Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§. discusses who is a ‘supervisor’ under Title VII?

The post Who is a ‘Supervisor’ Under Title VII? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§. discusses how to file an employment discrimination complaint

The post Filing An Employment Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

NEW YORK, December 5, 2013 – New York Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., alleges the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau is an inept racially charged corrupt ‘Good Ole Boys’ network operating without any real government oversight.

According to the federal complaint, Sergeant Raymond Stukes, formerly assigned to the 81st Precinct files suit after falsely arrested and accused of perjury and related offenses during an Internal Affairs Bureau ‘Sting.’ Unbeknownst to Sergeant Stukes, he was the subject of a criminal investigation because of an arrest he verified on or about September 3, 2009.

Sergeant Stukes was arrested at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office and charged with Offering a False Instrument for Filing 1st Degree, Perjury 2nd Degree, Offering A False Instrument for Filing 2nd Degree, Falsifying Business Records 2nd Degree, Official Misconduct 1st Degree and Perjury 3rd Degree.

On or about November 14, 2011, Sergeant Stukes learned through his attorney that Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes called Sergeant Benevolent Association Vice President Robert Ganley and said “We know that Sergeant Stukes DID NOT sign any of the paperwork. Come down so that we can get this done.� The very next day, Sergeant Stukes appeared before Supreme Court Justice John P. Walsh and the Kings County Assistant District Attorney requested that the ‘charges be dismissed for lack of evidence.’ There was no apology for ruining Sergeant Stukes’s reputation.

“Hopefully, Mayor-Elect Bill deBlasio and incoming Police Commissioner William J. Bratton will engage in a long serious top-to-bottom review of the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau. We suggest starting with immediately replacing Bureau Chief Charles V. Campisi. NYPD employees’ have a legal right to be treated with courtesy, professionalism and respect. They also have a legal right to be protected in the terms and conditions of employment irrespective of race. They certainly do not lose their civil rights because they are Department employees.� Eric Sanders says.

Sergeant Stukes filed his federal amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The name of the case is RAYMOND STUKES v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Docket No.: 13 cv 6166 filed on December 5, 2013.

About ¸£Àû¼§.

¸£Àû¼§. offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil rights, civil service rights, criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone’s individual rights that are described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are committed in every way to protecting your civil rights.

###

The post Black Male NYPD Sergeant Files ‘False Arrest’ Discrimination Lawsuit first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

The main purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to eliminate unlawful discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission () was given powers to enforce the laws that make it “illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise “retaliate� against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination.� It further states that is also illegal for an employer or covered entity to do the same because they complained about ‘discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit).� A covered entity is an employer with 15 or more employees who are protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and American with Disabilities Act.

With respect to retaliation, if an employee files a complaint against an employer about workplace harassment or discrimination either to an internal body or an external body such as the EEOC, federal law “forbids retaliation when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.� The law also protects individuals who cooperate in an EEOC investigation or serve as a witness to an EEOC investigation or litigation according to a Supreme Court decision.

However, The Supreme Court of the United States in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar recently revisited the issue of workplace retaliation and discrimination after a writ of certiorari (a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court it to review the decision of a lower court) was presented before the Court. Specifically at issue, does Title VII require a plaintiff alleging retaliation to show that retaliation was the only reason for a negative employment action? In this case, the respondent, Dr. Naiel Nasser, man of Middle Eastern descent, was a faculty member of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). The doctor in charge of the clinic, Nasser’s supervisor, Dr. Beth Levine began to question the respondent’s work practices and made offensive comments about Dr. Nasser’s ethnic background to another employee. Meanwhile, during this same he sought a promotion and obtained the promotion, however, he was still under Dr. Levine’s supervision and sought a position where he would not be.

He then sought employment at a clinic and was offered a position but would have to resign from UTSW. While waiting for the position start date he wrote his resignation letter to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center citing the primary reason for leaving was “the continual harassment and discrimination� by Dr. Levine. He further stated that she threatened him with potential job and salary loss and her treatment of him stems from her “religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims that has resulted in a hostile work environment.�
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center through an agent of the employer, Dr. Gregory Fitz, took issue with the wording of Dr. Nasser’s resignation letter in regards to Dr. Levine and actively sought to block the respondent from obtaining employment at the clinic. After heavy opposition from UTSW faculty the clinic withdrew their offer. He filed a lawsuit submitting that UTSW constructively discharged and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Simply put, the respondent argued that a workplace retaliation claim alone would trigger Title VII protection while UTSW held that retaliation would be in addition to a claim based upon discrimination with race, sex, and religion.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided there is separation between retaliation claims from class based discrimination claims and that retaliation claims are to be held to a stricter standard of proof which to the Court made sense given the “ever increasing frequency� retaliation claims are being filed. Thus based on the Supreme Court decision, an employee who believes that an employer has retaliated them against must show that retaliation was not the only factor in any adverse action taken by the employer.

