Should I resign from my position at work?

By resigning, you are doing a disservice to yourself and likely helping your employer avoid potential liability.

While some employees feel their resignation allows them to part ways with a company on their own terms, in many instances it solely benefits the employer and harms the employee.  For the most part, employees will not be able to collect unemployment insurance benefits where an employee voluntarily leaves their employment without good cause. Wedgle v. Commissioner of Labor, 99 A.D.3d 1139 (3rd Dept. 2012).

Further, besides not being able to collect unemployment benefits, in many instances an employee’s resignation could be fatal for an employee’s claim against an employer that would otherwise be viable had the employer terminated the employee.  The recent case of Collazo v. County of Suffolk and Nancy D’Ambrosio, (2016 WL 660856, 12-CV-2196(JS)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y. February 17, 2016)) holds that an employee will not be considered constructively discharged unless “an employer ‘intentionally creates a work atmosphere so intolerable that [the plaintiff] is forced to quit involuntarily.’ ” (citing Edwards v. Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 957 F.Supp.2d 203, 213 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original)). The constructive discharge standard is “demanding” and it will not be satisfied based on difficult or unpleasant working conditions or the plaintiff’s preference to no longer work for the employer. Id.   Rather, the plaintiff must present evidence: “(1) that the employer acted deliberately or intentionally in bringing about the complained of work conditions, and (2) that the conditions were ‘intolerable.’ ” Id.  (citing Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 229 (2d Cir.2004)).  Further, while proof of the employer’s specific intent is not required; the plaintiff must establish “that the employer’s actions were deliberate and not merely negligent or ineffective.” Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 229 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).

Rather than allow a Court to have to make a determination as to whether an employee was constructively discharged, an employee should contact an employment attorney to discuss their options prior to resigning from their employment or allowing their employer to convince them to resign.

Our firm wants to ensure that your employer is not depriving you of your right to work in an environment free of discriminatory animus, where you feel forced to resign from your position.  If you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated and/or retaliated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment attorneys of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.

DISCLAIMER:

The information at this site has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is offered as a public service. Information on this site does not constitute legal advice and is presented without any representation or warranty whatsoever, including as to the accuracy or completeness of the information.


Equality Act

Earlier this month, the Obama administration endorsed an amendment that would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.  Until now, there is no federal law that unequivocally prevents workers from being fired, harassed or plainly discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Despite strong efforts by a segment of Congress and the White, there has been no real traction on this issue going all the way back to 1994.

The Equality Act aims to provide a wider range of protections for LGBT workers, and in the most direct way possible.  The bill would explicitly add language about gay and transgender people into legislation created by the 1964 Civil Rights Act — the historic measure that banned many forms of discrimination by race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

There has been a huge uproar from certain conservative groups that believe that LGBT issues do not deserve the same deference and protection as race, color, religion, sex or national origin, but the overwhelming trend is moving in the other direction, despite the slow pace.

The Equality Act, of course, in this political environment, is not expected to make it through Congress, butut the proposition to modify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 law starts to seem like a real possibility.  Fortunately, LGBT individuals that live within the borders of New York State and New York City have safeguards against discrimination, but we are the United States not STATE of America and should be united in our stance against intolerance and protections in the workplace for individuals. who have been historically discriminated.

Risman & Risman, P.C. wants to make sure that your employer is complying with New York human rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on LGBT identification.  If you believe you or your family member was and/or has been retaliated against in the workplace, please contact the employment attorneys of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.


Lawsuit Against UPS for Violation of Pregnancy Discrimination Act Settled

Last week, UPS had the good sense to settle a pregnancy discrimination case that was renewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in March, which involved a driver’s (Ms. Peggy Young) suit against the postal carrier alleging denial of a her light-duty request in 2006, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The High Court held that both parties interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was flawed and decided to have the intermediate Appeals Court resolve the issue.

Last week, UPS and Ms. Young had agreed to dismiss the matter with prejudice, with no mention of any consideration provided in exchange for dismissal of all of Ms. Young’s claims. My guess the sum settled for was considerable.

According to Law360, UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg said in an email that Ms. Young and UPS and reached an agreement in September, and while she declined to shed light on the deal’s terms, she said the new pregnancy accommodation policy UPS implemented in January was a factor.

“UPS changed its policy because the company recognized that state law, regulatory guidance and the general work environment in the U.S. have evolved. UPS believes it is appropriate to update its workplace policies so that the company can attract and retain the best workforce,” Rosenberg’s email said.

