Final Arguments Made In McGreevey Divorce Case
By Angela Delli Santi Associated Press June 5, 2008
ELIZABETH N.J.
It's now up to a judge to decide how much alimony and child support to award the soon-to-be ex-wife of New Jersey's gay former governor, following three weeks of testimony laying bare the couple's dire finances.
Lawyers delivered their final arguments Wednesday, wrapping up the money phase in the bitter divorce of Jim McGreevey and Dina Matos.
Matos has asked the judge for $2,500 a month alimony for four years, $1,750 a month support, and for McGreevey to foot her legal bills for the divorce, which exceed $250,000. McGreevey does not want to pay alimony, and is hoping to be assessed support payments of about $100 a month.
The judge is not expected to rule until July, at the earliest.
A final phase in the divorce Matos' claim that she was duped into marrying a gay man who thought he needed a wife to advance his political ambitions won't be heard until after the money issues are settled. The fraud claim, if it reaches trial, could include salacious testimony from a former campaign aide who claims to have had sexual trysts with the McGreeveys.
During Wednesday's summation, Matos' lawyer John Post challenged McGreevey's claim that he's broke, saying the 50-year-old seminary student is intentionally under-earning to avoid paying alimony. Post also dismissed a claim by a McGreevey-hired employment expert who testified that the former governor is so tainted by scandal that he's "radioactive" in the work world.
"He finds himself where he is today because he is doing work he wants to do," said Post, who called McGreevey's dire financial situation "a contrived farce."
McGreevey lawyer Stephen Haller said his client doesn't owe Matos a dime in alimony based on a marriage lasting just four years before the couple split in 2004.
"We've got a marriage so short that kids date longer than these two were married," he said.
Matos and McGreevey are both deeply in debt, their grim finances made ever more difficult by exorbitant legal bills incurred in the divorce. Matos, who lost her job as a hospital fundraiser when the hospital closed last week, testified to owing about $750,000 for a mortgage, personal loan and legal bills. McGreevey said he owed his boyfriend more than $200,000, mostly for lawyers, and is $11,000 behind in support for a daughter from his first marriage. Neither have any savings.
McGreevey abruptly resigned in 2004, acknowledging that he is "a gay American" who had an affair with a male staffer. The staffer denied the affair and said he was sexually harassed by the governor.
The McGreeveys split three months after the speech, leaving the governor's mansion and going their separate ways.
Part of her alimony claim was staked on the fact that she would have lived as New Jersey's first lady for 13 additional months had her husband not resigned in disgrace. McGreevey maintained that the so-called gubernatorial lifestyle was not a marital asset.
Matos later backed off the claim that she was entitled to a compensation package that included the value of a personal assistant, chef and round-the-clock state police protection, all perks of the governor's office.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Do You Want a Court to Decide Custody of Your Children?
Texas sect parents complain of vague custody plans
By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writer
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) - The parents of the children in state custody after a raid at a polygamist sect's ranch came to a courthouse asking one question: How do we get back our children?
They left complaining that Texas child welfare officials offered no real answers Monday as five judges began sorting the massive custody case into separate family groups. The state has more than 460 children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in foster care.
Texas officials are making it impossible for parents to get back their children, complained Willie Jessop, an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which runs the ranch in Eldorado.
"Every parent is accused of being bad and there's no cure," he said after the first day of hearings, which were to resume Tuesday and expected to last three weeks.
All the parents got the same template plan outlining allegations of abuse at the ranch and services required for the children and parents. Judges made few changes, though several expressed concerns about the lack of specifics. The plans do not make it clear whether the children will ever be allowed to return to the ranch.
"What the parents are trying to find out here is what they need to do to get their children back, and there's no clear answer to that," FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said.
The parents say they are being persecuted for their religion, which includes the belief that polygamy brings glorification in heaven.
In one hearing, attorneys complained that the Book of Mormon was confiscated from some of the children at a foster facility.
"If they can openly admit they can take away the Book of Mormon from us today, it'll be the Bible tomorrow," Jessop said.
State Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said officials have not been able to confirm whether the sect members' holy text was taken from them, but they have removed photos, sermons and books of FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, a convicted sex offender.
