- Chicago Mayoral Candidate Targeted Over Anti-Discrimination Legislation
- EEOC Announces Major Pay Discrimination Settlement
- U.S. Supreme Court Will Rule on LGBT Employment Discrimination
What Am I Doing Wrong?? Common FMLA Mistakes lexology.com/library/detail…
Have a Legal Question?
EEOC Announces Major Pay Discrimination Settlement
Multistate diesel engine manufacturer Cummins, Inc. agreed to pay $77,500 to settle a pay discrimination suit out of court. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Nashville worker received less than her male co-workers. Cummins officials reviewed the woman’s salary and concluded that there was a gender gap. But they refused to adjust the woman’s pay. S part of the settlement, Cummins, which also operates in Illinois, agreed to two years of court supervision.
“Employers should provide men and women in the same workplace with equal pay for equal work” because it’s not only fair, “it’s the law,” proclaimed EEOC Memphis Regional Attorney Faye Williams. “Technological and legal advances have made equal pay cases easier than ever to win,” remarked Chicago employment law attorney Jonathan Goldman. “But the EEOC still does not take on this issue very frequently.”
The Equal Opportunity Commission, or a similar state agency, usually has first crack at unequal pay and other employment discrimination cases, he explained.
First file an unequal pay claim with the EEOC before filing in court in order to fully exhaust administrative remedies. There are occasions when the EEOC will take these claims to court, but those occasions are rare. Once the EEOC concluded its investigation, it will issue a Right to Sue letter, which gives the employee 90 days to file in court. When attorneys take these cases, technology often comes into play. Until fairly recently, large companies could bury claimants in papers during discovery. There may be a smoking gun in there somewhere, but it was almost impossible to find. Now, attorneys can feed documents into high-speed scanners, enter search terms, and easily view relevant documents.
If you bring an unequal pay claim in Chicago, the law is on your side.
The Windy City recently passed an ordinance which bans salary history inquiries. That issue may seem unrelated to pay discrimination, but there’s actually a very close link. When they start their careers, many women accept lower wages than their male counterparts. The pay gap gets even larger over time. A woman’s salary may increase, but not as much as a man’s. So, in an unequal pay case, it may not be necessary to look beyond the initial interview and resume requirements. If there is anything illegal, substantial compensation may be available.
That compensation generally includes both back pay, and will require future pay adjustments to match male employees performing the same work. These lost wages are from the date of employment to the current date. A judge will award a reasonable amount of money that the claimant would have earned had she stayed at that job and earned an equal wage. Contact the lawyers at Goldman & Ehrlich to discuss your case.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear three cases this fall concerning LGBT employment discrimination, according to a CBS Chicago report.
Each of the three cases arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law. Ultimately, the Court’s ruling may affect LGBT employees’ rights. The outcome will determine whether LGBT workers can file a federal claim for sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in federal court. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit heard a related case. In an 8-3 decision, the 7th Circuit ruled that Title VII protects LGBT employees. Chief Judge Diane Wood emphasized that sexual orientation discrimination cannot occur without unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling could reverse that decision.
Chicago LGBT employees currently have protections against employment discrimination under the Illinois Human Rights Act.
Currently, the Illinois Human Rights Act applies to employers with at least 15 employees. LGBT rights advocates sought recently to repeal that requirement so that the law would apply to all Illinois employers. The Illinois Legislature even passed a bill to do so. Yet Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed it. While many LGBT employees in Chicago have rights under state law, and under City laws, their protections under federal law will depend on the Supreme Court ruling.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
However, that federal law does not explicitly prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. Courts like the 7th Circuit have ruled that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. Similarly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that Title VII guarantees protections against LGBT discrimination at work.
Yet other courts have disagreed.
Indeed, an example appears in one of the cases that will come before the Supreme Court this fall. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit ruled that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against LGBT employees. The other two cases that will come before the Court found in favor of the LGBT employee who alleged discrimination. Those cases arose out of the 2nd Circuit in New York and the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.
According to Chicago employment discrimination lawyers Arthur R Ehrlich and Jonathan C Goldman, the Supreme Court’s ruling will have profound effects.
Goldman remarked, “the Court could determine that Title VII does not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.” Such a decision could mean that LGBT employees have no protections against discrimination under federal law. In such a situation, LGBT employees in Chicago would only have protections against employment discrimination under state law, Cook County law, and City law. Contact Goldman & Ehrlich today to discuss your case.
Employees and employers alike in the Chicago area should know about a recent class action lawsuit filed against the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC).