It is a big victory for employers, which hopefully doesn’t discourage those individuals who believe that their rights have been violated or retaliated against in the workplace; this decision just made it more challenging to prove.

If you believe that, you are the victim of retaliation contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Workplace Retaliation first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

New York Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., alleges in a $15 million Notice of Claim filing that the Kings County District Attorney’s Office and the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau ‘Lack Integrity’
On or about December 4, 2009, Sergeant Raymond Stukes, formerly assigned to the 81st Precinct was placed on ‘Modified Assignment’ by Internal Affairs Bureau Group No.: 52 Lieutenant Sean Donovan (Caucasian Male). Unbeknownst to Sergeant Stukes, he was the subject of a criminal investigation because of an arrest that he verified on or about September 3, 2009. The arrest was made by former Police Officer Hector Tirado (Hispanic Male) of a male undercover (UC No.: I-5015) who was allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. The arrest was part of an ‘Integrity Test’ performed by the Internal Affairs Bureau. Although Sergeant Stukes verified former Police Officer Tirado’s arrest, he DID NOT supervise the arrest processing at the 81st Precinct. At the time of the arrest processing, Sergeant Stukes was off-duty and NOT supervising former Police Officer Hector Tirado.

In or around February 2010, Sergeant Stukes received an order to report to the Quality Assurance Division at 300 Gold Street Brooklyn, N.Y. During the Department Interview Sergeant Stukes answered questions posed to him by Executive Officer Lieutenant Michael Brill regarding the allegations of corruption reported to the Internal Affairs Bureau by Police Officer Adrian Schoolcraft. Police Officer Schoolcraft made numerous allegations about the intentional downgrading and/or misclassifications of criminal complaint reports filed within the 81st Precinct. At the time, Sergeant Stukes was Police Officer Schoolcraft’s squad sergeant.

On or about June 16, 2010, Kings County Assistant District Attorney Gregory Marshall (African-American Male) presented the ‘alleged’ facts and circumstances of the Internal Affairs Bureau’s investigation to a Grand Jury, which returned a ‘True Bill’ or ‘Indictment’ against Sergeant Stukes.

On or about July 27, 2010, Sergeant Stukes learned from Sergeants Benevolent Association Vice President Robert Ganley and his union attorney that he has been ‘Indicted’ via a ‘Sealed Indictment’ and that the Internal Affairs Bureau was going to arrest him.

On or about July 29, 2010, Sergeant Stukes received a phone call from a reporter at the New York Post that asked his wife if she would like to comment on his impending arrest.

On or about July 30, 2010, before Sergeant Stukes’s arrest, the New York Post already printed and distributed the story of his impending arrest to its readership. It is readily apparent that someone from the Kings County District Attorney’s Office or the Police Department City of New York leaked the ‘Sealed Indictment’ to the New York Post. Later that day, Lieutenant Donovan arrested Sergeant Stukes. Internal Affairs Bureau Chief Charles V. Campisi (Caucasian Male) immediately suspended Sergeant Stukes without pay. Chief Campisi reported Sergeant Stukes’s arrest to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly (Caucasian Male).

Sergeant Stukes was arrested at the Kings County District Attorney’s Office and charged with Offering a False Instrument for Filing 1st Degree, Perjury 2nd Degree, Offering A False Instrument for Filing 2nd Degree, Falsifying Business Records 2nd Degree, Official Misconduct 1st Degree and Perjury 3rd Degree. Sergeant Stukes’s arrest was processed by Internal Affairs Bureau Group No.: 52’S Deputy Inspector Edward R. Armstrong (Caucasian Male) and Lieutenant Donovan. Deputy Inspector Armstrong insisted that Sergeant Stukes does the ‘Perp Walk’ out from the Kings County District Attorney’s Office as well as the Court. When Sergeant Stukes arrived for Arraignment, the Court was full of reporters. Sergeant Stukes’s arrest was a major media event resulting in his image reproduced throughout the World in print, television, radio as well as internet media outlets.

