Posts tagged with "Mayalaw.com"

What’s In a Separation Agreement?

With the economy where it is, the employment lawyers in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. are frequently asked to review and negotiate separation agreements for terminated employees.  These agreements often appear similar in form and content but must be carefully scrutinized, as they can contain hidden “trip wires” that can have a profound and long-lasting effect on the former employee’s job prospects.  Here are some of the things to look out for.

Most separation agreements contain restrictive covenants—confidentiality, non-solicitation, or non-competition clauses.  The first two—confidentiality and non-solicitation—are typically non-controversial, as they often confirm pre-existing obligations owed an employer by a former employee.  The last—non-competition—is usually a point of contention, as it impacts directly the employee’s ability to find a new position.  We have blogged extensively on non-competes, their interpretation and enforceability, etc. and readers are invited to review those prior posts.  But other terms and conditions of a separation agreement deserve your attention, as well.

First of all, do not be surprised by the length of a separation agreement.  A federal statute called the Older Worker’s Benefit and Protection Act requires the inclusion of extensive release language, and such things as a 21 day review and seven day revocation period.  Here are some of the other things you should be on the lookout for:

  • Consideration: 

Make sure all of the severance benefits are correct and clearly stated.  This includes severance pay, COBRA coverage, etc.  Do not leave anything to inference or implication.

  • Confirmation that No Claims Exist/Covenant Not to Sue:

Notwithstanding the comprehensive release language, some separation agreements will also require the employee to state that he/she is not aware of any factual basis to support any charge or complaint and that the employee will forego suit, even if such a claim exists.

  • Non-disparagement:

Both sides often agree that neither will say anything to disparage the other.  Sometimes (particularly in the financial industry), a separation agreement will contain a “carve out” for employer reporting to FINRA or the SEC.  In such a case, it is important to have the agreement state that as of the employee’s separation date, the employer was not aware of any reportable event or information that would warrant comment or notation on a Form U-5.

  • Governing Law: 

Employment law does not travel well across state lines.  For example, California law is much different than Connecticut’s.  Large companies will sometimes have their separation agreements governed by the law of the state where it has its headquarters, irrespective of the actual place of work of the departing employee.

  • Acknowledgement of Non-Revocation:

An employee has seven days within which to revoke acceptance of a separation agreement.  Some companies adopt a “belt and suspenders” approach and require the employee to acknowledge in writing a negative—that they have not revoked such acceptance.


The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues.  203-221-3100.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Connecticut and New York

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.

Federal Court Found Form U-4 and FINRA Rules to Constitute a Sufficient Basis for an Arbitration Agreement Between the Parties

Lawrence R. Gilmore v. Scott T. Brandt, 2011 WL 5240421 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2011).

In a case before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Lawrence Gilmore (“Gilmore”) filed a motion to confirm the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) arbitration award in his favor, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9.  Scott Brandt (“Brandt”) responded by filing a motion to vacate the FINRA award pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10.  The court granted Gilmore’s motion to confirm the award, entered judgment for the award, and denied Brandt’s motion to vacate the award.

Case Details

The dispute underlying the FINRA arbitration began when Brandt, a representative of Lighthouse Capital Corporation, suggested that Gilmore invest $92,000 in Diversified Lending Group, Inc. (“DLG”).  Gilmore made the investment, which was quickly decimated.  Gilmore alleged that DLG was a Ponzi scheme and filed a Statement of Claim with FINRA.  Rather than seek a stay of arbitration, Brandt contested the issue of arbitrability by appending a statement of jurisdictional objection to his FINRA Arbitration Submission Agreement and raising jurisdictional objections throughout the arbitration proceedings.

FINRA appointed a panel of arbitrators to hear the matter; however, the arbitration panel did not directly address Brandt’s jurisdictional challenge.  In December 2010, the panel issued an arbitration award in Gilmore’s favor for compensatory damages of $106,024.68, post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

Arbitrability of a Dispute

In his motion for vacatur, Brandt argued that he never entered into an arbitration agreement with Gilmore; therefore, their dispute should not have been subjected to arbitration. The district court found that Brandt had sufficiently preserved his objection to arbitrability, and that it fell to the court to decide whether the dispute was in fact arbitrable.

