Study: Women Software Developers’ Gender Gap Won’t Close for 100 Years according to study

/

The software industry has had a long-standing reputation as a white man’s industry. Minorities and women have had trouble breaking into the higher ranks of computer companies for decades. Now a new study shows that women software developers’ gender gap isn’t going anywhere. At its current rate, the gap won’t close for more than 100 years.

In this blog, I will discuss a study from Cornell University on gender trends in computer science. I will discuss how women software developers’ gender gap persists across the industry, and what software engineers can do to combat gender discrimination in their own workplaces.

Software Industry Struggles with Hiring Women and Minorities

Computer companies from Amazon to Google have long had difficulty recruiting and retaining women and minority software developers. Women in the software industry have fought gender discrimination in everything from hiring, to team assignments. While work has been done to try to attract minorities and women into the industry, companies’ development teams are still heavily white and male.

Experts thought the situation was getting better. There have been efforts across the industry to hire and promote women to combat the gender gap. But when the researchers at the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence partnered with Cornell University to study the issue, they found things were not as rosy as they seemed.

Study Says Women Software Developers’ Research Goes Unpublished

The study analyzed more than 2.87 million scientific papers published within the computer science industry between 1970 and 2018. It categorized publications based on the first names of the authors — a method that serves as an imperfect proxy for gender. While women software developers’ gender gap had narrowed, they were not nearly on par with men when it came to publications. In 2018, male authors were published around 475,000 times, while women only received 175,000 bylines. In all, women only accounted for 27% of published research done in computer science.

Then the researchers used the change year to year in those publications to look forward, estimating when women would finally receive equal publication to men. The answer surprised everyone. The most optimistic projection said women’s publications would not equal men until the year 2100. The more likely answer: 2137.

This can’t be blamed on a lack of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) generally, either. Other scientific fields are far closer to representing men and women equally. In biomedicine, for example, the forecast calls for equality by 2048. The New York Times reports:

“‘We were hoping for a positive result, because we all had the sense that the number of women authors was growing,’” said Oren Etzioni, the former University of Washington professor who oversees the Allen Institute. “‘But the results were, frankly, shocking.’”

Are Women Software Developers Excluded from Cutting Edge Projects?

Because the study focused on publications in scientific journals, it could seem like this is an academic problem, rather than a workplace issue. However, as private companies push the boundaries of technology, they are publishing much of their best work in those same journals.

And that can cause problems in the software these companies are creating, as well. Software development companies have taken the initiative in creating programs for facial recognition, speech-to-text, and automated resume review. When the teams working on these projects are predominantly white men, the programs they create can end up duplicating their biases. This makes gender discrimination part of the code and further frustrates women’s efforts to break into the industry.

There is also a feeling that women who start in software development don’t end up there. Last year, thousands of employees walked out of Google offices across the globe because of how the company had responded to sexual harassment claims against a top male software developer. Female students and workers in computer science find they are still facing an uphill battle for a harassment-free place to study and work.

“‘There is a problem with retention,’” said Jamie Lundine, a researcher at the Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies at the University of Ottawa. “‘Even when women are choosing computer science, they can end up in school and work environments that are inhospitable.’”

Women software developers will continue to face gender gap issues for decades into the future. They will face hurdles in hiring, promotion, publication, and in the fight against sexual harassment at work. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our employment discrimination attorneys are here to help. If you believe that you have been discriminated against as a woman in the software development industry, we will review your situation and help you plan a strategy to help you close the gender gap for yourself and your fellow developers. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an employment discrimination attorney.

SCOTUS Hears Transgender and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Cases

/

All eyes turned to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8, 2019, as the Justices heard oral arguments in three transgender and sexual orientation discrimination cases. Find out what happened, and what will happen next in the defense of LGBTQ employee rights.

In this blog post, I will review the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Gerald Bostock and Donald Zarda’s sexual orientation discrimination case and Aimee Stephens’ transgender discrimination case. You can learn more about the cases here. I will discuss what the Justices had to say, and what will happen next in each case.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Cases Rest “On the Basis of Sex”

The first set of oral arguments were on the consolidated cases of Bostock v Clayton County and Zarda v Altitude Express Inc. In both cases, male employees were fired from their jobs as a child welfare services coordinator and a skydiving instructor when their employers learned that they were gay and attracted to the same sex.

The Arguments For and Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination Protections

Attorney Pamela Karlan speaking on behalf of the employees, summarized their position by saying:

“When a[n] employer fires a male employee for dating men but does not fire female employees who date men, he violates Title VII. The employer has, in the words of Section 703(a), discriminated against the man because he treats that man worse than women who want to do the same thing. And that discrimination is because of sex, again in the words of Section 703(a), because the adverse employment action is based on the male employee’s failure to conform to a particular expectation about how men should behave; namely, that men should be attracted only to women and not to men.”

In other words, because a gay man is fired for loving a man but a straight woman isn’t fired for the same behavior, that is illegal sex discrimination. She continued:

“And when you tell two employees who come in, both of whom tell you they married their partner Bill last weekend, when you fire the male employee who married Bill and you give the female employee who married Bill a couple of days off so she can celebrate the joyous event, that’s discrimination because of sex.”

But the attorney for the employers and the Solicitor General from the U.S. Department of Justice disagreed. They said there was a fundamental difference between sex and sexual orientation. When Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, they couldn’t have meant to include sexual orientation discrimination in prohibiting discrimination “on the basis of sex”. After all, they said, at that time the act of gay sexual intercourse was illegal in many states. As long as an employer would treat gay men and lesbians the same — based on their attraction to the same sex — they argued that Title VII shouldn’t apply.

Transgender Discrimination Case Asks if Status or Gender Identity is Enough to Trigger Protections

The second set of oral arguments were in RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc v EEOC, where the funeral home fired Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman, when she informed her employer she would be presenting as female and complying with women’s dress code standards at work.