On or about August 31, 2010, Sergeant Stukes was restored from suspension, placed on ‘Modified Assignment’ and reassigned to VIPER No.: 4 in the Bronx.

On or about September 24, 2010, Deputy Inspector Armstrong requested that First Deputy Commissioner Rafael Pineiro (Light Skinned Hispanic Male) prefer Charges and Specifications against Sergeant Stukes. Internal Affairs Bureau Executive Officer Assistant Chief Gary Strebel (Caucasian Male) endorsed the request that mirrored the criminal charges.

Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Stukes received Charges and Specifications from the Department Advocate’s Office.

On or about November 10, 19, 2010, Sergeant Stukes appeared before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings and notified the Court that the documents used by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office to secure an ‘Indictment’ against him DID NOT have his signature. The Court previously denied motions to dismiss the indictment for ‘lack of evidence.’

Between Late 2010 through Late Spring 2011, the Court as well as the Kings County District Attorney’s Office began to doubt the authenticity and validity of the evidence against Sergeant Stukes.

Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Stukes hired Access Forensic Group, LLC to perform a handwriting analysis. As soon as the handwriting expert saw the documents in question, he immediately determined that Sergeant Stukes DID NOT sign the documents presented to the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

On or about July 5, 2011, Sergeant Stukes received the Expert Report written by Access Forensic Group, LLC that confirmed the documents were NOT signed by him. The Expert Report was sent to the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

The Kings County District Attorney’s Office offered no response.

Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Stukes learned through his attorney that Kings County Assistant District Attorney Andrea Robinson (African-American Female) “knew that he was getting a raw deal but, her supervisors were holding things up.� Sergeant Stukes then provided personal records such as mortgages and bank statements up to ten (10) years for review by the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.

On or about October 11, 2011, the Internal Affairs Bureau searched his Department lockers at the 81st Precinct and VIPER No.: 4. The ‘Administrative Search’ was ordered by Deputy Inspector Armstrong.

On or about November 14, 2011, Sergeant Stukes learned through his attorney that Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes (Caucasian Male) called Sergeant Benevolent Association Vice President Robert Ganley and said “We know that Sergeant Stukes DID NOT sign any of the paperwork. Come down so that we can get this done.�

On or about November 15, 2011, Sergeant Stukes appeared before Supreme Court Justice John P. Walsh (Caucasian Male) and Kings County Assistant District Attorney Robinson requested that the ‘charges be dismissed for lack of evidence.’ There was no apology for ruining Sergeant Stukes’s reputation.

On or about December 7, 2011, Sergeant Stukes through his union attorney made a Motion to Restore him to ‘Full Duty’ to Police Commissioner Kelly.

On or about January 17, 2012, Sergeant Stukes appeared for a Department Interview at the Internal Affairs Bureau 315 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. The interviewers were Internal Affairs Bureau’s Deputy Inspector Armstrong and Lieutenant Donovan. They asked questions about the arrest processing as well as his belief that Police Officer Facey who was present and recorded during the ‘Integrity Test’ lied about observing the undercover selling or attempting to sell cigarettes. After reviewing the video recording with audio, it is obvious that UC No.: I-5015 violated no laws.

Yesterday, approximately forty-two (42) months after Sergeant Stukes was ‘Modified’ the Department finally restored him back to ‘Full Duty’ status.

“It does not take a great leap in logic to understand that in order for Sergeant Stukes to have been indicted, evidence had to be presented during the Grand Jury proceedings attesting that documents and other evidence presented were examined presumably by the Internal Affairs Bureau investigators’ and attributable to him. Unfortunately, the Kings County District Attorney’s Office as well as the Supreme Court of the State of New York participated, condoned or acquiesced to the Internal Affairs Bureau’s gross incompetence at the least; serious misconduct and/or even criminal conduct at the worst. To this date, no one is accountable for this gross injustice. Sergeant Stukes’s Civil Rights meant nothing� Eric Sanders says.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., filed Notice of Claim with the New York City’s Comptroller’s Office on March 29, 2013.

¸£Àû¼§., is a nationally recognized law firm located in New York, NY, serving clients throughout the five (5) boroughs of the City of New York: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island as well as Nassau, Orange, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, focused on cases involving Civil Rights, and Civil Service Law.

