Posts tagged with "workplace discrimination"

Secretary Sues Board of Ed for Racial Discrimination

A Bronx school employee is suing the Board of Education for $100 million for employment discrimination – saying she was denied a transfer, even though officials knew she was being harassed by her boss. Maureen Grogan, 54, a secretary at Community School Board District 8 since 1977, said Dennis Coleman – president of the School Boards Association and a Board 8 member – began harassing her five years ago.

In July, the board agreed she had been the victim of racial discrimination and harassment by Coleman – but refused to further suspend him, or offer her a position in a different office. The Board of Education did not provide a comment.

New York Post
By LINDA MASSARELLA


If you have questions regarding employment discrimination or any employment matter, contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.

Dennis Coleman’s Bad Behavior Costs Board of ED $100G

The city’s Board of Education settled a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former Bronx School Board employee for $100,000.

The Lawsuit

The suit, filed against the Board of Ed and others by Maureen Grogan, a long-time secretary at Community School Board 8, alleged sexual and racial harassment and assault by Dennis Coleman, a member and former president of that board.  A counterclaim made by Coleman, alleging that Grogan’s accusations were false and defamatory, was dismissed by the court also last week.

Coleman, at one time a State Senator for a short period in the mid-1960s, was suspended by then School Chancellor Rudy Crew several years ago in connection with his behavior over an incident during a school board meeting. A tape of the meeting revealed that he had yelled at a parent in attendance, and shoved Grogan, re-injuring an old neck problem she suffered from.

Coleman is still a member of the Board. The suit, which alleged a pattern of discrimination that stretched through years, added fuel to the fire of that board’s already hot flames of racial division. Grogan’s suit claimed that Coleman would regularly treat her in an abusive fashion, making her feel “insulted and humiliated.”

An investigation by the Office of Equal Opportunity Employment into the allegations found grounds substantiating at least some of Grogan’s claims. Despite the findings, however, Board of Education officials did not reprimand Coleman, sparking the suit filed by Grogan’s lawyer, Joseph Maya, in federal court for the Southern District of New York.

The Settlement

Coleman was later suspended in connection with the incident at the school board meeting. In Crew’s harsh suspension letter to Coleman at that time, the school’s chancellor had said that Coleman’s actions, “went beyond that of antagonism and rudeness and crossed the line beyond which elected school board members can go… your vilification of parents, as well as your shouting at colleagues and staff … are indefensible.”

Coleman could not be reached for comment as of press time. Board of Education officials were also unavailable for comment as of press time. Maya, reached by phone, called the settlement a “tremendous victory” for his client.

“It really is a victory for her to be vindicated,” Maya said. “And to have Dennis Coleman’s counterclaims dismissed.”

Maya called the entire incident a shame, saying that “The children of New York City should not be burdened with losing $100,000 for this sort of thing.”

According to Maya, last week’s settlement came after long negotiations between both parties. He called the discrimination suffered by his client “egregious and systemic.”

By DAVID CRITCHELL

Is a Bonus a ‘Wage’?: Not According to this Connecticut Supreme Court Decision

Are you currently employed in Connecticut and have been promised a year-end bonus or had been promised a year-end bonus and never received it?   A Connecticut Supreme Court decision may affect the amount of protection you are afforded under Connecticut law if your employer defaults or has defaulted on that promise.

This case addressed the question of whether a year-end bonus promised by an employer is considered a ‘wage’ for the purposes of the Connecticut Wage Act.  Answering that question in the negative, the Supreme Court denied a Connecticut employee the ability to proceed with a wrongful withholding of wages claim that he had initially pursued after his employer failed to pay out what the employee had thought to be a promised year-end bonus.

The Conditions of a Bonus Payment

Under this decided Supreme Court case, the amount of liability your employer will face for failing to pay out a promised year-end bonus will hinge upon how your employer defined the conditions under which a bonus would be paid.  If the conditions are specific goals set for you as an individual employee (e.g. a certain number of billable hours need to be reached), then under the Connecticut Wage Act your employer will be required to pay out that bonus as wages in accordance with their promise.

If they do not, you are afforded the protections of the Wage Act and can bring an action against your employer for wrongfully withholding wages.  In the case that this action is successful, it is possible that you could receive, by way of damages, twice the full amount of your bonus and any attorney fees incurred in pursuing the action.  In addition, due to the serious nature of such an offense, your employer could potentially be fined and/or imprisoned for their actions.

Unfortunately, however, if your employer was more ambiguous about the requisite conditions for a bonus, under this new case law, it is likely that they will be able to avoid liability for wrongfully withholding your wages.  If that is the case, while you can still pursue other causes of action against your employer, you will not be able to receive twice the full amount of your bonus or attorney fees.