Because arbitration is entirely a matter of contract, a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute that it has not agreed to submit to arbitration. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52, 57 (1995).  When Brandt first sought to be licensed to sell securities, he executed a Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (“Form U-4”), which contained a section agreeing “to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm, or a customer, or any other person, that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions, or by-laws of [FINRA].”

The court determined that the agreement embodied in Brandt’s Form U-4 would constitute an agreement to arbitrate the dispute with Gilmore only if FINRA rules required this dispute to be arbitrated.

FINRA Rule 12200

FINRA Rule 12200 is a broad provision that generally applies to any customer dispute arising in connection with the business activities of a FINRA member.  Specifically, FINRA Rule 12200 requires that a dispute must be arbitrated under the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure if: (1) arbitration is required by written agreement or requested by a customer; (2) the dispute is between a customer and a FINRA member or associated person; and (3) the dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the FINRA member or associated person.

By submitting his Statement of Claim to FINRA for arbitration, Gilmore was clearly requesting arbitration of the dispute.  The district court found that Gilmore was in a customer relationship with Brandt because Brandt had induced him to invest in DLG.

The Court’s Decision

Additionally, the district court found that Gilmore’s claims related to Brandt’s recommendation of an investment in particular securities fell within the class of disputes reasonably regulated by FINRA.  Therefore, the district court determined that FINRA Rule 12200 required the dispute between Gilmore and Brandt be submitted to arbitration.  Because of this result, Brandt’s U-4 Form was determined to be his agreement to submit to arbitration of the dispute.

Because the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the award decision is entitled to deference by the federal court.  9 U.S.C. § 9-11.  Because Brandt provided no argument that satisfied the statutory grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), the court granted Gilmore’s motion for confirmation of the arbitration award of compensatory damages of $106,024.68, with interest, and attorneys’ fees.


Should you have any questions relating to FINRA or arbitration issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County, Connecticut at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Mediating a Sexual Harassment Claim

Statistically, the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment cases are resolved prior to trial by “alternate dispute resolution” in the form of mediation or arbitration.  These proceedings (mediation in particular) are more informal than a courtroom trial, but you still need a zealous and experienced advocate on your side.

Fairfield County is home to many Fortune 1000 companies.  Executives from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Norwalk, Westport, and Fairfield come to Maya Murphy, P.C. for legal counsel and trial advocacy when they have been victims of sexual harassment.  Sometimes these cases are adjudicated administratively before the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and tried before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  More often, however, they gain closure through non-binding mediation before a disinterested third party—frequently a retired federal or state judge.

Taking a Case to Federal Court

Maya Murphy recently represented a senior female executive of a large company who had been sexually harassed by her direct report, i.e., her “boss.”  A preliminary investigation indicated that the claimant had a solid cause of action and we immediately filed a Complaint with CHRO as a predicate to suing in federal court, if the need arose.  As is often the case, however, counsel for the employer suggested mediation.  Because mediation can produce an acceptable and quicker result if it is handled properly, our client agreed.  The parties proceeded to mediate before a mutually selected retired U.S. District Judge and the case settled for a representative six-figure sum.

The key to successful mediation of a sexual harassment claim is always to be prepared to take your case to trial in federal court.  Stated differently, the key to successful mediation is always to be prepared to walk away if the process is not leading toward an acceptable settlement.  This takes courage on the part of the claimant and discipline on the part of her attorney.  If, however, the attorney has approached the mediation with all the seriousness and intensity of a jury trial, more often than not, a settlement can be achieved on terms approaching a best-case, in-court scenario.

Mediation Statements

Virtually all mediators require preliminary submission of a confidential “mediation statement” outlining the factual and legal parameters of the underlying claim.  For the seasoned trial lawyer, the mediation statement is both his Stradivarius violin and his Louisville Slugger baseball bat.  A well-crafted mediation statement can both tug at the mediator’s heart strings and pound incessantly at egregious facts and undisputed points of law.

