Florida Employment Lawyer BLOG

Sarelson Law Firm Files Major Unpaid Internship Appeal

Beckie — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:42:57 +0000

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires that employers pay every employee a minimum wage. Employers have been skirting this federal law for years by hiring unpaid interns. They do not receive any money – just job experience and a potential fulltime position. Companies have been illegally taking advantage of unpaid interns for too long. That is why the Sarelson Law Firm is filing an appeal on behalf of three unpaid interns who deserve compensation for their work.

“Unfortunately, the job market is so bad that many students and graduates are left with no choice but to work for free with the hope that it will lead to a paid position with the company,” said Matt Sarelson, founder of the Sarelson Law Firm. “But a bad labor market is not a basis for disregarding federal law.”

Many employers have used guidelines established by The Department of Labor regarding unpaid interns to take advantage of workers. However, the Supreme Court has never approved these guidelines, and they are not binding laws.

The appeal claims that three unpaid interns should have received minimum wage because they performed the same duties as employees. One of them worked for a company that would divide the work evenly between the unpaid intern and the rest of the staff, effectively doing everything the full time employees do without any of the wages. Another performed secretarial duties. Employers chided him for not staying after his designated hours. The third worked for a company that openly admitted to using unpaid interns because it made economic sense.

Their cases were dismissed, but the three clients have consolidated their cases into one appeal. Parties expect oral arguments to begin in late 2012 or early 2013.

Similar unpaid intern lawsuits are appearing across the country. Unpaid interns are finally joining together and telling employers that this unfair treatment needs to stop. Employees deserve to be rewarded for their work. Anything else is a violation of federal employment law.

The Sarelson Law Firm – Miami litigation attorneys.

College admission representatives regularly denied overtime wages

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:48:18 +0000

Sarelson 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

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:25:06 +0000

Miami-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

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:21:02 +0000

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.”

Breaking: Eleventh Circuit reinstates discrimination lawsuit against Lockheed-Martin filed by white employee

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:56:29 +0000

The Eleventh Circuit _______.
The opinion is here:
Smith v. Lockheed Martin – Reverse Discrimination

Deco Electrical Contractors violate David-Bacon Act — Construction Workers Compensated

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:04:02 +0000

The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $240,987 in back wages for 33 electricians employed by now-defunct Deco Electrical Contractors Inc., following an investigation that found the employees had been misclassified as lesser-paid laborers and denied proper compensation for all hours worked, in violation of the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.
At the time of the investigation, Deco Electrical Contractors was performing as a contractor on the city of Hialeah’s Elderly Affordable Housing Project, a public-works construction project partially funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and subject to provisions of the DBRA.
“When contractors bid on a federally funded project, they agree to pay the prevailing wages as listed in the contract’s Davis-Bacon wage determination,” said Will Garnitz, director of the Miami District Office of the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division. “This case demonstrates that the Labor Department will use every tool available to ensure those working on federally funded projects receive their proper wages.”
An investigation conducted by the Wage and Hour Division’s Miami office found that the contractor had improperly classified electricians as laborers, and then paid them less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits guaranteed under the terms of the contract. As a result, the contractor was found to owe $240,987 in unpaid wages and fringe benefits. Because Deco Electrical Contractors is no longer in business, the back wages have been paid by the company’s surety bond insurer.
Under the DBRA, contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair – including painting and decorating – of public buildings or public works must pay their workers no less than the locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area.

Breaking: SCOTUS Clarifies the Test for Awarding Fees when a Party is Partially Successful

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:42:48 +0000

For years federal courts have wrestled with how to handle an award of attorneys’ fees when a party is only partially successful. For example, if you file an age discrimination claim under the ADEA and a sex discrimination claim under Title VII, how does the trial court award fees if you prevail on only one of the two claims? Some courts would award all of your attorneys’ fees without discounting for the fact that you did not prevail on a specific claim. Other courts would cut the attorneys’ fees in half because you only prevailed on half of the lawsuit. Still other courts would arbitrarily reduce the attorneys’ fees by an amount fair to the losing party by virtue of the fact that it may have prevailed on some of the claims. (This third approach is completely arbitrary and gives trial judges virtually unlimited discretion to award the amount of fees it deems reasonable. Thankfully, this approach to awarding fees was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in 2009 in Purdue v. Kenny A).
This week the Supreme Court created a bright line rule that limited attorneys’ fees to fees incurred solely to defending a frivolous claim. In Fox v. Vice, a unanimous court held that a party who is awarded attorneys’ fees because part but not all of a lawsuit is deemed frivolous is entitled only to those fees incurred uniquely to the frivolous claims. For example, if a deposition was taken in support of both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, attorneys’ fees for the deposition cannot be awarded. Only attorneys’ fees uniquely attributable to defending against the frivolous claim are compensable.
This ruling is important for two reasons:
First – it significantly limits the amount of attorneys’ fees that can be awarded to a defendant who successfully files a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 or Section 1927. A large fee award to a defendant would only be justified if an entire lawsuit is deemed frivolous.
Second – it provides guidance, indirectly, to district judges who award prevailing plaintiffs’ their attorneys’ fees when their claims are only partially successful. In the context of a civil rights claim, a prisoner who files a section 1983 claim for excessive force and a section 1983 claim for an illegal search should be entitled to 100% of the lodestar even if he only wins on the excessive force claim. All of the depositions, discovery and motion practice would be identical and indivisible notwithstanding the two claims. This is critical because district court judges routinely order blanket deductions (15%, 50%, 75%) off the prevailing attorneys’ lodestar. As a result of giving district court judges so much discretion, competent plaintiffs’ attorneys are refusing to take meritorious claims out of fear (and it is fear) of not being properly compensated. Civil rights and constitutional claims are treated as private attorney general statutes, and accordingly, plaintiffs’ attorneys who take these extraordinarily difficult cases on a contingency basis should be fully compensated for their work.
The decision is here.

