After Eight Years, Terminated Employees Receive $6.2 Million Jury Verdict in Pregnancy Discrimination Case against Medical Services Company

Steven Mitchell Sack of The Law Offices of Steven Mitchell Sack and Scott A. Lucas of Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas have announced they helped three women who were fired from their jobs for being pregnant obtain a $6.2 million jury verdict in the matter of Santana, et. al v. G.E.B. Medical Management, Inc., et. al., 305261-08.

In the lawsuit, the three women — two of whom worked as an administrative assistants and another as a biller — established themselves as solid performers, but when it was discovered that they were pregnant or suspected of being pregnant, they were harassed by their employer, falsely accused of poor performance and later fired. The employees had only been with the company for less than a year. Two were fired in October 2006; the third was fired in March 2007.

In 2008, a lawsuit was filed in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, citing wrongful termination and the mental, physical and emotional distress the women suffered after being harassed and fired. However, the case did not go to trial until August 3, 2015. After 43 days, on September 15, 2015, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The trio was awarded $4.5 million in compensatory damages, $181,000 in lost wages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

“It was a very satisfying victory, despite the amount of time it took for the case to be heard,” said Mr. Sack, who served as the plaintiffs’ co-trial counsel. “We fought this battle for eight long years, and truth and justice prevailed.”

“This verdict sends a message to all employers that they cannot harass and fire women for being pregnant,” Mr. Lucas said. “They experienced some terrible circumstances as a result of their termination of employment and it is only right they are being justly compensated.”

For more information, contact Mr. Lucas at (212) 983-6000 or Mr. Sack at (917) 371-8000.


About Steven Mitchell Sack

Steven Mitchell Sack, “The Employee’s Lawyer®,” has been enforcing workplace rights of employees, executives, and sales representatives for over 30 years. He is a practicing attorney concentrating in employment law, as well as an author of 19 books, a lecturer and syndicated radio talk show host. He obtained a favorable Court of Appeals decision for a group of waiters who were denied their fair share of tips that were held back by a well-known cruise establishment. For more information, visit

About Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas

The Law Offices of Scott A. Lucas have been open for over 11 years helping individuals protect and enforce their rights. With years of experience in a variety of matters in both State and Federal Court litigation, the firm has narrowed its primary focus to the key area of employee compensation. Major areas of practice include contracts, litigation, severance, overtime, commissions and ERISA. For more information, call (212) 983-6000 or visit

Steven Mitchell Sack Says Fast Food Workers in New York State Deserve Higher Wages

Attorney Steven Mitchell Sack, “The Employee’s Lawyer,” says fast food workers in New York State do not make enough money and should be able to earn at least $15 an hour. This, he says, will mean not only increased employee morale but employee retention.

One hundred twenty-six elected officials from New York State recently sent a letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo and acting state Labor Commissioner Mario Musolino urging them to raise the minimum wage for fast-food employees to $15 an hour. Currently, the minimum wage in New York State is $8.75 per hour; it is expected to go up to $9 an hour by the end of the year. The state’s wage board indicated it is considering raising the minimum wage but is unsure by how much.

The city of Los Angeles recently enacted a law that will raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour by July 1, 2016 for businesses with 26 or more employees and again to $15 an hour by 2020 for larger businesses and by 2021 for companies with 25 or fewer workers. In Seattle, Washington, the city raised its minimum wage to $11 an hour on April 1. The $15-an-hour rate is expected to take effect in three to four years for companies with 501 or more employees, and five to seven years for businesses with 500 or fewer employees.

“The state should follow the leads of Los Angeles and Seattle and implement a raise in the minimum wage that results in workers earning $15 an hour,” Mr. Sack says. “These fast-food workers do not make enough to live on, especially those in the metropolitan New York area — one of the most expensive areas to live in the nation. This will be a win-win: workers will be happier to bring home a bigger paycheck and companies will see a higher rate of employee retention.”

Mr. Sack is available to comment further on the subject.

Steven Mitchell Sack Supports President Obama’s Proposed Rule Change on Overtime Pay

Attorney Steven Mitchell Sack, “The Employee’s Lawyer,” says a new workplace regulation proposed by President Barack Obama to automatically qualify workers for overtime pay would mean those who work more than 40 hours a week will be fairly compensated.

On June 29, President Obama announced a rule change that would raise the salary threshold from $23,660 a year to $50,440 a year for workers to be eligible to be paid time-and-a-half, beginning in 2016. This would affect approximately 5 million workers in the U.S.

The Obama administration notes that in 1975 sixty-two percent of full-time salaried workers were eligible for overtime pay, but, since then, the percentage has dropped due to inflation. In addition, the overtime regulations have only been updated twice in the last 40 years. The last time that occurred was in 2004.

