Florida Employment Lawyer BLOG

College admission representatives regularly denied overtime wages

July 26th, 2011

admission rep.jpgSarelson Law Firm is now representing “admission representatives” in unpaid wage and unpaid overtime lawsuits. Admission representatives are generally not exempt from overtime laws, but are frequently not paid overtime. If you or someone you know is or was an admission representative at any private, for profit college, feel free to contact our law firm to learn your legal rights.
Florida is rife with private, for-profit colleges and the blog has previously covered regulations that radically effect the industry. Major colleges include Everest, Corinthian College, MedVance Institute, Florida Technical College, Florida National College, Florida Career College and dozens of others. This industry has the potential to provide much needed educational opportunities to individuals who would not otherwise be able to gain upward social and economic mobility, but the industry also has the potential to waste students’ time and money. Private, for-profit colleges make significant money, it should not come at the expense of its employees.

Sarelson Law Firm Expands into Key West and the Florida Keys

July 23rd, 2011

key-west.jpgMiami-based Sarelson Law Firm has expanded its practice into Key West and the Florida Keys. We represent employees in these types of cases:

  • Unpaid wages
  • Unpaid overtime
  • Tipped employees improperly paid (waitresses, bartenders, etc.)
  • Independent contractors who are really employees are entitled to employee protection
  • Sexual harassment
  • Gender discrimination
  • Racial discrimination
  • Age discrimination
  • Religious discrimination
  • Retaliation and whistleblowing
  • Government fraud whistleblowing
  • Pension and retirement disputes
  • Non-compete and non-solicitation agreement
  • Executive compensation agreements
  • Athlete and Personality Representation

Any employee with any workplace or pay issue should consult with an experienced employment attorney to ensure that your rights are being protected and enforced.
We also represent consumers and individuals in class actions, consumer protection matters and personal injury.
Sarelson Law Firm encourages you to contact a local attorney (whether he advertises in the yellow pages, on a bus bench or word of mouth), and then compare those services to the quality and results of Sarelson Law Firm.

Abercrombrie & FItch Lose Religious Discrimination Trial Brought by Employee with a Head Scarf

July 17th, 2011

A federal court has agreed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that national clothing retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch, doing business as Abercrombie Kids, committed religious discrimination against a 17-year-old Muslim girl, the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Abercrombie Kids failed to hire Samantha Elauf for a sales position because she wore a hijab, or head scarf, in observance of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Frizzell granted summary judgment to the EEOC after finding that Abercrombie and Fitch failed to produce sufficient evidence to dispute the EEOC’s claims (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-602-GKF-FHM). Damages will be determined by a jury at a later date.
The court found that Abercrombie Kids refused to hire Elauf in June 2008 for a position at its store in Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla., because she was wearing the hijab when she was interviewed and this violated the company’s “look policy.” The “look policy” prohibited the wearing of any head coverings. Abercrombie claimed that allowing Elauf to wear a hijab would cause an undue burden on the conduct of its business.
The court, noting that Abercrombie and Fitch had allowed numerous exceptions to its “look policy,” including eight or nine head scarf exceptions, found Abercrombie had “completely failed to consider the impact, if any, of those exceptions” and that its evidence was thus too speculative.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects workers from discrimination based upon religion. This includes disparate treatment, harassment and segregation of employees based on religion. Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for the religious practices of its applicants and employees when to do so would not be an undue hardship.
“The EEOC is committed to enforcing the prohibition of all forms of religious discrimination,” said P. David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel. “In this case, the Court’s ruling makes clear an employer’s ‘corporate image’ policy does not relieve an employer of the obligation to provide a reasonable religious accommodation.”
Barbara A. Seely, regional attorney of the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, which is responsible for the agency’s litigation in Oklahoma, said, “Samantha is a typical American teenager who has a sincere religious belief that she must wear a head scarf. Employers need to understand their obligation to balance employees’ needs and rights to practice their religion with the conduct of their business. Where there is a minimal impact on the business, those religious needs must be accommodated.”
Jeff A. Lee, one of the EEOC trial attorneys representing the EEOC, said, “The court has sent a clear message to employers: that the denial of a request for a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s or applicant’s religious beliefs must be based on demonstrated facts, not guesswork or speculation.”