The Arguments For and Against Transgender Discrimination Protections

Attorney David D. Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) presented Aimee Stephens’s argument. He said:

“Harris Homes is treating Aimee Stephens differently because of her sex assigned at birth. If she had a female sex assigned at birth, she would not be fired. Because she had a male sex assigned at birth, she is fired. That is discrimination because of sex.”

The employee’s argument again was that what had happened was discrimination “on the basis of sex”, in this case, the sex assigned to Ms. Stephens at birth, and the sex stereotypes the funeral home owner held about how men and women identify, behave and dress. He continued:

“[T]he notion that somehow discriminating against someone because they are transgender is not discrimination, discriminating against them because of their sex I think falls apart because to say I’m discriminating against you because you are transgender is to say I am treating you differently from other people who have the same gender identity, because of your sex assigned at birth.”

The funeral home’s attorney, John Bursch, told the court, “Treating women and men equally does not mean employers have to treat men as women. That’s because sex and transgender status are independent concepts.” He and the Solicitor General refused to recognize transgender women, instead referring to them as “a man who identifies as a woman”. They said that Congress never included protections for a transgender classification independent of sex. Once again, the Solicitor General referred the Court to the fact that Congress had not yet amended Title VII to include separate protections for gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Justices’ Take on the Transgender and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Cases

It is always difficult to know what Supreme Court Justices are thinking just by listening to the oral arguments. Still, these hearings are the first opportunity attorneys and advocates have to gauge where the newly appointed Justices may fall on the issues of LGBTQ employee protections.

Several judges asked whether the employees were asking the Court to change the language of the statute to expand protections against transgender and sexual orientation discrimination. Justice Ginsburg and Chief Justice Roberts pushed for clarity on what Congress meant to do in 1964. Justices also asked whether this could be considered a “bona fide occupational qualification” to justify treating men and women differently, and whether there should be a religious exemption for employers who maintained sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Justices also spent a significant amount of time trying to anticipate the kinds of cases that could arise if they ruled in favor of protections for transgender employees on the basis of sex. They debated how the law could apply to sex-segregated bathrooms and sports teams.

At the end of the arguments, it seemed most of the Justices were leaning in their predicted directions. The Court’s 4 liberal Justices appeared to side with the employees while the more conservative Justices favored the employers. However, recently-appointed Justice Gorsch surprised commentators by asking questions that tended to swing in favor of LGBTQ protections. Even Justice Kavanaugh asked the employers’ attorney how the Court could distinguish “between the literal meaning of ‘because of sex’ and the ordinary meaning of ‘because of sex.’”

What Happens Next for LGBTQ Employee Protections

The oral arguments may be over, but that doesn’t mean advocates and attorneys can expect a decision soon. Most commentators believe the Court will wait until June 2020 to issue its decision, as it has in many other LGBTQ cases. At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives have passed the Equality Act, which would explicitly add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected traits under Title VII, though the Senate has not yet taken up the matter. Given the statements of certain key senators, it seems unlikely they will vote in favor of the law.

Even if the Supreme Court and Congress both fail to act to protect against transgender and sexual orientation discrimination, residents in many states, including New York, can still turn to their state Human Rights laws for additional protections. However, residents of other states, including the states where Aimee Stephens, Gerald Bostock and Donald Zarda were employed, could be left without important protections available to their cisgendered and straight coworkers.

At Eisenberg & Baum, we understand the importance of federal civil rights protection for gay and trans* Americans. Our employment discrimination attorneys, help LGBTQ workers protect their rights under Title VII, and state civil rights laws. We stay on top of changes in the law, so that you know we are using the best strategies against the discrimination you face at work. If you have been the victim of transgender or sexual orientation discrimination, contact us. We’ll meet with you and help create a strategy that protects you and moves you closer to equality.

Can You Record Your Coworkers’ Sexual Harassment at Work

/

When it comes to lawsuits for discrimination and harassment, the proof is often “he said, she said.” That is, unless what he or she said was recorded. But can you record your coworkers’ sexual harassment at work? Or will doing so violate other New York privacy laws?

In this blog post, I will discuss New York eavesdropping and wiretapping laws and how they come into play in sexual harassment cases. I will address the rules for in-person and telephone conversations, and answer the question of whether you can record your coworkers’ sexual harassment at work, along with whether you are protected if you do.

Proving Sexual Harassment Requires, Well, Proof

When sexual harassment happens at work it can be intimidating, demeaning, and hurtful. Depending on who is targeting you, standing up to your coworker or manager can even put your job on the line. When you are finally able to come forward, you may feel like you have done enough. Human Resources, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or your attorney should take it from there. But it’s not enough to simply say something happened. Whenever you are able, you need to prove your side of the story.

In a sexual harassment lawsuit, the person filing the lawsuit (the Plaintiff), is the one who initially has to prove his or her case. While some court battles are won just on the testimony of the parties, more often, you and your attorneys will have spent months gathering proof to support your side of the case. That could include witnesses, emails and printouts of office chat logs, workplace reports or assessments, security camera footage, and sometimes recordings made by the Plaintiff themselves.

Is Recording Your Coworker “Wiretapping”?

Many types of sexual harassment lend themselves to physical proof. Statements made in emails or company chat programs can be printed. Inappropriate pictures can be photographed. But what about verbal sexual harassment? The best proof of this kind of behavior is to catch them in the act, but is it legal to record your coworker’ sexual harassment at work?

New York’s wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. That means it is illegal to record or eavesdrop on a telephone conversation or in-person discussion unless at least one party to that conversation agrees to it. That one party can be the person doing the recording. To consider how the wiretapping law applies to workplace sexual harassment, let’s look at a sample scenario:

Maria and Clara are housekeepers at a large hotel. They both are repeatedly harassed by two of the cleaning staff, Tony and Juan. The men make rude jokes to each other about the women, grab them as they go past, and repeatedly ask both women on dates to local strip clubs. Maria and Clara are both planning to file complaints with the hotel, but they want to record the men’s behavior first. They both have a habit of using their smartphones to listen to music and drown out the men’s comments, so they decide to use a voice-recording app to document what they experience.

