South Florida Personal Injury Blog

Nicaraguan workers sued Dole and Dow Chemical Company after they claimed that working in the fruit fields left them sterile. The 150 agricultural workers in the Central American nation said said that they were irreparably harmed by exposure to a potent pesticide, says Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski. They worked for Dole and allege that the manufacturer of the pesticide was Dow.

According to Fort Lauderdale accident attorney Alitowski, the workers won their verdict in a Nicaraguan court. Altogether, they were awarded $97 million, or about $650,000 per worker if each were compensated equally. However, Broward injury lawyer Alitowski notes that there might be variation among the amount each worker was awarded; for example, a 45-year-old mother of four might receive less money than her 20-year-old counterpart, who had not yet had the chance to get married or build a family.

In any case, the Dole employees attempted to enforce the verdict in a federal district court in Florida. U.S. District Judge Paul Huck refused to recognize the decision of the Nicaraguan court largely on the basis that it was inherently unfair to the American businesses and that the Nicaraguan government had specifically sought out to boost its citizens’ claims at the expenses of fairness and due process of the law. He wrote that the Nicaraguan court “applied a law that unfairly discriminated against a handful of foreign defendants with extraordinary procedures and presumptions found nowhere else in Nicaraguan law.” In general, although U.S. states are supposed to give full faith and credit to the public acts of other states (such as verdicts for civil damages and family law matters, like divorce decrees and child support or alimony obligations), those are far easier to enforce than a verdict from a foreign court.

There were other allegations of fraud, as well. An attorney in southern California is the subject of an investigation amid claims that he engaged in unethical practices, such as coaching witnesses to make misleading or false statements. The matter remains pending before the California Bar at this time, however, and there is not a decision at this time on whether the allegations are accurate.

Continue reading " Federal District Judge in Florida Refuses to Enforce Multi-Million Dollar Verdict Against Fruit Company " »

Florida Employment Lawyers Update:

In one of the most high-profile cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this year, 16 white and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut, alleging racial discrimination, says Broward discrimination attorney Andrew Alitowski. The city had administered a test that current firefighters could take to demonstrate eligibility for a promotion within the fire department. The exam was weighted such that 40 percent of the score came from the oral examination and 60 percent came from the written component. However, after discovering that the test showed a disparate racial breakdown, New Haven officials threw out the results of the test on that basis. They found that African-American firefighters who had taken the test performed significantly lower than members of other racial or ethnic groups.

As a result, the white and Hispanic firefighters sued the city of New Haven on the basis that they were being discriminated against. They performed well on a fair test, they said, according to Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer Alitowski. Furthermore, they went into the test after studying with the belief that a solid performance would result in possible promotions to the position of lieutenant firefighter.

The Supreme Court agreed with the firefighters who sued. The city of New Haven apparently rejected the test results amid fears of lawsuits from minority candidates for promotion, says Broward accident attorney Alitowski. Then they were hit with a lawsuit from the other side. Now, following the firefighters’ victory, an African-American firefighter has filed suit, alleging discrimination. In the new suit, Michael Brisco alleges that the test was biased against African-American promotion candidates because they are the victims of systemic discrimination, such as worse public schools in poorer neighborhoods. Briscoe says that he studied heavily for the exam and was at a disadvantage. He also states that the norm for firefighters’ exams is to weight the oral exam at 70 percent of the total score and the written exam at only 30 percent. If the test had been so weighted, he would have finished fourth in the pool of 24 candidates, according to his lawsuit. Briscoe contends that he learned the required material through years of on-the-job training rather than simply memorizing written facts in the days before the exam.

If you have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of your race, ethnic identity, or national origin, contact Alitowski & Moore, P.A., to begin your fight for justice.

Continue reading " Florida Employment Lawyers: Firefighters Continue to Fan the Flame in Discrimination Controversy " »

Florida Employment Lawyers Report

Although the Civil Rights Act protects all workers in the United States from pay and employment discrimination on the basis of sex, Fort Lauderdale injury attorney Andrew Alitowski notes that the Act’s provisions were enacted primarily to protect women from discrimination. Some employers intentionally discriminate against female worker workers, a practice that was particularly rampant in the 1960s, 1970s, and earlier. At that time, many Americans believed that it was more appropriate for women to stay home to care for the home and raise a family. In particular, since most jobs were dominated heavily by men, bosses and employers did not always believe that women were suited for certain types of jobs. Fortunately, the law protects women who receive lower wages due to discrimination or who suffer through sexual harassment at their place of employment.