None of the judges allowed much discussion on whether the initial grounds for removing the children from the ranch were valid. Such re-examination will likely depend on an appeals court.
Texas child welfare authorities argued that all the children, from newborns to teenagers, should be removed from the ranch because the sect pushes underage girls into marriage and sex and encourages boys to become future perpetrators.
Church members insist there was no abuse. They say the one-size-fits-all action plan devised by CPS doesn't take into account specific marriage arrangements or living circumstances.
Some sect members lived in a communal setting in large log houses they built themselves. Others lived as traditional nuclear families in their own housing on the ranch.
CPS spokeswoman Shari Pulliam said the plans look similar now but will be customized as officials get more information.
"It's logical they all look the same. All the children were removed from the same address at the same time for the same reason," she said. But "it's an evolving plan."
The plans call for parenting classes and vocational testing for the parents. They also require the parents to prove they can support their children and call for safe living environments, though they offer no specifics.
CPS supervisor Karrie Emerson said the parenting classes will be tailored to explain Texas laws regarding underage sex.
CPS has said the goal is to reunify the families by April.
The custody case has been unusual from the beginning. All the children at the ranch were treated as if they belonged to a single household, so the chaotic initial hearing involved hundreds of attorneys for children and parents and broad allegations from the department about the risks of abuse.
So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers have been identified in court documents; more than 100 other children had unknown parents as the hearings got under way. DNA samples have been taken, but the first results are at least two weeks away.
The state acknowledged Monday that two more sect members it listed as minors were actually adults, a mistake it has made at least four times.
The children were removed from the ranch during an April 3 raid that began after someone called a domestic abuse hot line claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old abused by a much older husband. The caller has never been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
The FLDS is a renegade breakaway of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.
Sect leader Jeffs has been sentenced to prison in Utah for being an accomplice to rape in arranging a marriage of a 14-year-old follower to her 19-year-old cousin. He is awaiting trial in Arizona, where he is charged as an accomplice with four counts each of incest and sexual conduct.
Court documents listed 10 children of Jeffs living at the ranch. If DNA tests confirm that any of the children are his, the children will be allowed to keep a photo, unlike the other sect children, said Meisner, the CPS spokeswoman.
By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writer
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) - The parents of the children in state custody after a raid at a polygamist sect's ranch came to a courthouse asking one question: How do we get back our children?
They left complaining that Texas child welfare officials offered no real answers Monday as five judges began sorting the massive custody case into separate family groups. The state has more than 460 children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in foster care.
Texas officials are making it impossible for parents to get back their children, complained Willie Jessop, an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which runs the ranch in Eldorado.
"Every parent is accused of being bad and there's no cure," he said after the first day of hearings, which were to resume Tuesday and expected to last three weeks.
All the parents got the same template plan outlining allegations of abuse at the ranch and services required for the children and parents. Judges made few changes, though several expressed concerns about the lack of specifics. The plans do not make it clear whether the children will ever be allowed to return to the ranch.
"What the parents are trying to find out here is what they need to do to get their children back, and there's no clear answer to that," FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said.
The parents say they are being persecuted for their religion, which includes the belief that polygamy brings glorification in heaven.
In one hearing, attorneys complained that the Book of Mormon was confiscated from some of the children at a foster facility.
"If they can openly admit they can take away the Book of Mormon from us today, it'll be the Bible tomorrow," Jessop said.
State Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said officials have not been able to confirm whether the sect members' holy text was taken from them, but they have removed photos, sermons and books of FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, a convicted sex offender.
None of the judges allowed much discussion on whether the initial grounds for removing the children from the ranch were valid. Such re-examination will likely depend on an appeals court.
Texas child welfare authorities argued that all the children, from newborns to teenagers, should be removed from the ranch because the sect pushes underage girls into marriage and sex and encourages boys to become future perpetrators.
Church members insist there was no abuse. They say the one-size-fits-all action plan devised by CPS doesn't take into account specific marriage arrangements or living circumstances.
Some sect members lived in a communal setting in large log houses they built themselves. Others lived as traditional nuclear families in their own housing on the ranch.