Can Maria Record Tony’s Unwanted Advances?

Let’s start with the most straightforward way to record your coworkers’ sexual harassment at work: when the harasser is talking directly to you. In this case, Maria is a party to the conversation — Tony has come up to her and is talking to her. Since she consents to the recording, the New York eavesdropping law does not apply and she can legally record the conversation.

Can Clara Record Tony and Juan’s Jokes?

Now let’s say that Clara comes upon Tony and Juan joking about the girls among themselves. In this case, she is not a party to the conversation, just an observer. Under the “one-party rule”, unless either Tony or Juan has agreed to the recording, it is illegal for Clara to use her app to document their jokes. However, if she joins the conversation, possibly by objecting to their jokes, she can become a party to it and consent to the recording of anything once she has joined in.

Can Maria Video Record Juan Sexually Harassing Clara?

Maria and Clara want to try to document the physical sexual harassment they experience, as well. They agree to record each other any time Tony or Juan are around to try to catch them in the act.

Under New York law, employers and individuals have an implied right to use video recordings in public places, including the workplace. The only exception is in areas where a person would reasonably expect privacy (like bathrooms or locker rooms). However, this law allowing video surveillance doesn’t overrule the eavesdropping statute, so generally employer-placed cameras will be video-only. In Maria and Clara’s case, they agreed to record each other ahead of time, so when Juan approaches Clara and tries to reach under her skirt, Maria is well within her rights to hit record on her phone.

A Sexual Harassment Attorney Can Help You Collect Proof for Your Case

Knowing what you can and cannot do to record your coworkers’ sexual harassment at work can be difficult. And getting the state eavesdropping law wrong can have serious, even criminal consequences. That’s why it is a good idea to talk to a sexual harassment attorney early. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys can help you create a plan to collect evidence of your harassment and prepare to prove your case to your employer, the EEOC, or the court. If you are facing sexual harassment at work, we can help. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a sexual harassment attorney.

The Federal Government’s Evolving Stance on Transgender Discrimination

/

Announcing you will be transitioning at work can be nerve-wracking. You never know how your coworkers, or your employer will respond to your desire to live openly according to your gender identity. That’s why it is good to know that, for now at least, LGBT workers can turn to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to defend their rights and their transgender discrimination cases.

In this blog post, I will discuss the EEOC’s lawsuit against Ellucian, an educational services company, for transgender discrimination against one of its employees, which settled in 2016. I will discuss whether gender identity is still protected under Title VII and the pending U.S. Supreme Court case that could affect future gender identity discrimination claims. I will also explain how state laws can sometimes fill a gap left by federal anti-discrimination laws.

Ellucian Kicks Transgender Worker Off College Campus

Ellucian is a development and information technology company that provides technology support to college campuses across the country. But when one of those colleges got word that an Ellucian employee was planning to publicly transition from male to female in 2016, the college spoke up. And that created a transgender discrimination issue.

According to a press release by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2016, Ellucian cut off its employee’s access to her workplace on an unnamed college campus the day after she informed her coworkers that she planned to come out as transgender at work. When the college complained, the IT company, which performed contract work for the college, removed the employee from campus at their request.

Transgender Discrimination is Sex-Stereotyping Discrimination, for Now

When transgender discrimination happens, LGBT workers have the right to be protected by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on a person’s sex or gender (among other traits). Several courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that this includes transgender discrimination. They say that employers cannot make adverse employment decisions against employees (including removing them from particular jobs) based on sexual stereotypes or assumptions, such as how a person should speak or dress.

In 2018, in EEOC v R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the Sixth Circuit Court said that announcing you intend to transition is enough to trigger transgender discrimination protections:

“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.”

The 2016 settlement announcement in the Ellucian case contained strong language about the EEOC’s position regarding transgender discrimination:

“EEOC’s recent work on sex discrimination on the basis of transgender status and sex stereotyping goes back four years, when the Commission issued an opinion in Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (April 20, 2012), in which EEOC ruled that employment discrimination against employees because they are transgender is sex discrimination which violates Title VII. Since that time, EEOC has focused on protecting transgender individuals as a strategic enforcement priority and has resolved several potential charges and lawsuits.”

But in more recent years, the EEOC has turned its focus elsewhere. There have been no more recent settlements or lawsuits filed on the basis of transgender discrimination. While the EEOC still says businesses are banned from discriminating against LGBT workers based on sex biases, other parts of the Trump Administration have sought to legitimize transgender discrimination at the federal level.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide the Future of Transgender Workers’ Rights

The internal dispute about transgender discrimination within the Trump Administration is getting some very public attention. That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear another EEOC case filed on behalf of a transgender worker, Aimee Stephens. That case (the same one quoted above), could shape the future of transgender workers’ rights and expand or limit their access to federal anti-discrimination laws.

While the EEOC originally filed the case, once the Trump Administration took over, Aimee Stevens and non-profit groups including the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to protect her rights. That was especially important since it was the Justice Department, not the EEOC that would have been arguing the case at the U.S. Supreme Court level. And Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ position doesn’t match the one the EEOC quoted in 2016.

State Laws Remain Steady for LGBT Workers Facing Uncertain Futures

The good news is that even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply to transgender discrimination or announcements of the intent to transition, their state laws might. New York and several other states have passed more inclusive state-level anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if the Supreme Court takes the Trump Administration’s perspective on Title VII, these laws will remain on the books and provide protection to workers within these states who face the fear of being fired for coming out or publicly transitioning to their appropriate gender identity.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our gender discrimination attorneys  make it a point to stay up-to-date on all the latest changes and trends in transgender discrimination law. We know how to use both state and federal laws to protect LGBT workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. If you are gay or transgender and looking for help ending discrimination at work, contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Sexual Harassment: Do You Have a Right to Publicly Name Your Harasser?