Simply stated, mediation success depends in large measure on the quality of the mediation statement and its ability to persuade the mediator in the first instance that the claimant’s cause is well-founded and the law requires fair and just compensation.  Lawyers who submit “pro-forma” mediation statements do so at their client’s risk.  Such statements should be as comprehensive and compelling as any trial memorandum or appellate brief submitted to a court of law.

Reasonableness

Another key to mediation success is “reasonableness.”  In sexual harassment cases, emotions run high and client expectations have to be properly managed.  An experienced litigator can evaluate a case and establish for the client a “realm of reason” within which the case should be able to settle.  This is often a function of experience and ensures that any agreed upon settlement reflects the true value of the underlying case without “leaving any money on the table” as negotiations unfold.

Here, an experienced mediator can be of assistance in managing the expectations of a client and rounding down an unrealistic demand by counsel.  At the end of the day, however, attorney and client have to be prepared to walk away from the mediation if the mediator’s “shuttle diplomacy” is not moving the parties toward a reasonable and rational compromise.  Litigation always remains as a viable alternative and the lawyer who is prepared for mediation will be prepared for trial, as well.


The employment lawyers at Maya Murphy who handle sexual harassment cases throughout Connecticut are equally adept at mediating or trying such cases.  We approach each case with the intention and attention that it deserves.

Use of Word “Bitch” Does Not Automatically Imply Gender-Based Hostility

A work environment is considered “hostile” if a reasonable person would have found it so and if the plaintiff subjectively so perceived it.  Outrageous conduct and egregious acts that are severe or pervasive automatically command an inference of gender-based hostility.  In the workplace of today, crude or degrading epithets, while hardly the rule, are certainly not the exception.  One such word—“bitch”—has seemingly found a place of its own in some people’s daily vocabulary.  The question arises as to whether constant use of that word in relation to a female employee is sex-based and reflects hostility toward women.  The short answer is it can, but doesn’t necessarily have to.

A Relevant Court Case

In a federal court case, a female field technician for a cable company filed suit based upon a veritable litany of gender-based abuse.  She alleged male technicians received better assignments, more overtime, and required tools and equipment.  In addition to disparately harsh working conditions, she also alleged that her foremen continually referred to her as a “bitch.”  An appellate court found based upon the record before it that constant use of the word was sex-based and reflected hostility to women.  The operative language here is “based upon the record before it.”

The plaintiff argued that the word “bitch” is such an intensely degrading sexual epithet that its use should automatically result in a finding that it implies hostility toward women.  The court readily acknowledged that the use of that word in a variety of contexts reflects that hostility.  The court rejected, however, a rule that would automatically command from its use an inference of gender-based hostility.

As in so many employment discrimination cases, the finding of a hostile work environment depends upon the totality of the circumstances.  In this case, when grouped with other acts of disparate treatment, constant use of the word “bitch” could reasonably be found to contribute to a subjectively and objectively hostile work environment.

Viewed in isolation, however, it would appear that even repeated reference to a female employee as a “bitch”, without other evidence of other sufficiently severe or pervasive discriminatory acts, will not support a claim of a hostile work environment.  Each case, however, must be assessed on its own particular facts.

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. Please contact our Westport office at 203-221-3100.

Damage Award in Sexual Harassment case reduced from $500,000 to $50,000

In a case before the Supreme Court of New York, the Court modified a $500,000 damage award for mental anguish from sexual harassment to $50,000.  The Court found the half million dollar damage award by the Commissioner of Human Rights excessive and stated, “In sexual harassment proceedings with the State Division of Human Rights, damage awards for mental anguish and humiliation must be based upon actual pecuniary loss and emotional injury; care must be taken to insure that the award is compensatory and not punitive in nature.”[1]

Case Details

The petitioner in the case was a female high school student employed by Young Legends, LLC in a franchise sandwich shop in the City of Norwich.  In January 2007 the teenage employee filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights alleging that Dale Blackwood, her supervisor and the owner of Young Legends, subjected her to sexual harassment during her employment.  She testified about Blackwood’s “touchy feely” interactions with female employees and offensive sexual remarks.[2]

In particular Blackwood put constant pressure on the petitioner to visit him alone in his apartment and when she eventually did so, he forced her to engage in sexual intercourse.  When Blackwood asked her to return to his apartment, she refused.  In a series of angry, insulting text messages he told her that her refusal meant she was quitting her job.