The company’s new policy reflects recent developments in state laws and is on par with pregnancy-related guidance from the EEOC, Rosenberg noted in her email.

This national trend toward accommodating pregnant women in the workplace started in New York City back in the beginning of 2014. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which came into effect on January 30, 2014, requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant workers, similar to the reasonable accommodation that is required to be provided for disabled employees under the New York City Human Right Law.

Risman & Risman, P.C. wants to make sure that your employer is not depriving you of your right to accommodation in the event you are pregnant. If you believe you or your family member was and/or has been retaliated against in the workplace for being pregnant or requesting a pregnancy related accommodation, please do not hesitate to contact the employment attorneys of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.


What is the Value of an Employment Discrimination Case in New York?

One of the most common inquiries I receive from prospective clients is what is the value of their employment discrimination case. New York employment discrimination cases have a very different calculus compared to a personal injury or mass tort action. The value of a case is firstly dependent on whether you can fulfill all the elements of a discrimination cause of action, and then you move on to the associated remedies, which we will describe in more detail below. However, you should be aware that there is no magic prognosticator that will give you an exact number of what a case is worth – this is simply a tool to assess probable damages.

Commonly, damages available in employment discrimination action can be separated into the following categories:

• Economic damages,
• Compensatory damages,
• Punitive damages,
• Liquidated damages, and
• Attorney fees.

Below is a brief breakdown of what statutes are involved in employment discrimination actions.

Applicable Employment Discrimination Statutes

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)

• The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)

• The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)

• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)

• Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)

• The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)

Categories of Damages

In general, the goal of the law is to put the victim of any injury, including discrimination in the same position in which he or she would have been if the discrimination had not occurred, essentially trying to make the individual whole again. In discrimination actions this is done by providing monetary damages, the categories of which will be briefly described below.

Economic damages

Economic damages include back pay and front pay, and you can derive from their name that this remedy of damages is based in a calculation of wages.

Back pay is the amount the court will award an aggrieved employee to make whole for all compensation lost as a result of the discharge or other adverse action. The back pay period typically begins from the moment of an employee is discharged and continues to the time of trial. In addition to all of an employee’s lost wages, this figure can include the value of bonuses, any lost benefits, and overtime had there been no discharge. The law does require an employee to mitigate damages by looking for and taking a new job if one is available and able to work. Any such provisional compensation would be offset against the back pay. If, however, despite best efforts, an employee is unable to secure a new job, they may not be subject to an offset.

Front pay is the amount the court will award you for lost compensation during the period between judgment and reinstatement or in lieu of reinstatement, although an employer will not commonly offer reinstatement. It is a discretionary award intended to make victims of discrimination whole where the plaintiff has no reasonable prospect of obtaining comparable alternative employment. This type of remedy typically applies in age discrimination claims, where the chances for an older employee to gain willful employment may be less likely.

Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages generally compensate employment discrimination victims for losses such as out-of-pocket expenses caused by the discrimination (such as costs associated with a job search or medical expenses) and any emotional harm suffered (such as mental anguish, inconvenience, or loss of enjoyment of life).

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are designed to punish an employer who has engaged in exceptionally malicious or reckless acts of discrimination. They are recoverable for violations of various statutes, including Title VII and the NYCHRL, but not under the NYSHRL.

Punitive damages can be established either where the employer (1) discriminated or retaliated against the employee with conscious knowledge it was violating the law, or (2) engaged in egregious or outrageous conduct from which an inference of malice or reckless indifference could be drawn.

These limits are as follows under Title VII:

• $50,000 for employers with 15-100 employees;
• $100,000 for employers with 101-200 employees;
• $200,000 for employers with 201-500 employees; and
• $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees.

No such cap exists for punitive damages under the NYCHRL.

Liquidated Damages

Liquidated damages are damages set by statute including the ADEA, EPA, and the Family and FMLA.
Under the ADEA, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages in an amount equal to unpaid wages, but only where there was a “willful violation” of the statute.
Such a violation is found to be willful when the employer knew that its conduct violated federal law or showed reckless disregard of that fact.

Attorney Fees

Attorney’s fees aren’t typically awarded in actions, unless the remedy is prescribed in a statute.
For example, Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, the FMLA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the NYCHRL (but not the NYSHRL) authorize an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party.

The purpose behind the availability of statutory attorney fees is to encourage aggrieved employees to bring meritorious lawsuits by providing them with a source of funds for retaining competent counsel they may not typically have.

