Month: April 2018

Two senior students at Fordham University publicly warned classmates about longstanding harassment allegations against associate philosophy professor William Jaworski, resulting in a university investigation and disciplinary charges against the students.

Jaworski had been the subject of numerous formal and informal complaints over more than a decade, with substantiated cases involving sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct. In January, before classes began, seniors Samantha Norman and Eliza Putnam informed students in two of Jaworski’s Philosophical Ethics classes about his history and urged caution. Following this, the university accused the students of dishonesty, disorderly conduct, and verbal harassment, ultimately upholding the dishonesty charge.

Fordham placed Jaworski on paid suspension through the end of the fall semester, citing violations of the university’s code of conduct and the impact on female students’ sense of safety. Jaworski denied the allegations, with his legal counsel attributing the accusations to opposition against his traditional views on sexuality and morality.

Kent Y. Hirozawa of Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP, the attorney representing the students, criticized the university’s response as an effort to suppress the students’ attempts to break a culture of silence around sexual abuse. He characterized the students’ actions as courageous and necessary to protect future victims.

The students expressed frustration over being disciplined for raising awareness but remained committed to their decision.

Read the New York Times’ coverage

Woodcrest Health Care Center in New Milford, New Jersey, has been ordered by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to retroactively provide health benefit improvements and back pay to a group of workers it excluded just days before a union vote. The NLRB found that the nursing home violated federal labor laws by denying the enhancements solely to employees eligible to vote on union representation.

The dispute began when Woodcrest announced better health benefits, including lower premiums and copayments, but excluded workers involved in the upcoming union election. The company claimed it acted to maintain neutrality during the “critical period” of the union campaign. However, the board determined that Woodcrest failed to justify its actions with credible evidence or testimony.

Although a federal appeals court initially sided with Woodcrest and remanded the case for reconsideration, the NLRB reaffirmed that the facility’s conduct was unlawful under the correct legal standards. The board concluded that the company did not provide a legitimate business reason for its decision and did not consult the union or later offer the same benefits post-election.

The ruling marks another step in a years-long legal battle between the facility and union members of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers, represented by Katherine Hansen of Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP. The decision reinforces employee rights to organize and prohibits employers from discriminatory practices during union activities.

Read’s Bloomberg Law’s coverage