Now, women have more options than ever before, which many have embraced regardless of age, says Broward personal injury lawyer Alitowski. Many women pursue full-time careers; others elect to stay at home. Increasingly, women with more earning power are working while their partners stay at home. More and more companies are making alternatives possible for workers, especially parents, regardless of their sex. For example, some companies offer “flex-time” scheduling. Others may allow part-time work arrangements or telecommuting. For example, a mother or father who telecommutes may be able to work from a home office and supervise a child, avoid high child-care costs, and attain a better work-life balance.

Broward injury lawyer Alitowski notes that women still face discrimination in the workplace, which can be overt. An auto mechanic shop owner may think that a woman is just not as naturally suited to car repairs than a man is and may be less inclined to hire her as a result – or even to pay her. A sales company may think that women are not aggressive enough to be effective at high-pressure, high-volume sales positions. Several years ago, there were reports that law firms were giving unwitting female associate attorneys pregnancy tests under the guise of drug testing – an alarming violation of their privacy. Pregnancy discrimination is illegal.

In other instances, women may be discriminated againt less overtly. A worker may receive fewer work hours after she comes back from maternity leave, for example.

In January of this year, Fort Lauderdale injury attorney Alitowski says the United States Congress enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The changes expand workplace protections for people whose employers have discriminated against them without their knowledge, according to Broward personal injury lawyer Alitowski.

President Obama signed the bill into law on January 29, 2009, shortly after he was inaugurated as President. The law was passed in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in 2007, a controversial decision by the high court, notes Broward accident lawyer Alitowski. In that case the plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, began working at the Goodyear Tire Co. in Alabama. In 1998 Ledbetter sued Goodyear claiming that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sex. At the time she filed suit, Ledbetter, who had started at the same pay as several of her male colleagues, was being paid $3,700 per month compared her male employees who earned between $4,200 and $5,200 per month. She alleged – and proved – that the disparity was because she is a woman.

On appeal, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Ledbetter had suffered discrimination, but instead looked at the issue of whether the Civil Rights Act allowed Ledbetter to sue Goodyear or whether the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The relevant provision in the law stated that a plaintiff had to file a suit against her employee within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred. Goodyear argued, and several members of the Supreme Court agreed, that the 180 day clock should have started from the point where the Goodyear Company started making discriminatory decisions about pay increases. Since Ledbetter did not allege that the discrimination occurred in 1998, her suit was untimely and her case was dismissed. In a dissent she read from the bench, Justice Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court should have held that “knowingly carrying past discrimination forward” should continue the clock for statute of limitations purposes because pay discrimination often occurs in small increments over large periods of time. The Lilly Ledbetter act was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s majority decision. The law adopted Justice Ginsburg’s position by amending the Civil Rights Act to reset the 180 day statute of limitations period with each discriminatory paycheck. The law was brought up several times during the 2008 presidential campaign. Generally, opponents of the bill argued that its enactment would harm business interests.

Unfortunately, during tight economic times, the workplace environment can undergo major changes, says Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski. There may be layoffs, which can cause emotional strain at work for several reasons. Employees become concerned that they, too, will be next on the chopping block, and empathize with their friends and colleagues who did not survive the recession at their place of employment. Nonetheless, employees and workers of all stripes continue to have rights that employers are required by law to honor.

One of these issues is overtime pay, says Fort Lauderdale personal injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski. Unfortunately, many employers avoid paying the additional wages for extra hours, even though the pay is required by law for many workers. In the case of some businesses, especially small mom-and-pop type operations, it may even be by accident. However, ignorance of the law is not a defense for failing to pay the overtime wages due to a worker. Further, the withholding of the funds may be a deliberate attempt by an employer to boost earnings. Willful violation of the law is extremely problematic.

Worker's compensation is also important. Any time a worker is injured on the job, he or she should be checked out by a doctor as soon as possible. In most cases, the employer will be required to pay for the worker's medical care, ongoing treatment, and even medication and physical therapy. Workers should insist upon being taken to a doctor as soon as the injury occurs or the symptoms manifest. Unfortunately, the employer or its insurance company may be interested in your prior medical records if you are injured on the job. For example, if you have previously been treated for a back injury, they will think that is relevant to a current back or neck problem that was caused by your work. An injured worker should obtain his own attorney if he or she must deal with a team of the insurance company's lawyers, says Broward injury lawyer Alitowski. The sad reality is that the insurance company's best interest is to make sure that the worker does not get his or her medical care covered so that they make more money.