Whether the plaintiff is a prevailing party and what is a reasonable attorney fee  are issues that often require careful analysis and may be the subject of extended motion practice.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.

DISCLAIMER:
The information at this site has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is offered as a public service. Information on this site does not constitute legal advice and is presented without any representation or warranty whatsoever, including as to the accuracy or completeness of the information.


Discriminatory Harassment at Work in New York City, What Can I do?

Targeted discriminatory harassment occurs every day in New York City, regardless of the type and size of workplace.  It can happen at a mammoth Fortune 500 company on Wall Street or even a small business specializing in graphic design in a shared space in Brooklyn. What if the target of this discriminatory harassment is you?  What if you are being incessantly harassed at work by a supervisor or coworker and you believe the harasser has a certain discriminatory motive?  Sadly, the victim of harassment typically feels like they have no one to turn to.  Your coworkers will not likely help your cause for fear of losing their jobs.  You are scared to go directly to your Human Resources manager since they are basically a biased extension of your employer, only looking to preserve the company’s interests.  You are unsure whether your employer will retaliate against you, and possibly fire you from your position, simply for speaking up.

What can you do?  First thing, take a deep breath and take solace in the fact there are knowledgeable, well versed specialists in this field who are willing to guide you through this daunting and nerve-racking process.  Below, I have outlined a few steps that will help ensure the preservation of your civil rights under Federal, New York State and New York City employment discrimination laws, but before you do ANYTHING, contact an attorney.

Some Helpful Steps

  1. When you first sense that a supervisor or coworker is harassing you based on a discriminatory animus, try to deduce the true reason.  That animus can fall under a myriad of protected categories, including, but not limited to, age, gender, national origin, race, religion, military status, sexual orientation, a pregnancy or a disability or perceived disability.  Please be aware that if the harassment taking place does not fall under a protected category, the harassment is not actionable under Federal, New York State and New York City employment discrimination laws.
  2. You should next memorialize the event. You can do this in a variety of ways, but the main purpose of this step is to put your employer on notice of the harassment.  Clearly, if the employer in unaware of the inappropriate behavior, they will claim they could not do anything to remedy it and will deny ever knowing it occurred.  One example of giving proper notice would be by sending a letter or email to Human Resources summarizing the harassment.  This step is anything but easy, and fear may prevent you from initiating the process, but failing to do so may cause major difficulties if your employer decides to terminate and retaliate against you in the future.
  3. At this point, if you haven’t already, contact an attorney.  Waiting only leads to an escalation of the discriminatory acts against you and may complicate issues facing the attorney.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.

DISCLAIMER:

The information at this site has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is offered as a public service. Information on this site does not constitute legal advice and is presented without any representation or warranty whatsoever, including as to the accuracy or completeness of the information.


New York State Seeks to Expand LGBT Rights

One could easily assume that New York State and New York City share identical laws giving equal protections for victims of workplace discrimination, with employees failing under a myriad of protected classifications.  Unfortunately, despite it being 2013, this is not the case in fact.  In particular, despite great strides having been made in protecting the civil rights of the gay and lesbian community in New York State, like the legalization of same-sex marriage, many, if asked, would still tell you that they are in constant fear of workplace discrimination and violence, simply because of their sexual orientation.

The New York State legislature is looking to further remedy this ongoing problem of sexual orientation discrimination with the recent proposal of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which calls for protections against discrimination for New York’s transgender and gender-nonconforming population. With its enforcement the Act will outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

GENDA passed the Assembly a few weeks back, but there seems to be a lone wolf seeming to undermine and prevent this Act from becoming law, New York’s State Senate Conservative Party.  The Senate Republican’s opposition is based on the inability n getting reelected in areas that typically do not support expansion of civil rights for the gay and lesbian community.  Unsurprisingly, this is not reason that has been declared by the State Senate Republican leadership.

“Naturally, we’re opposed to it,” said Michael Long, chairman of the New York Conservative Party, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “They should be protected, as we all are. We are for equal rights for all human beings. There is no need to create special classifications for individuals.”

Fortunately, the measure has some powerful Democratic sponsors, which could be enough to barely carry the bill. Versions of it have been pushed for years by gay and transgender advocates who won the landmark law legalizing same-sex marriage in 2011.

Additionally, the District of Columbia, 16 states and several cities already have passed similar laws protecting gender identity and expression.  New York City is also among the cities with protections for gender identity.  Let’s follow suit and bring these protections to all the citizens of New York State.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.