/

For some survivors of sexual harassment and sexual abuse, going public with what happened to them is part of the healing process. But if your employer or the organization involved refuses to disclose the name of the person who abused you, do you have the right to publicly name your harasser yourself?

In this blog post, I will discuss a New York Times article about confidentiality in the context of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal. I will discuss whether you have a right to publicly name your harasser, and whether a reasonable employer response can include publicity about your situation. I will also discuss how non-disclosure agreements and settlement agreements can affect your right to go public about what happened to you.

Catholic Diocese Release Names of Abusive Priests, But Not All of Them

In the year since Pennsylvania released a grand jury report naming over 300 predator priests within the state’s Catholic Churches, the pressure has been on local diocese to come forward. Victims advocate groups including the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) have been pressuring local bishops to release the names of clergy credibly accused of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. They have had mixed success.

In January, 2019, Texas bishops named nearly 300 priests credibly accused of abuse. A month later, Catholic leaders in New Jersey released an additional 200 names. The archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut added another 48 names to the list around the same time. In April, in the midst of a New York State attorney general’s investigation, the Archdiocese of New York published a list of 120 accused clergy members.

But there have been other subdivisions within the Catholic Church that have refused. The Rockville Center diocese in Long Island, New York, is among them. One of the largest dioceses in the country with 1.5 million Catholics, the organization has refused to join the movement toward transparency in responding to the sex abuse and sexual harassment crisis within the church. It claims doing so would be “premature” while the investigation is ongoing, and that doing so could do additional harm to the victims of sexual harassment and abuse within the church.

As a Sexual Harassment Victim, Can You Publicly Name Your Harasser?

But in many cases, it is those victims themselves who are demanding that the church publicly name their harassers. The New York Times quotes Donald H. Nohs, a religious expert and a survivor of sexual assault by a priest at the age of 13, who says:

“You’ve got to recognize the root cause and weed it out. . . . You’re not going to stop it if there’s not full disclosure.”

With some parts of the religious organization trying to dodge the bullet, the question becomes whether sexual assault and sexual harassment survivors have the right to publicly name their harassers. Public disclosure of a sexual harasser in the workplace can be part of an employer’s reasonable response to claims of abuse. However, often companies and organizations resist victims’ request to release the names, worried about the effect that may have on their reputation and public image. Do victims need to wait for the employer to make a public response, or can they go to the press directly?

This conversation has come up before in the context of private, secular employers like The Weinstein Co., Fox News, and even then-presidential-candidate Donald Trump. Generally speaking, the victims of sexual harassment have a right to publicly speak about what happened to them, and to publicly name their harasser. They do not have to wait for the employing organization to step forward.

However, when they do so, survivors should be prepared to back up their claims. Ideally, public statements about a person’s sexual harassment or abuse should come along with or after the filing of a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or in federal court. Otherwise, the person speaking out could end up facing a lawsuit of their own, claiming libel or slander and saying that she or he made everything up. By pairing the public statement with a formal complaint, sexual harassment survivors can be sure they have a process to prove what they are saying is true outside of the “court of public opinion.”

Don’t Accidentally Give Up Your Right to Go Public

But sometimes, contracts with private employers can accidentally give up an employee’s right to go public with harassment or abuse. Broadly worded non-disparagement agreements, mandatory arbitration agreements, confidential settlements of claims, and especially non-disclosure agreements can cut off a person’s right to speak freely about what happened to them, and who did it.

That’s why it is so important for the victims of sexual harassment and abuse to receive the help and advise of experienced employment discrimination attorneys before they go public. Public disclosure of sexual harassment and abuse can be key to raising awareness and finding others who share your story. But if you aren’t careful, you could accidentally violate a contract you may not even realize you signed. Before you publicly name your harasser, be sure to have a sexual harassment attorney review all your paperwork, to make sure there’s nothing stopping you from speaking out and telling your story.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys know when and how to help you publicly name your harasser after an incident of sexual harassment or assault. We know what to look for and can help you develop a plan to go public while protecting your right to compensation for the harm done to you. We will meet with you to review your situation and your options, so you can complete the healing process. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

What to Do When Sexual Harassment Targets Teenage Workers

/

Whether as summer jobs or shifts after school, teenagers are increasingly part of the workforce. In fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and offices across the country, teens interact with older supervisors and managers that teach them what it means to be an employee. But when the lessons turn sour, young employees can learn the wrong message. They may never hear what to do when sexual harassment targets teenage workers.

In this blog post, I will review a lawsuit by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund against McDonald’s for sexual harassment targeting teenage workers. I will discuss how minors can pursue Title VII civil rights claims, and what their parents need to know to protect their rights.

Young Employees Work in Industries with High Sexual Harassment

Teenagers’ early working environments are more than just jobs, they are classrooms. They teach teens how to be employees and what is expected of them at work. So when sexual harassment targets teenage workers the lesson comes out all wrong, teaching young employees that sexual harassment and violence is normal, when really it is illegal.

Teenage employees often find their first jobs in hospitality or retail. Unfortunately, these industries have the highest number of sexual harassment complaints of any public sector. Between 2005 and 2015, 14.23% of all sexual harassment charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can from the hospitality and food services industry. 13.44% were from retail trade companies. One study of adolescent employees showed that 63% of girls and 37% of boys who work part-time have experienced sexual harassment by supervisors, coworkers, and others at work.

Teenage Workers Have Protection Under Title VII

When sexual harassment targets teenage workers, it triggers all the same protections as if the victim had been an adult. Teens (and their parents) expect their employers to take it seriously when they report sexual harassment by superiors or coworkers. If they don’t, underage employees can file complaints with the EEOC or in federal court through their parents for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and any retaliation that happened after they reported the conduct to their employers.

That’s exactly what the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund (housed at the National Women’s Law Center), the labor group Fight for $15, and the American Civil Liberties Union have done. Earlier this year, the organizations filed 23 new complaints against McDonald’s on behalf of employees facing sexual harassment: 20 with the EEOC and 3 federal lawsuits. The legal action included four teenage workers, including Brittany Hoyos.

