An employee living in California was fired by e-mail by his
employer from its New York office. The employee, who was apparently fired for
being perceived as gay, was permitted to proceed with his case in New York.
For a Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.
Download Now
What happened. A
California-based employee was hired to perform public relations, event
planning, and talent selection for ad campaigns for the employer, a New
York–based clothing manufacturer. After the employee was terminated, he
received an e-mail from the company president stating he’d been fired because
the company would not permit a gay person to be its representative.
The employee sued the employer under the nondiscrimination
provisions of the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL) and the New York City Human
Rights Law (NYCHRL).
What the court said. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected
arguments that the New York state and city laws did not protect against
discrimination based on sexual orientation (or perceived orientation); that the
employee was actually an independent contractor and thus was not protected by
the antidiscrimination statute; and that as a nonresident of the state, he was
not protected by the New York law.
In this case, the employee denied that he was gay. However,
his alleged termination based on the perception that he was gay is still unlawful under both the NYHRL and the NYCHRL,
the court explained.
Regarding the employee’s residency, the court determined that
both the decision to terminate and the communication via e-mail originated in
New York. Therefore, the court determined that it did have jurisdiction over
the case. The fact that the impact of the allegedly discriminatory action was
felt out of state had no bearing on the case. Rohn Padmore, Inc. v. LC Play,
Inc., NY Civ. 06-0498 (1/11/10).
Point to remember: This case is especially egregious because the discriminatory nature of the
termination was documented in an e-mail from the company president to the
former employee. Such clear documentation rarely exists, and when it does, it
is nearly impossible to defend against. In order to prevent such circumstances,
employers are strongly advised to implement a clear nondiscrimination policy
and enforce it uniformly, apply disciplinary policies consistently, review
policies periodically to ensure that they are unbiased, and train supervisors
to raise awareness of sex-based stereotypes and assumptions.
Employers should thoroughly document the events leading up to
a decision to terminate at the time the events occur. Depending on the
circumstances, it may be a good idea to provide the employee with warning of a
contemplated termination, a description of the performance problem, and an
opportunity to correct or explain it.