 


FMLA Makes Great New Leap for Care of Adult Children

In a progressive step in the right direction, the Department of Labor (DOL) recently expanded the definition of “son or daughter” to now allow an eligible employee to take medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for an adult child who is unable to care for themselves because of disability related limitations, not considering the age of the child when they were inflicted with the disability.

If you’re not familiar with FMLA, it is a federal law that allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave due to illness or to care for a sick family member, including a son or daughter.  The FMLA ensures that you are able to take extended leaves of absence from work to due to illness or to care for a sick family member.  The FMLA defines a “son or daughter” as a “biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild ,a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis, who is—(A) under 18 years of age; or (B) 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.”  The DOL’s regulations hold that the FMLA does not require that a biological or legal relationship exist between the employee and the child.  Therefore, the regulations interpret “son or daughter” under the FMLA to include a child of a person standing in loco parentis – those with day-to-day responsibilities to care for or financially support a child.

Initially, “son or daughter” had been defined by a child who was under the age of 18, regardless of whether or not they have a disability.  A qualified employee requesting FMLA leave to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age is now only required to show they need to care for the child due to a serious health condition, not necessarily a disability.

On January 14, 2013, the DOL issued Administrator’s Interpretation (AI) No 2013-1, expounding on the definition of “son or daughter.”  In order to meet the FMLA’s definition of a “son or daughter,” an adult child (i.e., an adult child who is 18 years of age or older) must have a mental or physical disability and be incapable of self-care because of that disability.

In defining mental or physical disability, the FMLA regulations implement the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) definition of “disability” – a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (as interpreted by the EEOC).  The AI also incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA)’s expansions to the definition of disability, noting that the clear language of the ADAAA provides that the definition of disability is to be “construed in favor of broad coverage.”

The AI also now requires that the adult child must be incapable of self-care because of his or her disability in order to meet the definition of son or daughter. The FMLA regulations define “incapable of self-care because of mental or physical disability” as when an adult son or daughter “requires active assistance or supervision to provide daily self-care in three or more of the ‘activities of daily living’ (ADLs) or ‘instrumental activities of daily living’ (IADLs).”  Assuming the other requirements of the FMLA are met, a parent will be entitled to take FMLA leave to care for a son or daughter 18 years of age or older, if the adult son or daughter:

1.      has a disability as defined by the ADA;

2.      is incapable of self-care due to that disability;

3.      has a serious health condition; and

4.      is in need of care due to the serious health condition

It is only when all four requirements are met that an eligible employee is entitled to FMLA protected leave to care for his or her adult son or daughter.

Lastly, the AI makes clear that the age of the son or daughter at the start of a disability is irrelevant in determining a parent’s right to FMLA leave.  “An employee is entitled to take FMLA leave to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a disability regardless of when the disability commenced.”

This is a great step in enlarging the protections of FMLA, especially in an area that is typically forgotten and set aside. Now, caregivers with adult children who are incapable of caring for them can get the much needed assistance from a parent, without the parent fearing retribution for taking time off of from work.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.


Facebook Without Fear of Firing. Like!

Employee handbooks are commonly saturated with limitations imposed by employers, who do everything in their power to quash any negative writings and/or speech about the company or its personnel.  A company will typically draft rules prohibiting an employee from speaking publicly about a company in a negative light.  This has recently translated to the world of social media, expanding to language that was usually forbidden in the office kitchen or by the water cooler.

A current social media policy will typically contain language fashioned on an employer’s prohibition of any speech that disparages managers, co-workers or the company itself.  A violation of social media policy can even rise to the level of justifying termination.  However, it looks like the National Labor Review Board (NLRB) has something to say about this shift in its recent advisory based on several rulings, including one in the case against of a not-for-profit corporation called Hispanics United of Buffalo. In essence, labor regulators have declared many such blanket restrictions on speech illegal. The NLRB says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook.

In that case, the New York Times reported that a caseworker threatened to complain to the boss that others were not working hard enough. Another worker, Mariana Cole-Rivera, posted a Facebook message asking, “My fellow co-workers, how do you feel?”

Several of her colleagues posted angry, sometimes expletive-laden, responses. “Try doing my job. I have five programs,” wrote one. “What the hell, we don’t have a life as is,” wrote another. Hispanics United fired Ms. Cole-Rivera and four other caseworkers who responded to her, saying they had violated the company’s harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained.