The case, Brown v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, alleges employment discrimination on the basis of race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, a state law. The plaintiffs in the case specifically allege that racial discrimination and harassment are part of the University of Illinois’s “standard operating procedure. The case is likely to highlight the harms of racial discrimination in employment. And also underscore the steps that employers must take in drafting and enforcing a non-discrimination policy.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs cite overt and pervasive incidents of racial discrimination and harassment on the basis of race.
For example, the complaint describes threats of racial violence. Including the appearance of nooses, KKK paraphernalia, confederate flags, racist graffiti, and swastikas. Other overt acts of racism, according to the complaint, include racial slurs. Which the plaintiffs allege other employees used against them. Moreover, the complaint also alleges that racial discrimination persisted in more subtle forms. Such as black employees subjected to disrespect from supervisors and coworkers. As well as, being subject to excessive monitoring and scrutinizing from supervisors.
The University has a written non-discrimination policy.
However, as the recent lawsuit alleges, the policy only prohibits racial harassment if it is “sufficiently severe or pervasive”. Is “objectively offensive,” and “unreasonably interferes with, denies. Or if it limits a person’s ability to participate or benefit from employment opportunities, assessment or status at the University.” Accordingly, the plaintiffs argue that the non-discrimination policy permits a hostile work environment that violates both federal and state law.
According to Arthur Ehrlich and Jonathan C. Goldman, Chicago employment discrimination lawyers, “harassment can be a form of employment discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003; when it creates a hostile work environment. An employee has a right to file a claim when facing discrimination on the basis of race.”
It is important to note that this lawsuit comes at a point in which Illinois legislators recently amended the Equal Pay Act of 2003. Which prohibits employers from discrimination against African American employees by paying African American employees lower wages for substantially similar work. This recent change to the law; along with the recent lawsuit against UIUC; should make clear that employment discrimination, on the basis of race, is taken very seriously in Illinois.
Just as the partial government shutdown shuttered the doors at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced a $4.9 million settlement in a religious discrimination case.
According to the agency, the shipping company refused to hire persons with long hair or beards, even if their appearance had a religious reason. Furthermore, UPS delayed religious accommodation requests or denied them outright, according to court documents. The company did not admit liability and characterized the settlement as a business decision. We want “to focus our energy on our hiring and promotion process, rather than lengthy and costly court proceedings,” UPS said in a statement.
The settlement is just the latest in a series of employment discrimination claims against UPS.
The company settled a multimillion-dollar disability discrimination action in 2017, and another religious discrimination action in 2013. “Failure to make a reasonable accommodation is the most common type of religious discrimination in Illinois,” commented Chicago employment law attorney Jonathan Goldman. “But this term confuses many workers. As a result, they give in too quickly and give up too much.”
Most people assume that a phrase like reasonable accommodation means give and take, he explained. But in this context, and as far as the employee is concerned, this process is basically all taking and no giving. If the worker requests a religious accommodation, the employer must grant it unless the request would cause an undue hardship.
For example, assume David works in retail. He is a Christian and he wants Sundays off. His boss is also a Christian, but he feels that the religion does not specifically prohibit working on Sundays. Nevertheless, David’s boss offers to let him off every other Sunday. David might be tempted to take that offer.
But the “not officially recognized” bit is irrelevant. If David’s religious beliefs about Sundays are sincere, the law protects him. In fact, even if David started his own church and embraced certain beliefs, the law would still protect him. It does not matter if the belief was dogmatic or not.
Second, in the “reasonable accommodation” department, David and other workers meet their initial burden by demonstrating their religious beliefs and needs. They do not have to negotiate further unless the employer establishes an undue hardship. Assuming there are other employees who are available to work on Sunday, that defense probably does not apply. That’s true even if the other workers are not as qualified as David. A marginal loss is not the same thing as an undue hardship.
The second form of religious discrimination is decisions that are based, at least in part, on religion.
Typically, these decisions include hiring/firing and promotions/demotions. One would think that employers know the law and would not engage in this activity, but it happens often. For example, an employer could refuse to hire a woman who wears a hijab or give a woman a promotion on the condition that she begin attending church.
A few religious discrimination cases involve employee harassment. If that happens, the employer has a duty to promptly and thoroughly investigate the matter, and then take appropriate action based on the investigation’s results. A breakdown in any phase could give rise to a legal claim.
Contact us today at 312.332.6733 to schedule a free consultation.
Chinatown’s Xing Ying Employment Agency promised workers good wages and pleasant employment conditions.