CPS spokeswoman Shari Pulliam said the plans look similar now but will be customized as officials get more information.
"It's logical they all look the same. All the children were removed from the same address at the same time for the same reason," she said. But "it's an evolving plan."
The plans call for parenting classes and vocational testing for the parents. They also require the parents to prove they can support their children and call for safe living environments, though they offer no specifics.
CPS supervisor Karrie Emerson said the parenting classes will be tailored to explain Texas laws regarding underage sex.
CPS has said the goal is to reunify the families by April.
The custody case has been unusual from the beginning. All the children at the ranch were treated as if they belonged to a single household, so the chaotic initial hearing involved hundreds of attorneys for children and parents and broad allegations from the department about the risks of abuse.
So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers have been identified in court documents; more than 100 other children had unknown parents as the hearings got under way. DNA samples have been taken, but the first results are at least two weeks away.
The state acknowledged Monday that two more sect members it listed as minors were actually adults, a mistake it has made at least four times.
The children were removed from the ranch during an April 3 raid that began after someone called a domestic abuse hot line claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old abused by a much older husband. The caller has never been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
The FLDS is a renegade breakaway of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.
Sect leader Jeffs has been sentenced to prison in Utah for being an accomplice to rape in arranging a marriage of a 14-year-old follower to her 19-year-old cousin. He is awaiting trial in Arizona, where he is charged as an accomplice with four counts each of incest and sexual conduct.
Court documents listed 10 children of Jeffs living at the ranch. If DNA tests confirm that any of the children are his, the children will be allowed to keep a photo, unlike the other sect children, said Meisner, the CPS spokeswoman.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Disability Bias
Refusal to Hire Impaired Worker Not Disability BiasBy LINDA COADY, ESQ., Andrews Publications Staff Writer
A refinery's refusal to hire an applicant who admitted to suffering from weakness on the right side of his body did not violate disability laws, a federal judge in Houston has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not show that Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP regarded Steve Aleman as disabled or that it discriminated against him based on his record of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"An employer may freely decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job without violating the ADA," the judge said.
According to the EEOC's complaint, Aleman applied for a job as an operator trainee at LCR and underwent physical ability and pre-placement physical testing. During the physical ability test, he disclosed that he had undergone brain surgery some years before. He passed the physical ability test, and the company made him a conditional offer of employment.
During the pre-placement physical test Aleman noted on his medical history form that he previously sustained a head injury that required hospitalization and experienced seizures and weakness in the right side of his body, the opinion says.
Based on information Aleman provided, the doctor who conducted the pre-placement physical test determined that he could not safely climb ladders, which the operator job required. LCR withdrew its employment offer based solely on the doctor's recommendation, it says.
Aleman filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, and the agency filed suit on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The complaint alleged that LCR violated the ADA by refusing to hire Aleman because he was disabled and had a history of disability.
Judge Werlein granted the refinery's motion for summary judgment.
The judge explained that to be regarded as disabled, a plaintiff must show that he has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated as disabled by the employer.
LCR said it withdrew the job offer because it believed that Aleman could not safely climb ladders, according to Judge Werlein.
However, climbing has not been deemed a "major life activity" for purposes of the ADA, he said. A major life activity is a "basic, necessary function" such as walking, seeing or breathing, the judge said.
In this case, LCR seemed to be aware that Aleman's impairment might affect activities other than climbing, Judge Werlein said.
"Awareness of an impairment, however, cannot alone prove that the employer regarded an employee as disabled," he said.
The judge dismissed the disability claim, saying the EEOC did not show that Aleman's impairment, as LCR perceived it, was substantially limiting.
The agency alleged in the alternative that Aleman is covered by the ADA because of a "record of disability."
A plaintiff has a record of disability if he has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, Judge Werlein explained.