“It is necessary for companies to pay its workers the wages they deserve and the proposed overtime law is a great start,” Mr. Sack said. “It is not right for someone who works 50 to 60 hours a week to receive a paycheck for 40 hours of work. By paying them time-and-a-half, they will take home more money and will have less to worry about trying to stay afloat financially.”

Mr. Sack is available to comment further on the subject.

Steven Mitchell Sack Supports Governor Cuomo’s Legislation to Protect Nail Salon Workers in New York State

Attorney Steven Mitchell Sack, “The Employee’s Lawyer,” says Governor Andrew Cuomo’s legislation that would crack down on nail salons which exploit their workers or operate without a license will provide much-needed protection for the employees who work in dangerous conditions while not being justly compensated.

On May 18, Governor Cuomo proposed a bill that would authorize the state to shut down or place hefty fines on businesses that break the law. The legislation would allow unlicensed nail workers to register with the state as trainees so they can still work while studying to obtain their licenses.

Under the legislation, businesses must provide protective equipment to their employees, such as respirators for those working on acrylic nails, and goggles when transferring hazardous materials such as nail polish remover between containers. They must also post an employee Bill of Rights and any cease-and-desist notices they receive. Further, those establishments that operate without a license will be closed until they receive the proper permits, while legitimate salons may lose their licenses if they violate the law.

“For too long, these hardworking employees have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous nail salon owners who have cheated them out of their pay, exposed them to hazardous chemicals which led to health problems and confined them to abusive work conditions,” Mr. Sack says. “I urge the state Legislature to pass this bill so that these workers can be afforded the protections they deserve.”

Mr. Sack is available to comment further on the subject.


About Steven Mitchell Sack

Steven Mitchell Sack, “The Employee’s Lawyer®,” has been enforcing workplace rights of employees, executives, and sales representatives for over 30 years. He is a practicing attorney concentrating in employment law, as well as an author of 19 books, a lecturer and syndicated radio talk show host. He obtained a favorable Court of Appeals decision for a group of waiters who were denied their fair share of tips that were held back by a well-known cruise establishment. For more information, visit



NYC Employers Fined for Not Allowing Employees Sick Leave

Last year, Mayor de Blasio signed into effect new sick leave laws that would offer employees greater protection by expanding the previous legislation. Recently, companies such as Best Buy and FedEx have been fined for not complying with the law that went into effect last April.

The new law provided that the definitions of family members were expanded to include grandparents, grandchildren and siblings; providing immediate coverage to employees who would otherwise have been “phased in”; and removed the exemptions that applied to the manufacturing sector. 500,000 workers who did not previously have paid sick leave acquired it as a result of the new legislation.

FedEx received fines amounting to $33,600 as a result of violating the new law. An employee complaint launched an investigation that revealed workers were denied sick leave between April 1, 2014 and December 7, 2014. As a result, FedEx was required to credit sick leave to 165 employees and pay out $15,000 in restitution to another 30 employees. In addition, other employers in New York such as Best Buy, American Girl Place, Primo Cappuccino, Lismir Cards and the East Harlem Council for Human Services have all been fined for not complying with the new laws.

Many workers’ advocates celebrated the new law which prevents workers from having to choose between their jobs and their health, or the health of their family members. Low wage workers no longer need to fear being fired as a result of taking a sick day.

If you feel you have been wrongly denied sick leave, contact an experienced employment attorney who will strive to ensure that your rights are protected. Contact an experienced New York Employment Attorney who will get you the compensation you deserve. Call Steven Mitchell Sack at (917) 371-8000 or email him at You can also visit his website at

McDonald’s Joins Companies Nationwide that are Raising Wages

McDonald’s has recently taken measures to improve wages and benefits for its employees. However, these newly implemented policies will only affect those employed by the company stores, not franchisees. As part of the new benefits, employees will see an increase in salary to at least $1 above the local minimum wage, eligibility for time off, and a new program applying to all employees who wish to earn a high school diploma or fund their college education. 90,000 workers would be affected at 1,500 McDonald’s restaurants. This means that 90% of McDonald’s workers would not see these benefits as the majority of the restaurants are franchisee-owned.

As wage pressure becomes increasingly competitive, companies such as McDonald’s are raising wages of employees.  Walmart, the nation’s largest employer, set the trend in raising wages in February prompting economic analysts to point out that wage increases will lead to a tightened job market.

Additionally, there has been a recent movement across college campuses in the U.S. to raise wages to $15. Those involved in the movement have expressed concern about graduating from college into a job market that doesn’t provide for them to repay their student loan debts. The advocates of the campus movement believe they have had an impact, beginning with Walmart’s wage boosts. In addition, since the beginning of the year, 21 states have increased the minimum wage.  Seattle raised its minimum wage to $15, making it the highest minimum wage in the country.