But instead, according to court documents, the company “essentially acted as central a supply house for a buffet restaurant industry seeking to profit from illegal and exploitative wages and conditions of employment.”
Again according to court documents, the Agency ran advertisements in Chinese-language newspapers targeting immigrant workers. Once these individuals enrolled with the company, the promised lavish wages never appeared. Neither did the promised housing. Many Xing Ying workers lived under an 18th Street bridge. According to a media investigation, Xing Ying was part of a much wider ring of similar exploitative employment services.
These issues are widespread, as “our Civil Rights bureau and workplace rights bureau are always taking complaints,” remarked an Illinois Attorney General spokesperson.
Types of Illegal Discrimination
Like most other jurisdictions, Illinois is an at-will employment state. For the most part, employers may hire and fire employees at any time for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. However, even in this environment, workers have legal rights.
“Workers cannot be fired for an illegal reason, and they must be treated fairly at work,” said Chicago employment law attorney Jonathan Goldman. Fair treatment means minimum wage, no unauthorized paycheck deductions, and no illegal conduct. The types of illegal discrimination include:
- National origin,
- Sexual orientation,
Some forms of discrimination are in a grey area.
For example, the Supreme Court has yet to rule whether transgender discrimination falls into the “sexual orientation” discrimination category under federal law. However, several courts, including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, have found that “gender stereotyping”, expecting a female or male to conform to their gender identities and expected gender character, are illegal. Illinois state law also prohibits transgender discrimination.
To establish an employment discrimination case, the victim must present enough evidence to suggest that the adverse action against the employee was based on discrimination.
Replacing an older employee with a younger employee is often sufficient. The employer must then provide a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. That burden is often easy to meet. Most cases are then fought on the issue of whether the employer’s claimed reason was just a pretext or an excuse for discrimination.
Damages in most employment law cases include both monetary and injunctive relief.
Back wages are often the biggest category of monetary damages. Usually, the parties do not resolve their dispute for many months. Other types of economic damages may be available as well, such as lost health insurance benefits. Additional noneconomic damages may be available as well, such as compensatory damages for the stress and anxiety that a victim of discrimination may suffer.
Injunctive relief is available as well. Sometimes, that could mean reinstatement. Other injunctive relief includes antidiscrimination programs on the job, so other employees are not victimized in the same way.
Contact us today to discuss your case.
Many EEOC cases involve sexual harassment claims. The EEOC is anxious to resolve these cases, and that attitude sometimes works in the defendant’s favor.
On June 25, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Anchor Staffing would pay $30,000 to settle sexual harassment and retaliation allegations. Court documents state that the temporary agency refused to give Ana Magdana more work after she complained about sexual harassment. In addition to paying money, Anchor Staffing must abide by a two-year consent decree.
About a month earlier, the EEOC announced a similar settlement with a Downers Grove Burger King franchise. Heartland Food LLC agreed to pay $55,000 and furnish similar non-monetary relief to resolve sexual harassment claims. The agency said little about that case, besides the fact that a female employee complained about a male manager.
“These two cases are significant for two reasons,” offered Chicago employment attorney Jonathan Goldman. “First, these settlements are not big dollar amounts for big companies. But for regional businesses and small franchisees, $50,000 may be almost a year’s profits. Second, the government is very aggressive in sexual harassment cases, largely because they are easy to prove.”
The Anchor Staffing settlement did not even involve sexual harassment, Mr. Goldman noted. Instead, the EEOC pursued a retaliation claim. As a result, the agency does not need to prove sexual harassment, age discrimination, or anything else. It simply must establish that the defendant took some action against the employee because of the complaint.
Generally, the EEOC need only establish a temporal relationship. If the complaint was on June 1 and the action was on June 15, an employer will be hard-pressed to defeat a retaliation claim. So, we take a very proactive approach and try to resolve these cases as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Details were so sketchy with regard to the Burger King settlement because the employer probably included a confidentiality clause in the settlement, Mr. Goldman speculated. In many cases, the EEOC insists on a slightly larger monetary settlement before it agrees to such a clause. But in many cases, such language is worth a little extra money.
A confidentiality clause makes the EEOC’s evidence appear weak. The bellicose quote in the press release, which is something like “that company got what it deserved,” then seems rather empty. Furthermore, it is easier for the defendant to characterize the settlement as a business decision. That’s normally the case, because it would cost a lot more than $30,000 or $50,000 to litigate such a claim. Furthermore, if anyone presses the company for details, the spokesperson simply cites the confidentiality clause and drops the matter. Contact us today at 312.332.6733 to discuss your case.
