Ex-Employees’ Lawsuit Claims Highline Construction Group Discriminates Against Hispanics, Owes Unpaid Wages

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Former Highline Construction Group employees claim the Manhattan construction firm and its owner have discriminated against them on the basis of their national origin and perceived immigration status and failed to pay proper wages in accordance with state and federal law.

The four plaintiffs, who are all of indigenous Mexican national origin and are perceived or actual immigrants, say the defendants have subjected them to “outrageously dangerous and life-threatening work” by directing them to remove asbestos without proper training, licensure or personal protective equipment (PPE). Per the case, the defendants treated the plaintiffs “like a disposable workforce” and, based on their national origin and perceived immigrant status, have subjected them to “constant abuse and harassment” and provided them with “disparately low pay.”

“Given what Defendants know or should have known regarding the dangers of asbestos, the fact that specific licensure, training and PPE is required under the law, their conduct is not only criminal in nature, it is per se extreme, outrageous, so much that it shocks the conscience,” the complaint scathes. “Throughout the course of their employment Defendants intentionally and recklessly subjected Plaintiffs to extreme and outrageously dangerous conditions, to an egregious racially hostile work environment, and to disparate pay and stolen wages, because of their protected status.”

According to the 40-page lawsuit out of New York federal court, the plaintiffs were called racial and offensive epithets, including “immigrant,” “stupid boys,” “donkeys,” and “monkeys,” by their direct supervisors on a daily basis. The ridicule, name-calling and verbal abuse was repeated with such severity, duration and frequency that it established a hostile working environment, the case alleges.

The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs were hired to perform specialized duties at the defendants’ worksites in New Jersey, New York and Long Island but that the company also employed similarly situated workers of other national origins and of perceived non-immigrant status who “performed the exact same duties” but were provided with safer, more humane conditions. While the plaintiffs were required to remove asbestos without any proper training and PPE and were thereby exposed to hazardous chemicals and chronic occupational hazards, “the non-Immigrant workers were not,” the suit says. According to the lawsuit, although Highline was in the best position to train the plaintiffs in the proper use of toxic agents or hire licensed professionals to remove asbestos, the company refused to do so because “[i]t’s too expensive.”

“Throughout the relevant time, such refusal to train, license, and protect Plaintiffs against the exposures of asbestos compounded the exposed harm—although Highline was aware that this work was outrageously dangerous and life threatening and should have contracted the appropriate companies licensed to remove asbestos, this dangerous manual labor was reserved solely for Plaintiffs and others similarly situated,” according to the complaint.

Aside from subjecting the plaintiffs to a hostile work environment and a constant barrage of harassment, the defendants also paid them lower wages on account of their perceived immigration status, Hispanic race and national origin, the lawsuit charges. While similarly situated workers of non-protected status were paid between $22.00 and $23.00 per hour, the suit says the plaintiffs received only $17.00 or $18.00 per hour despite performing “equal work.” Per the lawsuit, the discrepancy cannot be accounted for by a seniority system, merit system or any other bona fide factor other than perceived immigration status or national origin.

The case adds that the plaintiffs and similarly situated workers were denied time-and-a-half overtime wages for weekly hours worked in excess of 40 and were not provided with proper wage statements and notices in accordance with state and federal labor laws.

Finally, the lawsuit claims the plaintiffs were fired in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The full complaint can be read below.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.