The Federal Fair Labors Standard Act requires that your employer pay you at least the minimum wage in addition to overtime. If you believe that you have not been compensated fairly as an employee, contact an experienced attorney who will fight for your right to a fair wage. Contact an experienced New York Employment Attorney today.  Call Steven Mitchell Sack at (917) 371-8000 or email him at You can also visit his website at

Women Celebrate Victory in Supreme Court Young v. UPS Decision

In the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in the case of Young v. UPS, the Court remanded the case back to the 4th Circuit.  Although the Supreme Court did not directly decide the issue of whether UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in not offering Young a disability accommodation due to her pregnancy, it held that Young’s claim should at least be heard.  Advocates celebrated this as a victory because at least Young would have her day in court that had been denied by the lower courts.  Young’s attorney considered the decision to be a “big step forward towards enforcing the principle that a woman shouldn’t have to choose between her pregnancy and her job.”

The case concerned whether UPS had violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in not accommodating Young’s request for a light duty work assignment during her pregnancy, based on her doctor’s orders.  UPS argued that its policy was pregnancy neutral in that it treated pregnant employees and non-pregnant employees the same when it came to injuries that did not result from employment.  Both the district court, and 4th Circuit rejected hearing Young’s argument on the grounds that she could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.  Although the Supreme Court decided that pregnant employees should not be granted a “most favored nation” status, it did hold that UPS would have to justify a nondiscriminatory reason for Young’s difference in treatment compared with the accommodations given to injured employees.

While Young v. UPS dealt with federal law (the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), at least twelve states have enacted protection for pregnant workers into legislation by providing that employers must regard pregnancy in the same way it treats a worker with a disability and therefore must offer reasonable accommodations.

If you feel that you have been discriminated against as a result of your pregnancy, contact an experienced New York Employment Attorney today. Call Steven Mitchell Sack at (917) 371-8000 or email him at You can also visit his website at

Abercrombie and Fitch Faces Another Lawsuit Based on Religious Discrimination

Abercrombie and Fitch has been subjected to several lawsuits in the last few years based on the company’s appearance policy.  CEO Mike Jeffries was quoted in 2013 remarking that the company’s objective is to target “good looking people” which is why they “hire good looking people.”  The company has been accused of discrimination based on weight, physical disabilities, appearance, and religion.

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning a previously filed EEOC complaint regarding one of Abercrombie and Fitch’s personal appearance policies.  A teenager who had applied for a sales position with the company was not hired because she was required to wear a head scarf as part of her religious beliefs.  This is similar to a lawsuit won against Abercrombie and Fitch in 2010 in which the plaintiff was fired for refusing to remove her religious head scarf while working on the floor.   A decision is expected by July.

Under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer cannot discriminate against employees for their religious practices and must reasonably accommodate their religious needs.  Furthermore, an employer may not fire an employee due to her religious beliefs or apply personal appearance rules to religious observers that are discriminatory and inconsistent with their beliefs.

In order to avoid lawsuits, the following summarizes what companies are obligated to do:

  • Employers have an obligation to make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employees.
  • Employers must give time off for the Sabbath or holy days except in an emergency.
  • If employees don’t come to work, employers may give them leave without pay, may require equivalent time to be made up, or may allow employees to charge the time against any other leave with pay, except sick pay.
  • Employers may not discriminatorily apply personal appearance rules to religious observers.
  • Employers may not fire workers as a result of their religious beliefs.

If you or a loved one believes that you have been fired or received poor treatment due to personal appearance practices required by your religious beliefs, you may have a legal claim. Contact an experienced New York Employment Attorney who will fight for your rights and get you the compensation you deserve.

Should You Be Compensated for Time Spent in Workplace Security Checkpoint?

Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that companies are not obliged to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks at the end of their shifts.

The case presenting the issue of overtime pay involved the elite online marketplace and employees of a company in Nevada responsible for processing and shipping amazon purchases.

Specifically, the employees of the Nevada company had sued the company for back wages and overtime pay. They claimed that they should have been compensated for time spent in security screenings. While the employees claimed that such screenings, designed to prevent against theft, took up to 30-minutes, Amazon maintained, that the screening process is designed to take 90-seconds per employee.

In a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court determined that the employees could not claim compensation for time spent undergoing a 30-minute screening aimed at protecting against theft. Read more

United States Supreme Court to Take on Pregnancy in the Workplace

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case (Young v. UPS, 12-1226) that has the potential to affect how pregnant workers are accommodated in the workplace.

The case involves popular package and parcel shipping company, UPS, and a female employee who had been working as a driver in Landover, Maryland. After becoming pregnant in 2006, the employee submitted a doctor’s note backing her request for a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages.

UPS declined to accommodate the employee and doctor’s request, reiterating its policy that drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Unable to comply with the company’s policy, she left work and returned two months after having delivered her baby. During this two month period, consequently, the employee lost her health insurance, and couldn’t collect unemployment because she wasn’t fired.

Specifically, the question that the Supreme Court will address is whether UPS was required to accommodate its pregnant employee since it gave temporary assignments to other workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Read more