Parents May Not Hear About Sexual Harassment Until It Is Too Late

Brittany didn’t tell her parents about what was happening at work at first. When she started working at McDonald’s at age 16 in 2016, she said her manager began harassing her almost right away. He touched her hair, brushed up against her, texted her about her appearance, and even tried to kiss her after offering her a ride home. But she hid the behavior. Her complaint says:

“I was embarrassed. . . . I felt like I was at fault or that I had done something wrong.”

It was her first job. She told the New York Times interviewer:

“I just thought that was something you would have to put up with.”

But when she came home from work crying, her parents learned that she had been suffering months of verbal harassment. They contacted the franchise, demanding that the manager be held accountable. Instead, Brittany became the subject of retaliation, according to the complaint. She was eventually fired. Her mother, who also worked at the restaurant, also came under fire for standing up for her daughter’s rights. She lost her management training as was demoted to a minimum-wage crew member with fewer hours. Eventually, she quit too.

It is not uncommon for teenage workers to stay quiet when they become the targets of sexual harassment. As Dr. Heather Hlavka, a professor of criminology and sociology at Marquette University, explained to Slate:

“But among teenagers, reporting is very, very low. Because developmentally, you start to be aware of all these cultural things and barriers that stand in your way. But you know, no matter what your age, you always want to be included. You don’t want to feel isolated or like you don’t belong, whether it’s high school parties, fraternity parties, college campuses, or your workplace. And if you report people who are close to you, you could lose all of that, not to mention get someone close to you in trouble.”

What to Do When Sexual Harassment Targets Teenage Workers

That is why it is so important for parents to act when they do learn of sexual harassment targeting teenage workers. Support your daughter or son, making sure they know this kind of behavior is not okay. Encourage them to object to the behavior at work and to talk to their supervisor. You should also help them by sending a written complaint to the manager or owner of the business, requesting action against the offending employee. If and when your teen starts to experience retaliation, you need to be there for them through that too. Make sure they know you don’t think it is their fault.

You should also talk to an experienced employment discrimination attorney as soon as you believe the employer isn’t going to respond to your complaints. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our sexual harassment attorneys can help you and your teenager review what happened, and understand your legal options. We will help you file a complaint with the EEOC or federal court against the corporation or franchise owner, and we will be there to help you get the relief you deserve. If you or your child are facing sexual harassment at work, contact us today to schedule a free consultation.

Common Examples of Workplace Harassment

/

You may have the feeling you’re being harassed at work, but you’re not sure whether you have an actual legal claim. There can be a difference between what one individual employee feels is harassment and what constitutes illegal harassment under federal, state and local laws. Merely being bothered by a supervisor or co-worker, while unfortunate for an employee, does not necessarily mean you have a legal claim for harassment. Workplace harassment has a very specific definition under the law. We’ll discuss that definition and give some common examples of harassment in the workplace.

If you have experienced what you believe to be harassment at your job, these examples can help you understand some of the types of harassment that lead to a legal claim. If you’d like more guidance on your rights, contact Eisenberg & Baum. We have an experienced group of employment discrimination attorneys who are ready to help and advocate on your behalf.

What Is Workplace Harassment Under the Law?

Harassment can be a form of employment discrimination under various federal, state and local laws. In order to be considered discrimination, the harassment must be based on some protected trait — some aspect of who the employee is, rather than his or her behavior or performance on the job. Under federal law, those traits include:

  • Race or Color,
  • National origin,
  • Sex or Gender,
  • Pregnancy,
  • Age,
  • Religion,
  • Disability, and
  • Genetic information.

Many state and local governments have enacted similar anti-discrimination laws which overlap with the federal protections. New York State’s Human Rights Law adds protections for discrimination or harassment based on a person’s:

  • Sexual orientation,
  • Gender identity
  • Marital status,
  • Arrest and conviction record,
  • Military status or service,
  • Religious observance of Sabbath,
  • Political activities,
  • Unemployment status, and
  • Status as a victim of domestic violence.

Illegal workplace harassment under the state or federal law happens when an employee suffers unwanted conduct based on a protected trait and either:

  • The employee had to endure the conduct in order to keep their job or
  • The conduct was so severe or happened so often that it created a hostile work environment.

Typically, isolated incidents of unwanted conduct or petty slights won’t be enough to file a claim under anti-discrimination laws, though that’s not a hard and fast rule. Some conduct can be so severe that even one incident can create a legal claim of workplace harassment. The examples we provide below tend to focus on the more common situation where an employee is subjected to continued unwelcome conduct over an extended period of time.

Examples of Workplace Harassment

Harassment can come in many forms and from many sources. The harassing conduct can be verbal or physical and the harasser can be a co-worker, supervisor or even an non-employee like a customer or contractor. Under New York State’s Human Rights Act, non-employees are also protected if they are doing business at the company’s location (including contract workers or vendors). Here are some common forms of workplace harassment.

Verbal Harassment

Possibly the most common behavior that comes to mind when you think of workplace harassment is verbal harassment. Verbal harassment can include jokes, innuendos, slurs, name-calling and insults, among other things, as long as the behavior is based on a protected trait.

Verbal Harassment

One discrimination case settled between the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and an Arizona-based aviation services company provides a good example of the type of verbal conduct that can create a workplace harassment claim. In that case, an employee of the company claimed he was harassed based on his national origin (Turkey/Palestine) and religion (Islam). The employee said that his supervisor made insulting remarks to him, including that he “dressed like [he was] gonna blow up the World Trade Center,” and made derogatory jokes about Arabs. Despite the fact that the employee reported this conduct to his employer, the employer did nothing to stop it and the employee eventually resigned. The company eventually settled the case for $50,000.