While the EEOC contended that Aleman's history of seizures and right-side weakness can be substantially limiting, it did not present evidence that those impairments "actually posed substantial limitations to Aleman's ability to walk, stand, balance or, indeed, to engage in any recognized major life activity," Judge Werlein said
A refinery's refusal to hire an applicant who admitted to suffering from weakness on the right side of his body did not violate disability laws, a federal judge in Houston has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not show that Lyondell-Citgo Refining LP regarded Steve Aleman as disabled or that it discriminated against him based on his record of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"An employer may freely decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job without violating the ADA," the judge said.
According to the EEOC's complaint, Aleman applied for a job as an operator trainee at LCR and underwent physical ability and pre-placement physical testing. During the physical ability test, he disclosed that he had undergone brain surgery some years before. He passed the physical ability test, and the company made him a conditional offer of employment.
During the pre-placement physical test Aleman noted on his medical history form that he previously sustained a head injury that required hospitalization and experienced seizures and weakness in the right side of his body, the opinion says.
Based on information Aleman provided, the doctor who conducted the pre-placement physical test determined that he could not safely climb ladders, which the operator job required. LCR withdrew its employment offer based solely on the doctor's recommendation, it says.
Aleman filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, and the agency filed suit on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The complaint alleged that LCR violated the ADA by refusing to hire Aleman because he was disabled and had a history of disability.
Judge Werlein granted the refinery's motion for summary judgment.
The judge explained that to be regarded as disabled, a plaintiff must show that he has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated as disabled by the employer.
LCR said it withdrew the job offer because it believed that Aleman could not safely climb ladders, according to Judge Werlein.
However, climbing has not been deemed a "major life activity" for purposes of the ADA, he said. A major life activity is a "basic, necessary function" such as walking, seeing or breathing, the judge said.
In this case, LCR seemed to be aware that Aleman's impairment might affect activities other than climbing, Judge Werlein said.
"Awareness of an impairment, however, cannot alone prove that the employer regarded an employee as disabled," he said.
The judge dismissed the disability claim, saying the EEOC did not show that Aleman's impairment, as LCR perceived it, was substantially limiting.
The agency alleged in the alternative that Aleman is covered by the ADA because of a "record of disability."
A plaintiff has a record of disability if he has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, Judge Werlein explained.
While the EEOC contended that Aleman's history of seizures and right-side weakness can be substantially limiting, it did not present evidence that those impairments "actually posed substantial limitations to Aleman's ability to walk, stand, balance or, indeed, to engage in any recognized major life activity," Judge Werlein said
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
NO SMOKING!!!
Whirlpool suspends 39 workers, says they lied about smoking
By TOM MURPHY AP Business Writer
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.
A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.
As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.
"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.
Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.
Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.
In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.
Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.
"It's definitely not something we wanted to do," she said. "It's unpleasant."
The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.
A 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers - those with 20,000 or more employees - adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status, according to the human resources consulting firm Mercer.
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.
"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.
By TOM MURPHY AP Business Writer
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Smoking can be hazardous to your health, and it's turning into a bad career move, too.
A Whirlpool Corp. factory in Evansville, Ind., has suspended 39 workers who signed insurance paperwork claiming they don't use tobacco and then were seen smoking or chewing tobacco on company property. Now, some could be fired for lying, company spokeswoman Debby Castrale said.
As annual health care premiums rise more than 10 percent a year, many companies are trying to rein in costs by encouraging healthy living.
"I can't think of a client of ours who has not shifted their focus to controlling the cost of their health care plan," said Indianapolis benefits lawyer Mike Paton.
Some employers have developed wellness programs to motivate employees, while others ask employees to state on benefits forms whether they use tobacco.
Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Mich., uses financial incentives to encourage U.S. workers and their dependents to abstain from tobacco use, spokeswoman Jill Saletta said. The specifics vary according to location.
In Evansville, the 1,500-employee factory charges tobacco users an extra $500 in annual health insurance premiums. The refrigerator factory has levied the extra premium since 1996, and it depends on employees to honestly fill out forms. It doesn't mandate blood tests to detect nicotine or trail employees outside work, Castrale said.
Management suspended the 39 employees Friday after they were spotted using either chewing tobacco on company property or taking a drag in one of the factory's dozen shelters for outdoor smoking, Castrale said.
"It's definitely not something we wanted to do," she said. "It's unpleasant."