The Damage Award

Following a public hearing the Administrative Law Judge determined that the petitioner had been subjected to quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment and that Blackwood was personally liable.  The Judge recommended a damage award of $1,218.75 for lost wages and $25,000 for mental anguish and humiliation. On administrative review, the Commissioner of Human Rights modified the order by increasing the mental anguish award to $500,000.[3]

On appeal the Supreme Court of New York indicated that in sexual harassment and discrimination proceedings with the State Division of Human Rights, damage awards for mental anguish and humiliation must be based on actual pecuniary loss and emotional injury.  Damage awards are meant to compensate the victim rather than be punitive in nature.  While Blackwood’s conduct was completely reprehensible, the court compared the evidence to similar sexual harassment and discrimination cases to conclude that the Commissioner’s award was excessive and reduced it to $50,000.[4]

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment 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 a sexual harassment claim or 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] New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Young Legends, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 1265, 1269-70 (2011)

[2] Id. at 1266.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 1270.

Hostile Work Environment vs. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

As an employment law attorney I can get too accustomed to the legal jargon.  One question frequently asked by prospective clients is “what is the difference between hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment?”  While both types of employment discrimination are illegal and actionable, they can take very different forms.

Perhaps the most succinct explanation of the two causes of action comes from a four-year old Connecticut Appellate Court case: Quid pro quo sexual harassment, as its name suggests, conditions employment on the return of sexual favors; hostile environment sexual harassment is conduct that “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”

There is a related variant, retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment, that also gives rise to a cause of action but which must be separately pleaded and proven.  That is why a victim of sexual harassment or retaliation should consult with an experienced employment law litigator before framing the particular allegations of a lawsuit.  At trial, you will be held to the allegations of your Complaint and limited to presenting only evidence in support of your claims.  Thus, if you plead quid pro quo, you may not be able to prove hostile work environment, or vice versa.


The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues.  Please contact our Westport office at 203-221-3100.

What Is a Constructive Discharge?

Employment Resignation

Hopefully, you have never been fired—that is a discharge or termination.  Sometimes, however, an employee has no reasonable alternative to quitting—that is a constructive discharge.  The involuntary nature of the employee’s “quit” may enable him or her to claim the constructive discharge as an adverse employment action so as to maintain a claim for employment discrimination.  An employee’s reasonable decision to resign because of unendurable working conditions is, for remedial purposes, equated to a formal discharge.

A constructive discharge occurs when an employer indirectly, but deliberately, makes an employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced involuntarily to resign.  The key points of inquiry are the employer’s intentional conduct and the intolerable level of the employee’s working conditions.  The standard for evaluation is objective–how would a reasonable employee behave in the particular employee’s shoes?  Subjective feelings as to the intolerable nature of the employee’s position cannot support a finding of constructive discharge.

Establishing Constructive Discharge

In assessing a claim of constructive discharge, individual factors, standing alone, may be insufficient to carry the day.  For this reason, the pertinent conditions are aggregated since a reasonable person encounters life’s circumstances cumulatively rather than individually.  Some routine workplace events— e.g. a poor performance appraisal, lack of training, or increased job demands—are to be expected and do not support an inference that a reasonable person would be “compelled” to resign.  The standard for constructive discharge goes beyond difficult or unpleasant working conditions.

As is so often the case in employment law, the presence of a constructive discharge depends upon the circumstances of the particular employee involved.  If you feel that your employer deliberately made your work environment intolerable and that you were forced to quit, you should confer with a seasoned employment law litigator to determine your rights.


The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. Please contact our offices at 203-221-3100.

School Secretary Wins $100G Discrimination Suit

After seven years of allegedly suffering constant harassment as well as verbal and physical abuse, School Board 8’s long-time secretary won a $100,000 discrimination settlement with the Board of Education for their lack of disciplining Dennis Coleman. The controversial school board member at the center of the harassment case still remains on the board.