In another EEOC case against the restaurant chain Golden Corral, the verbal harassment focused on the employee’s mental disability, and then turned to sexual harassment. The company’s dishwasher had a form of high-functioning autism. His assistant manager called him a “retard” and “stupid”, swore at him, and threatened to sexually assault him, demanding oral sex. Eventually, the employee was forced to leave because of the hostile work environment after he was again assigned to report to the same abusive manager. He filed a complaint with the EEOC, which sued Golden Corral’s parent company, Jax, LLC. The case eventually settled for $85,000.

Physical Harassment

Though physical harassment is less common than verbal harassment, it can often be more severe. Physical conduct, like hitting, pushing, groping and other touching, can be present in any number of harassment claims, but is often associated with sexual harassment.

Physical Harassment

For example, in a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC against Red Lobster, several female employees alleged their manager created a hostile work environment by, among other conduct, physically harassing them. The conduct included the manager pressing himself against the employees as well as grabbing and groping them. Again, the employees complained to their employer, but no action was taken. After the EEOC filed suit on the employees’ behalf, Red Lobster agreed to pay $160,000 in damages and make other changes at its restaurant to avoid similar incidents in the future.

Starting in 2019, New York State law now requires all employers to train new hires and existing employees about how to prevent and respond to physical sexual harassment. This training must include examples of workplace harassment and explain an employee’s rights and remedies if they find themselves the target of illegal and unwanted behavior.

Supervisor Harassment

Harassment can be most intimidating when it comes from a boss, manager, or supervisor. Supervisors can use their position of authority to subject employees to discriminatory conduct, leaving the employee feeling trapped and vulnerable. Federal courts have found that when it is the employee’s supervisor doing the unwanted conduct, it creates a claim for workplace harassment that much sooner.

Supervisor Harassment

In another sexual harassment case, brought by a female employee of UBS Financial Services, a manager and UBS Vice President allegedly harassed the employee over a period of several years with repeated inappropriate sexual comments, remarks about her body, explicit emails and phone calls to the employee’s home. The employee complained to her employer, but instead of getting relief from the harassment, she was ultimately fired. The employee filed a lawsuit against UBS and received an award of $8.4 million.

Supervisor harassment can even come from the owner of the company itself. When you work for a small business, sometimes it can be hard to get relief under Title VII or other federal anti-discrimination laws. However, the New York State Human Rights Act applies no matter how small the company is. When a popular New York restaurant owner created a “culture of fear” among his employees, they went to the press to make their stories heard. The New York Human Rights Division reviews these kinds of cases. If no resolution can be reached, state residents can sue their bosses in state court.

Co-Worker Harassment

While coworkers may not have the same level of authority over an employee, they can also create an intimidating work environment for employees that is just as unlawful as harassing conduct of a supervisor.

Coworker Harassment

A case brought by the EEOC against a North Carolina trucking company in 2011 exemplified the type of hostile work environment case that can be created by the discriminatory actions of coworkers. The EEOC brought the case on behalf of two African-American employees, alleging their employer had allowed a racially hostile work environment to exist. According to the EEOC, that environment was created, in large part, by coworkers who made derogatory and threatening comments to the employees, used racial slurs and even displayed a noose in the workplace. The jury in that case agreed that the employees had been harassed based on their race and awarded them a total of $200,000 in damages.

In another EEOC complaint, several partners of a top law firm sued the firm for coworker harassment and gender discrimination they said created a “fraternity culture” at work. Among their claims, the female lawyers said that male partners would demand that they sing and dance, force the women to climb over them or push them into pools at company parties, and make sexualized comments about the female employees’ clothes, high heels, or smiles. When these male partners would make inappropriate jokes they would often say “add it to the file” acknowledging that their conduct was illegal. The case requested over $2 million in damages.

Are You Being Harassed at Work?

The examples of unlawful workplace harassment don’t end with what we’ve listed above. In some cases, there is a mixture of unwelcome conduct (both verbal and physical) and harassers (supervisors, coworkers and others) that ultimately creates a discriminatory environment for an employee. In other cases, the initial workplace harassment is made worse by retaliation when employees speak out. Each case of workplace harassment is unique. Whether it rises to a level of illegal discrimination depends on the specific facts of the case.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our employment discrimination lawyers have seen countless examples of workplace harassment. We know what it takes to make, and win, a case for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in state or federal court. If you’d like to discuss the facts of your own employment harassment claim with an experienced attorney, please contact us. We offer free initial consultations for sexual harassment claims and bill on a contingent fee basis, so you won’t have to pay us unless we win your case.

Are Female Government Contractors Protected from Gender Discrimination?

/

Should female government contractors be entitled to fair pay for the work they do? An Obama-era 2014 executive order called Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces sought to hold contractors accountable for pay violations, sexual harassment, and other forms of gender discrimination. But those protections have been rolled back under the Trump Administration, leaving employees wondering if they are still protected at all.

In this blog post, I will discuss the federal laws and executive orders protecting female government contractors from sexual harassment, abuse, and gender discrimination. I will explain how an Obama-era executive order extended additional protections, and how a 2017 executive order repealing those protections could change the way women are treated, and paid, in government contract jobs.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Protect Female Government Contractors from Gender Discrimination and Unfair Pay

If you work for the federal government or one of its many contractors, you would assume that federal laws against unfair compensation, harassment, and discrimination would apply to you as much as to any employee of a private company. And you would be right. Federal contractors, departments, and agencies can all be sued for violating anti-discrimination laws including Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. Employees of these contractors have just as much right to file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and in federal court as their privately employed counterparts.

But in 2010, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that female government contractors were being targetted for sexual harassment, unequal pay, and gender discrimination violations. Companies that received millions in federal contract dollars were among the worst offenders when it came to violations of 14 labor and civil rights laws. Of the 50 worst employers examined by the GAO, 60% had been given federal contract money after receiving penalties by the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. They scored similarly poorly at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Hide Sexual Harassment Against Female Government Contractors

But those same numbers weren’t showing up in the courts. The research did not reveal very many allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault against the government contractor employers. At the time, this was attributed to the mandatory arbitration clauses in the contractors’ employment agreements. These agreements pushed sexual harassment and abuse claims out of the public eye, forcing them to be resolved behind closed doors by privately paid arbitrators, rather than federal judges.