The employees were suspended without pay, and they'll present their case at "fact-finding" meetings before management determines their fate. Whirlpool had to recall some laid-off workers to keep production running due to the suspensions.
A 2007 national survey showed that 16 percent of all large employers - those with 20,000 or more employees - adjust health care premium contributions according to the worker's smoking status, according to the human resources consulting firm Mercer.
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act limits the changes an employer can make to a health premium because of a worker's unhealthy habits. But it doesn't set parameters on punishment if an employee lies about his or her habit, Paton said.
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for employee privacy, sees no problem with employers trying to curb smoking. But he worries that the trend of cracking down on employees' unhealthy behavior is extending beyond tobacco use.
"We shouldn't have to give employers complete control over our private life so they can save a few dollars on medical care," he said.
Monday, April 14, 2008
In the Eye of the Beholder!
Woman Sues Miss California USA Pageant
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Hispanic woman who won the Miss California USA contest only to have her crown yanked days later sued the pageant Thursday for half a million dollars, alleging rigging and racial bias.
The pageant director rejected the claims, saying winners during his tenure have been some of the pageant's most racially diverse ever.
Christina Silva, 24, was crowned Miss California USA on Nov. 25. Three days later, the pageant's executive director, Keith Lewis, told her "there has been a mistake and you are not the winner," according to the lawsuit filed in Superior Court.
Raquel Beezley, 21, was subsequently crowned.
Silva is of Ecuadorean and Mexican descent. The lawsuit claims Lewis was "uncomfortable with the fact that Miss Silva spoke Spanish with certain vendors; he felt that it may detract from the caliber of the pageant and some of the 'all American girls' may not opt to compete in the following year."
Silva alleges that Lewis, the pageant, its producer K2 Productions and the Miss Universe Organization engaged in fraud, negligence, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other charges.
Lewis told The Associated Press the allegations of racial bias were unfounded.
"I've had three winners since I've been a director," Lewis said. "Two have been African American, two of four in the history of the state pageant. And the current Miss California USA is 25 percent Filipino," Lewis said, referring to Beezley. "I think my record speaks for itself."
Miss Universe spokeswoman Lark-Marie Anton declined comment.
The lawsuit seeks $500,000 in damages for public humiliation and lost prizes.
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Hispanic woman who won the Miss California USA contest only to have her crown yanked days later sued the pageant Thursday for half a million dollars, alleging rigging and racial bias.
The pageant director rejected the claims, saying winners during his tenure have been some of the pageant's most racially diverse ever.
Christina Silva, 24, was crowned Miss California USA on Nov. 25. Three days later, the pageant's executive director, Keith Lewis, told her "there has been a mistake and you are not the winner," according to the lawsuit filed in Superior Court.
Raquel Beezley, 21, was subsequently crowned.
Silva is of Ecuadorean and Mexican descent. The lawsuit claims Lewis was "uncomfortable with the fact that Miss Silva spoke Spanish with certain vendors; he felt that it may detract from the caliber of the pageant and some of the 'all American girls' may not opt to compete in the following year."
Silva alleges that Lewis, the pageant, its producer K2 Productions and the Miss Universe Organization engaged in fraud, negligence, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other charges.
Lewis told The Associated Press the allegations of racial bias were unfounded.
"I've had three winners since I've been a director," Lewis said. "Two have been African American, two of four in the history of the state pageant. And the current Miss California USA is 25 percent Filipino," Lewis said, referring to Beezley. "I think my record speaks for itself."
Miss Universe spokeswoman Lark-Marie Anton declined comment.
The lawsuit seeks $500,000 in damages for public humiliation and lost prizes.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Muslim Worker Pursues Religious Bias Case
By LINDA COADY, ESQ., Andrews Publications Staff Writer
A federal appeals court has reinstated a Muslim worker's lawsuit alleging he was subjected to a religiously hostile work environment that his employer knew about but ignored.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found several fact questions on whether, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, plaintiff Clinton Ingram suffered severe and pervasive religious harassment in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.
"No employer can lightly be held liable for single or scattered incidents. We cannot ignore, however, the habitual use of epithets here or view the conduct without an eye for its cumulative effect," the court said.