Two years after the lawsuit was filed and weeks before the trial was to begin, Board of Ed officials agreed to settle and pay Maureen Grogan $100,000. Grogan filed a lawsuit against the Board of Ed, former Chancellor Rudy Crew and board members Dennis Coleman and Rose Foley. The long-time secretary claimed that Crew and the Board of Ed did nothing to discipline Coleman after he repeatedly harassed her.

“Think of how many books and blackboards and pencils the Board of Ed could have bought with $100,000,” said Grogan’s attorney Joseph Maya of Maya and Associates, a law firm which specializes in employment discrimination lawsuits. During the course of the pre-trial hearings, Coleman’s counterclaims of slander were thrown out. However, despite the settlement over the way he allegedly harassed his employee over a seven-year period, Coleman remains on the school board. Calls made to him were not returned. Board of Ed officials also did not return the News’ calls.

Lawsuit Details

In the suit, Grogan claimed that she had been the target of harassment and discrimination when she refused to lie in an investigation into age discrimination. Coleman allegedly refused to hire a woman for a position with the school board because she was too old. Grogan told investigators this and was allegedly intimidated from that point on.

According to the lawsuit, in October 1992, Coleman called Grogan at her home and demanded that she recant statements she made to an agent of the Office of Special Investigations. The school board member allegedly threatened Grogan with losing her job with her husband out of work at the time and her two children in college.

Grogan told the Investigations agent about the alleged threats and thereafter was subjected to a daily hostile work environment which included being ignored, shunned and given contradictory instructions and work-related directions. She was also allegedly threatened with innuendoes regarding the timing of her pension vesting. The suit also claimed that Coleman would repeatedly yell at her over trivial matters such as his mail.

As a result, Grogan said she was forced to see a psychiatrist because of the stress placed upon her. She also took an extended leave in 1993. When she returned, Grogan found that most of her work, which included sensitive confidential material was turned over to a temporary office worker who was not a Board of Ed employee and was not qualified to handle confidential material.

Grogan’s Claims

Afterward, Grogan claims Coleman continuously made disparaging comments about her appearance, her intelligence and her ability to understand school board rules and regulations. During one school board meeting in December 1994, Coleman allegedly accused Grogan of discrimination and of being a member of the mafia. Grogan countered by filing a formal complaint alleging that Coleman was discriminating against her and was harassing her. After a review, no action was taken by the Board of Ed.

Grogan claims that after this incident Coleman began to publicly humiliate her at every school board meeting. The secretary wrote a letter to Crew’s office but no action was taken. Then in October 1996, Coleman assaulted Grogan during a heated exchange at a school board meeting. After a review of the matter, Crew scolded Coleman’s actions but did not discipline him.

Grogan was continuously harassed during meetings and on a daily basis until she quit from the strain in June 1999. She then filed a lawsuit against the parties.

By Daniel Gesslein

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment 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 workplace discrimination or harassment or any other employment law matter or to schedule a consultation, 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.

A Woman’s Rights – 3 Who Fought Back and Won

A cleaning woman, who speaks no English, is raped by a supervisor. A plumber’s boss insists that she change into work clothes in front of male employees. A proofreader is fondled by a coworker. Other employees tell obscene jokes and make sexist remarks. All three women filed complaints with the New York City Commission on Human Rights – and won.

“Discrimination is a strange animal. So many people don’t realize they are doing it,” said Joseph Maya, the attorney who handled the three cases. “I have cases all the time where someone has been subjected to sexual harassment, one of the most traumatic experiences a person could have.”

“Even with such serious charges, often the respondents don’t think they harassed. They think theirs is a natural reaction to a woman.”

Maya said the city agency investigates every complaint, and if someone “fears retaliation, we will prosecute a retaliation complaint too.”

He said the agency also tries to get companies to implement and adopt sexual harassment policies, telling employees it won’t be tolerated.

“Companies could save thousands of dollars by establishing such policies,” said Maya.

The proofreader he represented received $44,200 from her employer. The plumber got $18,000 and a separate changing area. The cleaning woman got an undisclosed amount and all supervisors in her company were required to attend sensitivity training.

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 throughout Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about sexual harassment or workplace discrimination or would like to schedule a consultation, 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.