Obama-Era Executive Order Put Government Money Behind Fair Pay

On July 31, 2014, in response to the 2010 GAO study, then-President Barack Obama signed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. This order said that government contractors receiving more than $500,000 in federal funds had to live up to the expectations of civil rights and labor laws to get their money. It required applicants for federal funds to disclose 3 years of public and private awards or decisions (including arbitration decisions) against the company for violations of:

  •  “(A) the Fair Labor Standards Act;
  •  (B) the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970;
  •  (C) the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act;
  •  (D) the National Labor Relations Act;
  •  (E) 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, also known as the Davis-Bacon Act;
  •  (F) 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, also known as the Service Contract Act;
  •  (G) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity);
  •  (H) section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
  •  (I) 38 U.S.C. 3696, 3698, 3699, 4214, 4301-4306, also known as the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
  • (J) the Family and Medical Leave Act;
  • (K) title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  • (L) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
  • (M) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
  • (N) Executive Order 13658 of February 12, 2014 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors); or
  • (O) equivalent State laws, as defined in guidance issued by the Department of Labor.”

The order also required federal government contractors to provide transparency in their pay determination and to remove mandatory arbitration in cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or discrimination. The Executive Order also contained a detailed explanation as to why these protections were necessary:

“This order seeks to increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties who contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws. … ”

President Trump Undoes Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order continued as the law of the land for the rest of President Obama’s term in office. But just over two months into Donald Trump’s presidency, he signed an executive order of his own. The new order didn’t include any sweeping policy statements or provide any explanation. It simply said,

“Executive Order 13673 of July 31, 2014, section 3 of Executive Order 13683 of December 11, 2014, and Executive Order 13738 of August 23, 2016, are revoked.”

It then instructed all executive agencies and departments to rescind orders, rules, regulations, and policies based on the now-revoked orders. Without further instruction, the order left it unclear what those agencies were supposed to put in their place to protect female government contractors.

Fighting Back Against Unfair Pay and Gender Discrimination

Two years later, female government contractors still face gender discrimination on the job and in their paychecks. For some, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order has created lasting changes to their employment contracts. They have better access to federal and state anti-discrimination laws, and a clearer understanding of their companies’ pay structures.

But for others, when Trump rescinded the executive order, it signaled a return to the old habits and cavalier violations of federal labor and civil rights laws that prompted the GAO study in the first place. For those female government contractors, a successful defense against sexual harassment and gender discrimination at work will depend on zealous representation in front of arbitrators and investigators alike, and a creative approach to getting them the relief they need.

The employment attorneys at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, can help. Our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys know how to fight back against government contractor employers trying to hide behind arbitration clauses and pay secrecy. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.

Is Pornography at Work Sexual Harassment?

/

When nude pictures make their way onto the factory floor, or start to spread through the office chat system, it can easily turn a happy work day into an uncomfortable event. But is pornography at work sexual harassment? Can you report it without having to worry about retaliation?

In this blog post I will review a complaint filed by the EEOC against Protocol Restaurant based in part on claims that the owner distributed pornography at work. I will review the definitions of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. I will also discuss employees options when inappropriate pictures make the rounds at work.

Pornography in the Workplace: Sexual Harassment Waiting to Happen

Pornography can pop up anywhere. Whether you work in an auto-body shop or an executive office, you may have coworkers who view or share pornography on the job. They may hang inappropriately sexualized images around the shop floor, or send nude photos over email or the office chat system. Maybe they keep it as a background image or screen saver on their own computers, or play videos with disturbing sexual audio in their cubicles.

No matter the form it takes, pornography at work is a sexual harassment problem waiting to happen. Unless you work in a very particular industry, there is no reason for any employee to be viewing pornography at work. Most companies explicitly ban the practice in their employee handbooks. But that doesn’t mean employees aren’t sneaking it in and using it in ways that make their coworkers uncomfortable.

Sexual harassment under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act can happen any time comments or behavior based on a person’s sex or gender make it hard for them to work, or create a hostile work environment that would make a reasonable person uncomfortable on the job. The presence of pornography at work can very easily create a hostile work environment by raising issues of sex, sexuality, and lewd behavior where they have no purpose. When an employee’s objections about the presence of sexual images go unanswered, the employer’s silence can create the basis for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

EEOC vs. Protocol Restaurant Takes on Pornography at Work

That’s what happened when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Protocol Restaurant in Buffalo, New York for sexual harassment. The lawsuit accuses Paul Pelczynski, the restaurant’s owner, of a variety of sexually offensive conduct targeting the women who worked for him, including:

  • Unwelcome sexual advances
  • Repeated invitations for drinks
  • Offers to share hotel rooms
  • Comments about their bodies
  • Grabbing their bodies
  • Kissing them
  • Brushing up against them
  • Displaying pornography at work
  • Sending pornographic group texts

When the restaurant’s female employees complained or told Pelczynski no, they were fired. Others quit because they could no longer put up with the sexualized and hostile work environment.

Finally, some of Protocol’s employees turned to the EEOC for help. After attempts at pre-litigation settlement failed, the agency filed suit in EEOC v. Protocol of Amherst, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00598 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Buffalo Division. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of the employees including:

  • Back pay
  • Compensation for harm caused by the sexual harassment
  • Punitive damages based on the severity of the conduct
  • Changes to company policy to prevent future sexual harassment at work

Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office said in a statement:

“Owning a business is not a license to sexually harass employees. . . . Business owners have a duty to protect employees from sexual harassment, and the EEOC is prepared to take strong action where an owner abuses his authority.”