Ingram began working as a truck driver for Sunbelt Rentals in October 2001. He was later promoted to rental manager.
According to the opinion, his co-workers knew he was a Muslim because the company allowed him to attend weekly prayer sessions and use a small room at the office for short private prayer sessions during the workday.
Ingram filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying his co-workers regularly made demeaning comments against him because of his religious beliefs.
Co-workers called him "Taliban" and "towel head," made fun of his appearance, suggested that he was a terrorist, and questioned his loyalty to the United States, according to the complaint.
After he complained to the human resources department, Ingram's direct supervisors investigated but found no evidence of religious discrimination, the complaint says. Instead, they allegedly told him that his problems stemmed from his personality and performance and that he was "paranoid" and "seeing things."
The harassment continued until Ingram was fired in February 2003, the complaint says.
The EEOC sued Sunbelt on Ingram's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging religious discrimination and hostile environment in violation of federal civil rights law.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Sunbelt.
"There's a lot of coarse behavior that goes on in the workplace," the court said, adding that the EEOC did not show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment.
The agency appealed to the 4th Circuit, which reversed and remanded.
The three-judge panel said a reasonable jury could find that the harassment was "unwelcome."
The record contained ample evidence that Ingram repeatedly complained about his co-workers' alleged misconduct and clearly communicated to supervisors and co-workers that the negative comments about his religion were unwelcome, the opinion says.
Next, the appeals court found that the harassment was based on Ingram's religion. The court said names like "Taliban" and "towel head" would not have been applied to a non-Muslim employee.
The record contains evidence that a reasonable jury would find so abnormal as to meet the "severe or pervasive" test, the court said.
The evidence indicated that Ingram was harassed because of his appearance and religion and that the harassment was "persistent, demeaning, unrelenting and widespread," the opinion says.
A federal appeals court has reinstated a Muslim worker's lawsuit alleging he was subjected to a religiously hostile work environment that his employer knew about but ignored.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found several fact questions on whether, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, plaintiff Clinton Ingram suffered severe and pervasive religious harassment in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.
"No employer can lightly be held liable for single or scattered incidents. We cannot ignore, however, the habitual use of epithets here or view the conduct without an eye for its cumulative effect," the court said.
Ingram began working as a truck driver for Sunbelt Rentals in October 2001. He was later promoted to rental manager.
According to the opinion, his co-workers knew he was a Muslim because the company allowed him to attend weekly prayer sessions and use a small room at the office for short private prayer sessions during the workday.
Ingram filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying his co-workers regularly made demeaning comments against him because of his religious beliefs.
Co-workers called him "Taliban" and "towel head," made fun of his appearance, suggested that he was a terrorist, and questioned his loyalty to the United States, according to the complaint.
After he complained to the human resources department, Ingram's direct supervisors investigated but found no evidence of religious discrimination, the complaint says. Instead, they allegedly told him that his problems stemmed from his personality and performance and that he was "paranoid" and "seeing things."
The harassment continued until Ingram was fired in February 2003, the complaint says.
The EEOC sued Sunbelt on Ingram's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging religious discrimination and hostile environment in violation of federal civil rights law.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Sunbelt.
"There's a lot of coarse behavior that goes on in the workplace," the court said, adding that the EEOC did not show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment.
The agency appealed to the 4th Circuit, which reversed and remanded.
The three-judge panel said a reasonable jury could find that the harassment was "unwelcome."
The record contained ample evidence that Ingram repeatedly complained about his co-workers' alleged misconduct and clearly communicated to supervisors and co-workers that the negative comments about his religion were unwelcome, the opinion says.
Next, the appeals court found that the harassment was based on Ingram's religion. The court said names like "Taliban" and "towel head" would not have been applied to a non-Muslim employee.
The record contains evidence that a reasonable jury would find so abnormal as to meet the "severe or pervasive" test, the court said.