Animal Hospital Pays $101,000 to Settle Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 22:59:31 +0000

East Hawaii Veterinary Center, LLC, a veterinary clinic in Hilo on the Big Island of Hawaii, will pay $101,000 and furnish other relief to settle a federal sexual and gender-based harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, a co-owner of the clinic regularly subjected female employees – who ranged from receptionists to a veterinarian – to harassing conduct since at least 2005. On a near-daily basis, the co-owner insulted female staff by making unwelcome sexual remarks, as well as disparaging and hostile comments about women. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the clinic failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct the unlawful harassing behavior. The EEOC also contended that the offending co-owner fired at least three of the women and forced others to quit.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC originally filed its lawsuit in September 2010 in U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii (EEOC v. East Hawaii Veterinary Center, LLC, Case No. CV 10-00559-DAE-LEK) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Aside from the monetary relief, the parties entered into a two-and-a-half-year consent decree in which East Hawaii Veterinary Center agreed to revise its existing policies and complaint procedures to address sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation; hire an equal employment opportunity (EEO) consultant to assist with compliance; train all staff on their rights and responsibilities under EEO laws with an emphasis on sexual harassment; provide additional training to company owners, managers, supervisors and lead employees on how to appropriately address discrimination; and allow the EEOC to monitor compliance and review the handling of internal complaints.
“We commend the clinic for taking the issues raised in the EEOC’s complaint seriously and taking proactive measures in the early stages of this litigation to implement preventive measures at its workplace,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes Hawaii in its jurisdiction. “A work environment that is free of harassment ensures a more productive and vibrant workplace for all.”
Timothy Riera, director of the EEOC’s Honolulu Local Office, added, “Sexual harassment and gender discrimination remain problems in Hawaii, and it is important to remember the debilitating effects that such misconduct can have on a work environment. Employers that do not have effective anti-harassment policies and fail to take immediate action send a message that such behavior is tolerated, giving license for the abuse to continue and worsen over time.”
Open since 2003, the East Hawaii Veterinary Center is a locally owned and operated clinic which provides medical and emergency services for small, avian and exotic animals on the Big Island of Hawaii, according to the company’s website.

KPMG Biased Against Women?

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:04:17 +0000

Sarelson Law Firm, P.A. is accepting clients who work or have worked for accounting giant KPMG and who believe they were discriminated against because they were female. The accounting firm is accused of creating of male dominated culture where women are not promoted due to gender stereotypes.
If you or someone you know worked for KPMG and was discriminated against because of that person’s gender, feel free to contact our Firm today.

AutoZone hit with $600,000 verdict in disability discrimination case

floridaemploymentlawyerblog — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 22:53:40 +0000

A federal court jury in Peoria has returned a verdict of $600,000 against AutoZone, Inc. for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled sales manager, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. An additional claim for $115,000 in back pay will be decided by the presiding judge at a later date.
In the lawsuit brought by the EEOC, AutoZone was charged with requiring a sales manager to perform certain cleaning tasks, including mopping floors, that violated his medical restrictions. The sales manager, who worked at the company’s Macomb, Ill., retail store until 2003, is disabled with permanent back and neck impairments. The EEOC presented evidence that mopping floors was a non-essential function of the sales manager position that could have been reassigned to other employees, and that the employee could perform all of the essential functions of his job. The sales manager testified that that he asked not to be assigned mopping and supported his request with documentation of his impairment. The EEOC’s evidence at trial indicated that in 2003, new store management refused the request and required the employee to mop, leading to further injury and necessitating a medical leave.
The EEOC charged that the company’s actions violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires that employers make reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of employees with disabilities. Under the ADA, a reasonable accommodation may include the elimination or modification of a non-essential job duty, or the transfer of a non-essential job duty to another employee.
“Any employer who thinks that the EEOC is reluctant to take cases to trial or that ordinary juries in courts across the country will shy away from returning big verdicts in ADA cases ought to readjust his thinking in a hurry,” said John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Juries well understand that providing reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities is critical to keeping them on the job and moving the economy forward. They get it, and employers should too.”
The EEOC filed suit in 2007 after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, was designated Civil Action No. 07 C 1154 and was tried before U.S. Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman. The jury returned its $600,000 verdict late on Friday, June 3.
The government’s litigation effort was supervised by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour. At trial, the EEOC was represented by Trial Attorneys Justin Mulaire and Aaron DeCamp.
Mulaire said, “The jury sent an important message today. Employers should take requests for accommodations seriously, and make every reasonable effort to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to do their jobs and earn a living.”
EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, “This is the latest of a string of trial victories for the EEOC this year. Although we are able to resolve most cases through conciliation or settlement, the agency is also prepared to take cases to trial when other efforts to further the public interest do not succeed.”
Lopez noted that other recent trials won by the agency are EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction, EEOC v. Mid-American Specialties, and EEOC v. Paul’s Big M, sex harassment cases in which juries in New Orleans, Memphis, and Syracuse returned verdicts ranging from $451,000 to $1.5 million.
DeCamp and Mulaire noted that under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, damages are capped at $300,000 for a claim under the ADA and that the jury’s award may be reduced during subsequent proceedings before the judge.