment law, New York law, Connecticut law, employment attorney, employment law attorney, employment law lawyer, discrimination attorney, harassment attorney, labor attorney, labor lawyers, lawyer, lawyers, attorney, attorneys, civil rights attorney, find a lawyer, new york attorney, new york lawyer, lawyers in nyc, lawyers in Connecticut, employment labor, unemployment, lawyers in ct, ct lawyers, free consultation, find an attorney, legal attorney, legal advice, lawyers Connecticut, attorneys Connecticut, Connecticut law, lawyers Fairfield, lawyers Westport, new haven attorney, Bridgeport attorney, Hartford attorney, Stamford attorney, employment NY, law office, Connecticut law office