OUR OWN ARTHUR EHRLICH, WILL BE GIVING A LECTURE ON EMPLOYMENT LAW AT THE EVANSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY, 1703 ORRINGTON AVE, EVANSTON, IL ON THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 2018, FROM 7:00 – 8:00 P.M.. MR. EHRLICH HAS OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES
For information and registration, follow the link below.
Chances are, many of us will have some sort of serious medical condition at some point in our lives. After all, one in four Americans visits an emergency room each year, according to Gallup. While getting a few stitches for slicing a finger while cutting an avocado or bagel is not a serious medical condition, there are many other instances that are, and many people experience these conditions, which include:
- Heart attack;
- Traumatic brain injury (TBI);
- Multiple broken bones;
- Organ failure; and
- Hundreds of other types of diseases and injuries.
When your family member gets injured or becomes ill, they may require a period of home care. Because the average person cannot afford an in-home nurse, family members take on this role. And, when an employer fires such a family member for taking time off work to care for their loved one, they may have violated an employment law such as the Family Medical Leave Act, and must be held accountable.
Family Medical Leave Act
The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) prohibits employers from firing or retaliating against employees who leave work for up to 12 weeks in order to care for a loved one having a serious health condition. A family member is considered to be a parent, spouse, or child. During these 12 weeks, the employee is entitled to unpaid time off as well as staying on their group health insurance. When they return to work, they are entitled to the same wages and position that they left. These same benefits are provided to the employee themselves if they suffer an injury or illness, as well as if they are a mother or father caring for a newborn child or newly adopted child during the child’s placement (within one year) with the family.
Eligibility of FMLA Employees
Unfortunately, not all employees are eligible for FMLA rights. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, only employees who meet the following criteria are eligible for 12 weeks of job and health insurance protected unpaid leave:
- Have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in previous 12 months (a different set of criteria applies to airline flight crews);
- Employer has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius; and
- Have worked for employer at least 12 months, though the time does not need to be consecutive;
A Chicago Attorney is Here to Help
You may have a valid wrongful termination claim against your employer if they have violated the Family Medical Leave Act. To find out more, you need to call an experienced Chicago employment lawyer at Goldman & Ehrlich as soon as possible.
America has long prided itself on diversity, freedom of religion, and equality. However, our country is still fighting its roots of slavery, Native American eradication, and subjugation of women. America’s past continues to haunt us to this day, particularly in respect to the workplace. Workplace discrimination occurs in many forms, such as refusing to hire a certain individual because of their race, not promoting an employee because of their gender, and making fun of an employee because of his or her disability or religion. Harassment and unfavorable employment decision, such as not providing a deserved raise, affect thousands of Chicago employees on a daily basis. Another form of discrimination that many are faced with is the employer’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation that the employee’s protected characteristics or religion may demand.
For example, a prior case ruled that a clothing chain could not bar a Muslim employee from wearing a Hijab and had to accommodate that religious practice.
Examples of Common Reasonable Accommodations
A reasonable accommodation is when an employer acknowledges the employee’s need for some adjustment to his/her job duties or a policy that the employer would ordinarily want the employee to follow, while balancing that accommodation with the employer’s legitimate business needs, which fall under their protected status. Reasonable accommodations can include something tangible such as a hand railing in the bathroom, as well as something like freedom to adjust their work schedule to meet a medical need or religious practice. For example, the following are types of reasonable accommodations.
- Allowing a female employee who has recently given birth reasonable break time to breastfeed or express milk (other laws under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also mandate this right according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission);
- Providing a religious employee certain days off from work in order for them to practice their religion;
- Putting in a wheelchair ramp or widening a door frame;
- Purchasing software for a blind employee.
Employer’s Claim of Undue Hardship
Not all requests for accommodation will be considered reasonable where the request, such as an adjustment to a work schedule/routine or purchase of an expensive device or remodel will cause the employer undue hardship. For example, an employer may make the claim that they did not hire a disabled person because the cost of training, or eliminating essential duties of that position would cause them undue hardship, according to the City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations.
Reach Out to a Chicago Workplace Discrimination Lawyer Today
Employment discrimination against those who ask for or demand a reasonable accommodation happens all the time in Chicago. To ensure that your rights as an employee or applicant are not trampled by your employer, you need to contact the Chicago employment discrimination attorneys of Goldman & Ehrlich today.