Retaliation for Reporting Porn at Work

Even though pornography has no place at work and is against most company policies, employees are still often hesitant to report it. That is especially true when the person sending out the images is a manager, supervisor, or owner (like Pelczynski). Just like in the Protocol case, employees worry that if they call out their bosses for sexually inappropriate imagery they are going to face retaliation, suffer even more sexual harassment, or even lose their jobs.

The good news is that the same state and federal laws that protect against sexual harassment, including pornography at work, also prevent employers from retaliating when an employee complains. Even if you weren’t the one negatively affected by the images, the law says that your employer may not discipline you for speaking out. When it does, you have the right to file a claim with the EEOC or in state or federal court.

Extra Protections for New York Employees Against “Revenge Porn”

Having to endure any naked bodies when you are trying to work is hard enough. But when you are the subject of the photos it can be humiliating. Many victims of so-called “revenge porn” at work find themselves resigning rather than facing coworkers who have seen them exposed.

That’s why New York City and New York State have each passed laws making it a crime to distribute nude pictures of another person without his or her consent. Section 10-177*3 of the NYC Administrative Code makes distributing, or even threatening to distribute revenge pornography at work a criminal misdemeanor with a penalty of up to one year in jail.

On the state level, using intimate pictures or video to humiliate someone or cause them emotional, physical, or financial harm is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a $1,000 fine. The state law also gives the victims of revenge porn the power to sue their harassers, and in some cases their employers, for the harm caused. They can also get a court order to get the pictures taken down from social media or workplace servers, to help them repair their reputation and move past the humiliating event.

Pornography has no place at work. But when it finds its way there anyway, employees need to know there are laws to protect them. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced sexual harassment attorneys know how to use federal and state anti-discrimination laws and local and state revenge porn laws to get you the protection and compensation you need. We can meet with you at our headquarters in the heart of New York City, or conference with you remotely, to help you plan a strategy to put an end to pornography at work. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to a sexual harassment attorney.

Whose Side are They On: Unions in Sexual Harassment Claims

/

Unions hold themselves out as protecting workers in a number of industries — from actors to actuaries. They represent musicians and tradespeople, as well as municipal staff and employees of large corporations. When sexual harassment happens in a unionized workplace, it can raise questions about whose side the union is really on, and about the role of unions in sexual harassment claims.

In this blog post I will discuss what role unions play in sexual harassment claims by unionized workers. I will discuss whether you need to file a complaint with your union rep, and why you might find yourself facing off against unions in sexual harassment claims.

Title VII Applies to Employers, Not Unions

When you are facing sexual harassment at work, you can use Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act as a shield. Like many states’ laws, Title VII makes it illegal for your employer to make employment decisions (like hiring, promotions, salary adjustments, or shift assignments, among others) based on an employee’s willingness to respond to a supervisor’s sexual advances. It also requires employers to respond to complaints of sexual harassment by supervisors, between coworkers, or involving customers or clients.

Title VII doesn’t directly apply to unions. The protections offered under the statute depend on the existence of an employment relationship. While the New York State Human Rights Act defines the scope of protection more broadly, under federal anti-discrimination laws a union representative has no duty to review or respond to sexual harassment claims.

That said, many unions explicitly take on the duty to respond to reports of sexual harassment by coworkers in their Codes of Conduct or collective bargaining agreements. In those cases, your union can sometimes actually slow down your ability to go to court over sexual harassment claims. If your company’s internal processes require a thorough union grievance process, you may have to finish all those appeals before you are eligible to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or in federal court.

Could Your Union Rep be Working Against You?

Many unionized employees are surprised to learn that the traditional union relationship does not include help when you are filing sexual harassment claims. In fact, at its most straight-forward, it is the union’s job to protect your harasser’s employment. According to a recent New York Times article on the issue:

“The old union way was just defend the member at all costs, fight the disciplinary action,” said Leonard Egert, the national executive director of the guild, also known as AGMA.

That means when your employer is quick to react to allegations of abuse, by suspending or firing the employee in question, the unions can sometimes be legally required to help them fight to get their jobs back.

That’s what happened at the New York City Ballet when Alexandra Waterbury, a former student at the School of American Ballet, raised sexual harassment claims against fellow dancer Amar Ramasar, a star within the company. She reported that her ex-boyfriend had shared texts containing sexually explicit photos and videos of her without her consent. Mr. Ramasar was also accused of sharing nude photos of another dancer with Ms. Waterbury’s ex-boyfriend. In response to the allegations, the Ballet suspended Ramasar and another dancer named in Ms. Waterbury’s lawsuit. But then it learned that several of its dancers would be uncomfortable if the men returned, so the company fired them.

That’s where the union came in. The AGMA represented Ramasar and the other dancer in defending against employment termination, saying that the men had not been given an opportunity to defend themselves against the claims. It said firing the two men was too severe a punishment. Eventually, a private arbitrator agreed and Ramasar was reinstated (the other dancer chose not to return to the company).

Sexual Harassment Claims Pit Unions Against Themselves

Several unions are adjusting their approach to sexual harassment claims, particularly in the arts and entertainment industries. Many have adopted new codes of conduct that provide for the right to a safe, harassment-free workplace, and create ways for victims to file sexual assault complaints with the union directly.

But doing so could create a strange situation of pitting your union against itself in its duty to represent all the company’s employees. If you file sexual harassment claims with your union, and it takes on the responsibility to represent you in that complaint, that doesn’t eliminate its duty to your coworker who harassed you. Some unions are having to assign different staff members to each side of the case. In those instances, you could end up with the union working against itself and its own ends.

That’s why, even if you are entitled to union representation, you may want to hire a private attorney to represent your sexual harassment claims to your employer. If you rely on the union representative in a claim against a coworker, it may not be entirely clear who they are representing, and you may find the resolution leaves you wanting something more.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination and sexual harassment attorneys work with employees in unions in New York and across the country. We know how to make the most of union grievance processes, and when you can work around them to get resolution faster. Contact us to schedule a consultation at our office in New York City, or over the phone.