The post NYPD Sergeant Files Notice to Sue first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

New York Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., alleges in a $15 million Notice of Claim filing that NYPD Housing Police Service Area No.: 8 police supervisors actively participated, ratified, condoned or acquiesced to the creation of a racially and sexually charged work atmosphere

According to the claim, from June 19, 2011, through the present, the Claimant, Eunice Vilaseca, a Medium Brown Skinned Dominican female police officer has been subjected to the highly offensive discriminatory conduct of Lieutenant Dennis Azambuja (Light Skinned Hispanic Male).  Lieutenant Azambuja openly announced in the workplace that he has a “Hit Listâ€� of ‘minority officers’ meaning African-American and Hispanic officers that he dislikes due to their race and/or ethnicity.  This “Hit Listâ€� includes Caucasian Male officers who closely affiliate themselves with their minority partners.  Lieutenant Azambuja openly makes racially offensive jokes and comments about African-Americans.  Additionally, Lieutenant Azambuja openly refers to females as “Bitches.â€�  The other police supervisors actively participated, ratified, condoned or acquiesced to Lieutenant Azambuja’s discriminatory conduct.

Ms. Vilaseca has filed numerous complaints with the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Internal Affairs Bureau.  Police Officer Glenn Bysterbusch (Caucasian Male) gave numerous witness statements supporting her claims.  Ms. Vilaseca alleges that the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity have done nothing to protect her or Police Officer Bysterbusch.  Commanding Officer Captain Kevin Maloney (Caucasian Male) and Lieutenant Azambuja as well as the other police supervisors have responded by retaliating against them filing falsified disciplinary charges, transferring them to an undesirable tour, undesirable patrol assignments, etc.

Lieutenant Azambuja allegedly told Sergeants Rosemary Davis (Dark Skinned Hispanic Female) and John Grasso (Caucasian Male) that he had a “Hit Listâ€� and that he is going to crush the officers on the list.  Ms. Vilaseca alleges that she objected to Lieutenant Azambuja’s discriminatory conduct.  According to the claim, the “Hit Listâ€� is similar in nature and goals to the one maintained by (deceased) former Chief of Personnel Michael A. Markman (Caucasian Male) as discovered in Patricia A. Raniola V. The City of New York, et al., 243 F3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001).

According to the claim, Lieutenant Azambuja was reading a supermarket circular and made the following racially insensitive comments:

• “Hey Rose (Sergeant Rosemary Davis) there is a sale on bananas.  Get it, bananas and monkeys’.â€�
• Sergeant Trevor Allen (African-American Male) looks like an “Oreo Cookieâ€�
• Women are “Bitchesâ€�
• Made a comment about Ms. Vilaseca’s “Spanish hairâ€�

“The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Internal Affairs Bureau woefully failed to protect Ms. Vilaseca’s Civil Rights by failing to take appropriate action to discipline offending employees or stop further discriminatory behavior in the workplace.  The employers’ actions are particularly egregious because the actors are police supervisors who are entrusted with direct authority over subordinates’ such as my client.â€� Eric Sanders says.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., filed Notice of Claim with the New York City’s Comptroller’s Office on March 14, 2013.
¸£Àû¼§., is a nationally recognized law firm located in New York, NY, serving clients throughout the five (5) boroughs of the City of New York: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island as well as Nassau, Orange, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties, focused on cases involving Civil Rights, and Civil Service Law.


 

The post Female Cop ‘Strikes Back’ Filing $15 Mil. Notice to Sue first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

New York Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., alleges in a $30 Million Dollar lawsuit that the NYPD fosters a sexually charged work atmosphere where Caucasian Male supervisors can openly abuse their minority female subordinates
March 4, 2013 (New York-NY) – Lisette Pedrosa says that working at the 25th Precinct is “very stressful.�

Pedrosa, who is a Puerto Rican Female, says that from January 2010 through this day, she has been retaliated against after complaining about being subjected to the highly offensive sexual conduct of Lieutenant Salvatore Marchese including frequent requests for sex, sexually explicit text messages and vulgar comments in the workplace as well as on her personal cellular telephone. She alleges that Lieutenant Marchese while her direct supervisor would frequently isolate her from her colleagues then bombard her with frequent requests for sex, sexual favors, sexually explicit text messages and vulgar comments. She alleges that Lieutenant Marchese would send pictures of his erect penis to her personal cellular telephone. Pedrosa alleges that Lieutenant Marchese controlled her workplace assignments and activities even when he was off-duty by using other supervisors’ to closely monitor her.