Case Details

The events of this case unfolded as follows:   At the beginning of the employment relationship between an employee and a Connecticut law firm, the parties agreed that the employee’s annual compensation would consist of a base salary and a year-end bonus.  The employment contract called for this year-end bonus to be based on factors such as seniority, business generation, productivity, professional ability, pro bono work, and loyalty to the firm.

The employee remained at the firm for several years and each year he received his salary and the promised year-end bonus.  When the employee left the firm he discovered that he was not going to receive the year-end bonus for that last year of his employment.  To try and recover what he had thought was a promised bonus; the employee commenced an action against his employer alleging breach of contract and wrongful withholding of wages.

The Court’s Decision

The trial court dismissed the wrongful withholding of wages claim, determining that the year-end bonus was not ‘wages’ as defined by the Connecticut Wage Act.  The breach of contract claim, however, went to trial.  The Trial Court found in favor of the employee and awarded him damages in the amount of his year-end bonus plus interest.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding as to the breach of contract claim but reversed the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the wrongful withholdings of wages claim.  The Appellate Court determined that the structure of the agreement as to the year-end bonus meant that the bonus could have been classified as ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act and therefore held that the employee could proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

The issue of the wrongful withholdings of wages claim was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court where the Court decided that because the employee’s bonus was discretionary, (not ascertainable by applying a formula) it did not constitute ‘wages’ under the Connecticut Wage Act.  The employee, therefore, was not able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages claim.

Although the employee did recover some monetary damages through his breach of contract claim, it was not anywhere near as much as he would have received if he had been able to proceed with his wrongful withholding of wages action.

Importance of Knowing the Terms of Your Bonus

It is quite possible that after the release of this opinion many employers will revisit their bonus policies to make the language a little less precise or announce that their bonuses are discretionary in order to take advantage of the protections afforded under this case.  It is important, therefore, that as an employee you are aware of what kind of bonus you have been promised so that you know how strongly to rely on that promised bonus and what options are available to you if the employer refuses to pay.

If you have already been denied your year-end bonus and believe that it was a discretionary bonus, there are still ways in which you can potentially recover that lost income, such as the breach of contract claim pursued by the employee in this case.  If you have been denied a year-end bonus that was not discretionary and you had met the required conditions for receiving that bonus, you are still protected under the Connecticut Wage Act and can bring a wrongful withholding of wages action against your employer.  This action may allow you to receive damages in the amount double your bonus and possibly receive any incurred attorney fees.

If you have any questions regarding employment and labor law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He can be reached at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com. Mr. Maya handles cases involving employment contracts, separation agreements, non-competition agreements, restrictive covenants, union arbitrations, and employment discrimination cases in New York and Connecticut.

Can an Employee Who Waived Discrimination Claims in a Severance Agreement Still Sue for Discrimination?

If an employee who signed an agreement waiving discrimination claims later files a lawsuit asserting such claims, he or she will argue that the waiver is legally invalid while the employer will, of course, argue the opposite.  A court, therefore, would have to determine whether the waiver is valid and binding on the employee before considering the substance of the underlying discrimination action.

A waiver in a severance agreement generally is valid if the employee knowingly and voluntarily consented to it.  Courts look to different factors to determine whether the consent was knowing and voluntary, and this could depend upon the statute under which the discrimination action is brought.  While some courts rely on traditional contract interpretation principles and focus on whether the language of the waiver was clear, most courts will look at a number of factors, or what is referred to as “the totality of the circumstances,” to determine if the employee knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to bring a lawsuit.

Analyzing Waivers in Employment Agreements

When an employee asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Equal Pay Act, courts considering the totality of circumstances will look to:

  • Whether the waiver was clear, specific (e.g., explicitly referred to the types of claims being waived), and written in a way that the employee could understand given his or her education and experience;
  • Whether the waiver was induced by fraud, duress, undue influence, or other improper conduct by the employer;
  • Whether the employee had enough time to consider the waiver and the advantages or disadvantages of signing it;
  • Whether the employee consulted an attorney or was encouraged or discouraged from doing so by the employer;
  • Whether the employee had input in negotiating the terms of the agreement; and
  • Whether the employer offered the employee consideration, such as additional pay or benefits, beyond what the employee was already entitled to by law or under a contract, and the employee accepted this consideration.
Lawsuits Under ADEA

When an employee brings a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), courts will look to additional factors under this statute to determine whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary.  For example, the waiver for an ADEA claim must specifically refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA, must advise the employee to consult with an attorney, must provide the employee with at least 21 days to consider the offer and a further seven days to revoke his or her signature, and the waiver may not include any rights or claims that arise after the date the waiver is signed.

Accordingly, if some or all of the factors listed above are not met, an employer may still face exposure to a discrimination lawsuit – although it appeared that the company was insulated from due to a waiver signed by its former employee.


Do you need an employment law attorney? Look no further than to the nearly two decades of employment law experience at Maya Murphy. Our lawyers have practiced in the courts of Connecticut and New York on countless employment law issues and can help you with any employment law matter. Contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com for a free consultation today!