In a 3-to-1 decision last month, the NLRB ruled that the caseworkers had been unlawfully terminated. It found that the posts in 2010 were the type of “concerted activity” for “mutual aid” that is expressly protected by the National Labor Relations Act.

In addition to ordering the reinstatement of various workers fired for their posts on social networks, the agency has pushed companies nationwide, including giants like General Motors, Target and Costco, to rewrite their social media rules.

The advisories and rulings have collectively expanded the definition of “concerted activity,” which is derived from a law that was enacted in the industrial era, principally to protect workers’ right to unionize, and now is being applied it to the digital activities of nearly all private-sector workers, union and nonunion alike.

Personally, I feel like this is a bold step, but an important one.  Workers should feel free to express their opinions of the workplace environment between one another without fear of punishment in the office or in the steam of social media.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.


Discriminatory Daily News at it Again

They are at it again. One of New York’s most long standing papers is being accused of age discrimination and disability discrimination. In this case, a picture editor at the Daily News, David Burns, is accusing the paper of being “harassed and overlooked for promotions based on his age and health issues.”

This is not the first time the Daily News is in hot water regarding allegations of age discrimination in the workplace, and I imagine that it will not be the last.  The only way to remedy the problem is to change the culture of discriminating against older workers and levying tougher penalties against the corporate forces that facilitate the discriminatory policies.

In this case, Mr. Burns, a 50-year-old New Jersey resident, specifically accuses the Daily News photo managing editor, Alexander Hitchen, of deliberately withholding reimbursements and causing Mr. Burns high anxiety and panic attacks.

Additionally, it is alleged that Mr. Hitchen passed Mr. Burns over for the position of deputy managing editor after pressuring Mr. Burns to fire 21 freelance photographers. To boot, the Complaint also  claims Mr. Hitchen told Burns he failed to get the promotion because of his “age and health” and that Mr. Hitchen said this was “better for [Burns]” because “at your age, you should be concerned about your health and your family.”

Subsequently, the strain between Mr. Hitchen and Mr. Burns reached a literal boiling point, where Mr. Burns was required a stronger prescription  of anti-anxiety and blood pressure medications.

If these allegations are proven to be true, the Daily News may see a monumental and expensive problem on their hands. Firstly, this does nothing good for public relations.  The population of New Yorkers continues to get older and the worsening economy has taken a serious hit on them already. Secondly, Mr. Burns is the embodiment of a well-rounded worker, who people can relate to and sympathize with, something extremely helpful to the attorney presenting this case to the jury of Mr. Burn’s peers.

It looks like the Daily News needs a gut check and a forensic evaluation of their employment policies in order to prevent these public relations nightmares from continuing to happen. One could only hope.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.


Pregnancy and Accommodations Go Together Like Peas and Carrots

I imagine that most people believe that pregnant women are provided with accommodations needed to perform their job, but this cannot be further from the truth.  The recently introduced Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), by Sen. Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), seeks to remedy this injustice and  would require employers to make workplace accommodations available for pregnant women that current Federal and New York law requires them to make for people with disabilities, so long as the accommodation does not amount to an undue burden on the employer.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), these are called “reasonable accommodations,” designed so that employees with disabilities can perform the job functions they were hired to do.

Essentially, the purpose of the PWFA is to eliminate discrimination and promote women’s health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

Under the Federal, New York State and New York City Human Rights Law, pregnancy, is not considered a disability. The only legal projection pregnant women are currently provided is under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the parallel New York laws, which makes it illegal to fire a woman because she becomes pregnant. However, employers can still refuse to accommodate pregnant women’s basic, fundamental needs at work, such as barring a pregnant employee from going on light-duty because she is unable to carry heavy objects, or denying the pregnant woman’s right to carry around a water bottle to ensure her and her growing baby is sufficiently hydrated. The Federal and New York laws, as they currently stand, are essentially forcing pregnant women to pick between their job and ensuring the health of their unborn child and themselves. This is a choice a woman should not be compelled to make, as it goes against the universal view that a pregnancy is a blessing and should be nurtured, not jeopardized because of an employer’s discriminatory prerogative.

This PWFA has a long journey ahead and because of the divisive nature and makeup of the current Congress, it is not likely to become law. However, you have a voice, so let it be heard. Speak out to your elected officials and come November, vote with the PWFA in mind.

As always, if you believe you or your family member was and/or has been discriminated against in the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact the employment discrimination attorneys at the Law Office of Risman & Risman, P.C. at (212) 233-6400 or contact us online.