When Pedrosa eventually developed the courage to rebuff his persistent behavior, Lieutenant Marchese retaliated against her by ensuring that she received “punishment assignments,� reduced overtime, a transfer out of the Conditions Unit to a less desirable patrol squad assignment and unfair discipline. Several other supervisors’ named in the lawsuit assisted, condoned or acquiesced to Lieutenant Marchese’s conduct.

After Pedrosa went public with her complaints in June 2011, the NYPD Office of Equal Employment Opportunity notified her that it was “SUBSTANTIATING� some of her allegations against Lieutenant Marchese. However, he received little if any discipline for his conduct. Pedrosa says that “he was rewarded for his misconduct when he was transferred to the 34th Precinct, where he has an assignment with even more subordinates and greater responsibility.�

“Whenever, ‘Females of Color’ complain about race discrimination, sexual harassment and related conduct in the workplace against Caucasian Male supervisors their complaints are routinely minimized by the NYPD management� says Sanders.

Sanders said that the management routinely violated federal and state civil rights laws by failing to take appropriate action to ensure that Pedrosa’s workplace is free of race discrimination, sexual harassment and related conduct.

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., filed suit on February 25, 2013. The name of the case is: LISETTE PEDROSA v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Index No.: 301291-2013, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of the Bronx.

¸£Àû¼§., is a nationally recognized law firm located in New York City serving clients’ throughout the five (5) boroughs of the City of New York Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island as well as Nassau, Orange, Suffolk and Westchester Counties focused on cases involving civil rights, civil service law, criminal law and discrimination.

The post Cop Sues for $30M Alleging Discrimination first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

New York Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announces that Mount Vernon Police Officers file claims of retaliation for reporting police corruption
February 28, 2013 (New York-NY) – Four years ago today, Sergeant Michael Marcucilli was accused of assaulting a 12 year old African-American boy during an arrest. Since that day, Detective Martin Bailey and Police Officer Janie McKennie, both African-American claim that they have been subjected to retaliation by Caucasian Male members of the Mount Vernon Police Department.

Bailey and McKennie allege they witnessed Sergeant Marcucilli use excessive force against a defenseless 12 year old African-American boy during an arrest at the A.B. Davis Middle School. Both officers gave statements to the Internal Affairs Division, Mount Vernon’s Law Department as well as provided testimony in federal court.

Bailey says that he was retaliated against for reporting Sergeant Marcucilli’s misconduct. He claims to have been unfairly disciplined, passed over for promotion, ostracized and treated differently, especially by the Caucasian Male officers. He says that he has filed other complaints with the Internal Affairs Division about his treatment but, there were never any actions taken against Sergeant Marcucilli or any other employee. Nor were his complaints ever forwarded to Human Resources as required by Mount Vernon’s own employment policies. Bailey, who was scheduled to be promoted to sergeant, was passed over on the previous promotional list. He is currently No.: 2 on the promotional list. Bailey says that he is being unfairly punished for “doing what he was sworn to do.�

McKennie says that she was retaliated against for reporting Sergeant Marcucilli’s misconduct. She claims to have been ostracized and treated differently, especially by the Caucasian Male officers. She says that she has filed other complaints with the Internal Affairs Division about her treatment but, there were never any actions taken against Sergeant Marcucilli or any other employee. Nor were her complaints ever forwarded to Human Resources as required by Mount Vernon’s own employment policies. McKennie claims to have been subjected to sexually offensive conduct as well with several postings in the workplace that refers to her anatomy as well as her marital status. McKennie says that she is “appalled by the lack of responsiveness by the management.�

Sanders said that “Unfortunately, what these officers of color are experiencing is inherently part of the police culture everywhere. Although, it is a tough road, I commend these officers for doing the right thing for themselves, the community and the Department.�
“Since we cannot rely upon the management to ‘do the right thing’ we will utilize the litigation process to vindicate their civil rights.â€� Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., filed notices of claims at the City of Mount Vernon’s Law Department on February 27, 2013. The names of the claims are: In the Matter of the Claim of MARTIN BAILEY v. THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, ET AL., and In the Matter of the Claim of JANIE MCKENNIE v. THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, ET AL. Sergeant Michael Marcucilli is named as a respondent on both claims. Procedurally, if the claims are not resolved during the adjustment and payment period, they will pursue any and all available remedies in federal court.
¸£Àû¼§., is a nationally recognized law firm located in New York, N.Y., serving clients’ throughout the five (5) boroughs of the City of New York Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island as well as Nassau, Orange, Suffolk and Westchester Counties focused on cases involving civil rights, civil service law, criminal law, and discrimination.