Can an Employee Sue for Wrongful Discharge Even Though the Employee Did Not Have an Employment Contract?

In Connecticut, employees who do not have a contract spelling out the duration of their employment are considered “at-will” employees.  In an at-will employment relationship, either party (the employer or the employee) may terminate the employment whenever they choose, for any reason or no reason at all.  Of course, both federal and state laws protect employees from discrimination, including termination, based on gender, race, age, religion, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation, among other things.

However, in limited circumstances, an at-will employee may be able to sue his or her employer for wrongful discharge even without a case of discrimination if the discharge is against public policy, or if the employee can prove that there was an implied employment contract.

The Public Policy Exception

Under the public policy exception, an employee can bring an action for wrongful termination if his or her discharge is contrary to a clear public policy, and the court (rather than a jury) must determine at the outset whether an important public policy is at issue in the case.  Such public policy may be found in constitutional provisions, statutes or in judicially conceived notions.  These would include prohibitions against firing an employee for filing a claim for unemployment benefits, filing a wage enforcement claim, and exercising federal or state constitutional rights, such as religious or free speech rights.

Although courts construe this exception narrowly, some have, for example, held that an employee may maintain an action for wrongful discharge where the plaintiff alleged that he was fired for refusing to participate in a scheme to defraud the government in violation of a federal statute, or was fired for reporting that a supervisor had sold alcohol to a minor in violation of a state statue.

Wrongful Termination

Connecticut courts also recognize a cause of action for wrongful termination based on an implied employment contract.  To prevail on such a claim, the employee must prove that the employer agreed, through words or actions, not to terminate the employee without just cause.  This exception, too, is narrowly construed.  Such claims have arisen where an employee manual was distributed to the now discharged employee that contained language concerning job security (e.g., that the employee could not be discharged without just cause) that he or she relied upon in deciding to remain with his employer.


If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. to discuss your legal remedies today.  An attorney may be reached at 203-221-3100 or by emailing Ask@mayalaw.com.

Can an Employee Who Waived Discrimination Claims in a Severance Agreement Still Sue for Discrimination?

If an employee who signed an agreement waiving discrimination claims later files a lawsuit asserting such claims, he or she will argue that the waiver is legally invalid while the employer will, of course, argue the opposite.  A court, therefore, would have to determine whether the waiver is valid and binding on the employee before considering the substance of the underlying discrimination action.

A waiver in a severance agreement generally is valid if the employee knowingly and voluntarily consented to it.  Courts look to different factors to determine whether the consent was knowing and voluntary, and this could depend upon the statute under which the discrimination action is brought.  While some courts rely on traditional contract interpretation principles and focus on whether the language of the waiver was clear, most courts will look at a number of factors, or what is referred to as “the totality of the circumstances,” to determine if the employee knowingly and voluntarily waived his or her right to bring a lawsuit.

Circumstances of Claims

When an employee asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Equal Pay Act, courts considering the totality of circumstances will look to:

  • Whether the waiver was clear, specific (e.g., explicitly referred to the types of claims being waived), and written in a way that the employee could understand given his or her education and experience;
  • Whether the waiver was induced by fraud, duress, undue influence or other improper conduct by the employer;
  • Whether the employee had enough time to consider the waiver and the advantages or disadvantages of signing it;
  • Whether the employee consulted an attorney or was encouraged or discouraged from doing so by the employer;
  • Whether the employee had input in negotiating the terms of the agreement; and
  • Whether the employer offered the employee consideration, such as additional pay or benefits, beyond what the employee was already entitled to by law or under a contract, and the employee accepted this consideration.
Lawsuits Under ADEA

When an employee brings a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), courts will look to additional factors under this statute to determine whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary.  For example, the waiver for an ADEA claim must specifically refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA, must advise the employee to consult with an attorney, must provide the employee with at least 21 days to consider the offer and a further seven days to revoke his or her signature, and the waiver may not include any rights or claims that arise after the date the waiver is signed.

Accordingly, if some or all of the factors listed above are not met, an employer may still face  exposure to a discrimination lawsuit – although it appeared that company was insulated from due to a waiver signed by its former employee.


Do you need an employment law attorney? Look no further than to the nearly two decades of employment law experience at Maya Murphy. Our lawyers have practiced in the courts of Connecticut and New York on countless employment law issues and can help you with any employment law matter. Call 203-221-3100 or email Ask@mayalaw.com for a free consultation today!

Medical Marijuana Use in the Connecticut Workplace

The news 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 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.

Summary of CT Medical Marijuana Laws

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.

Considering Employer Liability

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

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

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

Case Details

There, a male hairdresser filed suit against his employer alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII and 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.

Avoiding Liability Under the Faragher/Ellerth Defense

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)

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.

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

In a pro se case, 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 a 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’s Claims

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]

Filing an EEOC Charge

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.