Since unemployment and other economic problems are ongoing, many employees are reluctant to press the issues of overtime compensation and worker's compensation for fear that they will lose their jobs. However, employers are required to cover these costs in most cases. Consult Fort Lauderdale accident lawyer Andrew Alitowski if you believe you are due overtime wages or worker's compensation benefits.

Americans are working harder than ever this year, especially in light of the difficult economic situation, says Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski. Overtime pay is extremely important in these times. In addition to normal work and financial pressures, many workers are struggling with troublesome finances. In Florida, homes have been foreclosed upon at alarming rates and even more people are trying hard to keep that from happening in their own lives. Broward personal injury lawyer Alitowski also notes that a number of workers are facing decreased household income levels. For example, in a two-income household, where both adults are working, it can be very hard to get by if one person loses his or her job. With many workers facing that situation, in addition to the loss of employer-sponsored health care for some people, every dollar that you work for counts.

Most workers or employees are entitled to overtime pay. Overtime compensation comes into play when you work more than 40 hours per week, which is generally considered to be the maximum typical full-time work week. If you are paid hourly, you are probably entitled to overtime pay, but unfortunately, many businesses have not been paying it at the correct rates – or even at all. Overtime compensation is generally set at “time and a half,” or one and a half times your normal hourly rate. For example, if you work a normal 40 hour work week at $12 per hour, the extra five hours you put in over that would be paid at $18 per hour.

In some instances, a worker is not eligible for overtime pay. A supervisor or manager who is responsible for two or more full-time workers, and has other responsibilities such as hiring, will not usually be able to recover overtime compensation. Professionals are also exempt from overtime pay, which includes workers such as attorneys and doctors, whose profession requires extensive education. Certain administrative positions, including some workers who work with the finances of a business, may also be ineligible to recover overtime pay.

Unpaid wages are those which a worker or employee has earned, but the employer did not pay. If the employee worked a 50 hour week and was paid only for 40 hours, or did not receive additional wages above and beyond the normal hourly rate for the extra 10 hours, the employee may be able to recover his or her unpaid wages. An overtime compensation attorney can help you determine if you are eligible to recover unpaid wages.

The House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee began hearing testimony this Wednesday on proposed changes to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which would extend employment discrimination protections to cover the areas of sexual orientation and gender identity, Fort Lauderdale injury lawyer Andrew Alitowski reports. Most of the witnesses offered testimony that was supportive of the law as a way to protect more Americans from workplace discrimination. Committee chair George Miller, a Democrat from California, stated that the proposed law, the Employment Non-Ciscrimination Act or ENDA, would ensure that employment decisions were not based on prejudice. “Fully qualified individuals are being denied employment or are being fired from their jobs for completely non-work-related reasons,” he said. “This is profoundly unfair and, indeed, un-American. And it is bad for business.”

Title VII was a landmark civil rights law which prohibited discrimination against employees based on their race, sex or religion. Later amendments have also banned discrimination based on age and disability, says Broward personal injury attorney Alitowski. The law has been interpreted to prohibit employers from engaging in a wide range of discriminatory activities including discriminating in promotions, hiring and firing and preventing workplace harassment. Certain groups such as the armed services, veterans’ groups, religious organizations and businesses with less than 15 employees are exempt from the requirement of Title VII.

Bills which have would have extended Title VII protections to gays and lesbians have been proposed since the mid 1970s when Congressman Ed Koch and congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the “gay rights bill” in the wake of the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion. ENDA came within one vote of passage in the United States Senate in 1996, but has languished since then. Supporters of ENDA have debated whether the law should expand protections to people who have faced workplace discrimination based on gender identity in addition to sexual orientation with opponents arguing that extending protections to include gender identity is too divisive and will hurt the bills overall chances of passage. A version of ENDA passed the House of Representatives in 2007, but was not voted on in the Senate after a veto threat from then President George W. Bush. President Obama has stated that he is supportive of ENDA as well as other legislation which prohibits workplace discrimination.

Continue reading " Fort Lauderdale Employment Discrimination Attorney: United States House of Representatives Begins to Hold Hearings on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – Prohibiting Sexual Orientation Discrmination " »