The evidence indicated that Ingram was harassed because of his appearance and religion and that the harassment was "persistent, demeaning, unrelenting and widespread," the opinion says.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
NJ Paid Leave Proposal
N.J. Weighs Paid Work Leave Bill
By TOM HESTER Jr. Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey may be poised to become the third state to require companies to offer six weeks of paid leave to workers wishing to care for a new child or sick relative.
The Assembly approved the Democratic plan last month and Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports it, but the measure is opposed by Republicans and business groups. The Senate was to consider it Monday and it is expected to pass.
Under the plan, which is backed heavily by organized labor, parents could take paid leave anytime in the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
Workers would be allowed to take paid leave to care for a sick relative receiving inpatient care in a medical care facility or under continuing supervision from a health care provider. A health provider could also certify a sick relative needs help at home.
The program would be paid for through a payroll deduction that legislative officials estimate would cost each taxpayer $33 per year. Workers who take leave would get two-thirds of their salary, up to $524 per week, with an estimated average weekly benefit of $415.
Opponents liken the payroll deduction to a tax, and they fear it will increase if the program doesn't earn enough money to meet its needs.
If it passes, New Jersey would adopt similar policies to those in California and Washington state. Federal law allows some workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
California allows workers to take up to six weeks paid leave under a 2004 law. Most who have taken leave in the state have done so to care for a newborn, and more women have taken it than men.
Washington state has approved allowing workers to take five weeks paid leave starting in October 2009, but the program could start late because lawmakers haven't decided how to pay for it.
Jim Leonard of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce said the proposed law would impair economic stimulus and hurt employers during tough economic times. Phillip Kirschner, of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, had similar concerns.
"Senators should pursue policies that help businesses, not hit workers with a payroll tax increase and employers with mandates that make it harder to do business," Kirschner said.
Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney, the bill's leading backer, recalled how his daughter spent 75 days in intensive care after she was born four months premature.
"My boss understood and allowed me to take off the time I needed," said Sweeney, a Democrat. "But I can't imagine having to choose between spending time with my daughter, who was clinging to life, and going to work to put food on the table for my wife and then-four year-old son."
The state estimates 38,000 workers annually would take paid leave. New Jersey has 4.1 million workers.
By TOM HESTER Jr. Associated Press Writer
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - New Jersey may be poised to become the third state to require companies to offer six weeks of paid leave to workers wishing to care for a new child or sick relative.
The Assembly approved the Democratic plan last month and Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine supports it, but the measure is opposed by Republicans and business groups. The Senate was to consider it Monday and it is expected to pass.
Under the plan, which is backed heavily by organized labor, parents could take paid leave anytime in the first year after a child's birth or adoption.
Workers would be allowed to take paid leave to care for a sick relative receiving inpatient care in a medical care facility or under continuing supervision from a health care provider. A health provider could also certify a sick relative needs help at home.
The program would be paid for through a payroll deduction that legislative officials estimate would cost each taxpayer $33 per year. Workers who take leave would get two-thirds of their salary, up to $524 per week, with an estimated average weekly benefit of $415.
Opponents liken the payroll deduction to a tax, and they fear it will increase if the program doesn't earn enough money to meet its needs.
If it passes, New Jersey would adopt similar policies to those in California and Washington state. Federal law allows some workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.
California allows workers to take up to six weeks paid leave under a 2004 law. Most who have taken leave in the state have done so to care for a newborn, and more women have taken it than men.
Washington state has approved allowing workers to take five weeks paid leave starting in October 2009, but the program could start late because lawmakers haven't decided how to pay for it.
Jim Leonard of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce said the proposed law would impair economic stimulus and hurt employers during tough economic times. Phillip Kirschner, of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, had similar concerns.
"Senators should pursue policies that help businesses, not hit workers with a payroll tax increase and employers with mandates that make it harder to do business," Kirschner said.
Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney, the bill's leading backer, recalled how his daughter spent 75 days in intensive care after she was born four months premature.
"My boss understood and allowed me to take off the time I needed," said Sweeney, a Democrat. "But I can't imagine having to choose between spending time with my daughter, who was clinging to life, and going to work to put food on the table for my wife and then-four year-old son."
The state estimates 38,000 workers annually would take paid leave. New Jersey has 4.1 million workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