The post Mount Vernon Police Officers File Claims for Retaliation first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

In addition to the laws that are enacted and are applicable throughout the State of New York, the City of New York has been very progressive enacting several expansive anti-discrimination laws.  In many respects, the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) are very similar in structure, legislative intent and application.  Laws enforced under the NYSHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR).  The NYSHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.  Laws enforced under the NYCHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR).  The NYCHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.

The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, citizenship status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.  The NYCHRL also prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of arrest or conviction record.  The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation.  Recently, through the New York City Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, the NYCHRL was enacted to further enhanced and broadened  protections relative to both the federal laws and the NYSHRL counterparts.

In Gina Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, et al., 61 AD3d 62 January 27, 2009.  The Court held that, the Restoration Act notified courts that (a) they had to be aware that some provisions of the NYCHRL were textually distinct from its state and federal counterparts, (b) all provisions of the NYCHRL required independent construction to accomplish the law’s uniquely broad purposes, ^[and (c) cases that had failed to respect these differences were being legislatively overruled. In short, the text and legislative history represent a desire that the NYCHRL “meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law enforcement deterrent.â€�  The Court then affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal because the Pro See plaintiff did not raise the misapplication of the law during her appeal.

In Howard Hoffman v. Parade Publishing, et al., 2010 NY Slip Op 05706 decided July 1, 2010, the court held that the protections of the NYCHRL would be available to an employee that resides in the City of New York, even if the employer is located outside of the City of New York if, its’ decision had an “impact� within the City of New York.

In Daniel M. Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc. et al., the court held that the NYCHRL applied to prohibited discrimination against transgendered individuals.
To file a discrimination complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please call 311 if you are located within the City of New York or 212-306-7450

CCHR Community Service Centers

Manhattan
40 Rector Street, 10^th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10006
212-306-5070
Brooklyn
275 Livingston Street, 2^nd Floor
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11217
718-722-3130
Bronx
1932 Arthur Avenue, Room 203A
Bronx, N.Y. 10457
718-579-6900
Queens
153-01 Jamaica Avenue, Room 203
Jamaica, N.Y. 11432
718-657-2465
Staten Island
60 Bay Street, 7^th Floor
Staten Island, N.Y. 10301
718-390-8506

The post City of New York Anti-Discrimination Legislative Initiatives first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Under Federal, State and some local laws, it is illegal to discriminate against an individual for their:
• Ethnicity
• Skin color, or related facial features
• Country of origin
• Age
• Sex
• Religious beliefs
• Political alignment
• Arrest and conviction record

What constitutes discrimination?

An act constitutes discrimination if you are subjected to treatment that is different from that way others are treated. The differentiation must be in a negative or adverse manner to be considered discrimination; if, due to your race, religion, or status, you are subjected to extra special service, or some other positive act, although you may have been treated differently, the act does not constitute discrimination. Examples of discrimination include:
• Being refused service at a restaurant due to your skin color
• Not being hired for a job due because of your religious beliefs
• Other employees are promoted over you, despite your being more qualified due to your race
• Being refused entrance into an establishment due to your country of origin
• Having to resign from your employment, due to unwarranted sexual gestures and advances towards you
• Being fired from your job after your employer learns that you have different political views
• Being fired from your job due to your sexual orientation
• Not receiving service from an employee or business with anti-war views, upon their learning of your status as a veteran
• Being turned down for a job, despite being qualified, due to your marital status
• Not being allowed to enter a church after being charged with a crime

What do I need to file a discrimination complaint?

If you plan on filing a discrimination complaint, it is imperative that you document as much as possible. For example, if you have been discriminated against while applying for a job, prepare all the documents relevant to your job application process. If you were treated unfairly at a business establishment, keep receipts or other relevant material. If you are able to take photographs or video, related to the act of discrimination against you, due so. Write down the names of the offender as well as witnesses including the surrounding circumstances.

How do I file a discrimination complaint?

Before filing your complaint, you may want to consult with an attorney. When considering legal advice, it would serve you well to consult with an attorney that handles discrimination cases. The attorney will consider your claims then suggest ways to meet your legal needs.
Complaints about discrimination covered under may be filed with the federal government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. In New York, you may file in person at 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York State Executive Law 296, may be filed with the state government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information as the filing locations vary depending on the type of discrimination and the location.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York City Administrative Code 8-107, may be filed with the City of New York. To file a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information.

The post Filing a Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..