Washington Afro
NAACP demands editor-in-chief and cartoonist resign, more newsroom diversity
By Alan King AFRO Staff Writer
(February 24, 2009) - Nearly a week after the New York Post’s controversial cartoon sparked nationwide outrage, and just days after the paper apologized, protests and outrage have continued – with political activists and celebrities demanding the resignation of the editor-in-chief and cartoonist.
The illustration, published last Wednesday, depicts a gun-downed chimpanzee and two police officers, with a caption, saying: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
Since the image was published a day after President Barack Obama signed the federal economic stimulus package, and two days after police killed a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut, many say the connection between the president and the ape was clear.
“This connection between simians and Black men is an old canard,” NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman” Monday night. “That’s what this cartoon is all about.”
NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous called the illustration an “invitation to assassinate President Obama,” and he urged readers to boycott the Post.
In addition, the civil rights organization called for the removal of Post editor-in-chief, Col Allan, and cartoonist, Sean Delonas.
“This connection between simians and Black men is an old canard.”
The drawing, Jealous told the media, “picks off the scabs of all the racial wounds.”
NAACP officials said they planned to reach out to organizations across the country to join them in their efforts against the tabloid if the Post does not take “serious disciplinary action.”
Calling the cartoon “thoughtlessness taken to the extreme,” Bond said, “Anyone who is not offended by it does not have any sensitivity.”
Full Story: http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid/2975/Activists-Seek-More-Than-Apology-from-New-York-Pos.aspx
Saturday, February 28, 2009
ASHLAND, INC. / VALVOLINE SUED BY EEOC FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-25-09
Agency Says Manager Harassed and Fired Because of His Age
CLEVELAND – Ashland, Inc., an international chemical giant, and its subsidiary Valvoline, violated federal law when it fired a 52-year-old manager because of his age, according to a lawsuit filed today by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Michael Roach began working for Ashland in 1989, and most recently held the position of service center manager at Ashland’s Valvoline Instant Oil Change facility in Mansfield, Ohio, overseeing directly two stores and the management training for 11 stores. The EEOC investigation revealed that beginning in 2004, Roach’s direct supervisor began to address and refer to him as “Papa Roach” and “Old Man Roach.” Although Roach complained about the comments, the remarks continued and in fact spread among fellow and higher level managers. At age 52, Michael Roach was the oldest employee at both his stores. Valvoline fired Roach because of his age in October 2006.
Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects persons 40 years of age or older. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
The EEOC seeks to eliminate the discriminatory practices cited in the case and have Ashland compensate Roach for his monetary losses. In addition, the ADEA provides for liquidated damages (normally in an amount equal to a person’s monetary losses) in the case of a willful violation of the Act, as in this case.
“This litigation addresses the heart of the ADEA: that the value of older workers should be assessed on the basis of their true level of ability to perform their jobs, not on stereotypical beliefs based on age bias,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.
According to company information, Kentucky-based Ashland Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is a diversified chemical company that provides innovative products, services and solutions to customers around the globe. Serving customers in more than 100 countries, it operates through five commercial units: Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. Valvoline headquarters is in Covington, Ky.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
2-25-09
Agency Says Manager Harassed and Fired Because of His Age
CLEVELAND – Ashland, Inc., an international chemical giant, and its subsidiary Valvoline, violated federal law when it fired a 52-year-old manager because of his age, according to a lawsuit filed today by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Michael Roach began working for Ashland in 1989, and most recently held the position of service center manager at Ashland’s Valvoline Instant Oil Change facility in Mansfield, Ohio, overseeing directly two stores and the management training for 11 stores. The EEOC investigation revealed that beginning in 2004, Roach’s direct supervisor began to address and refer to him as “Papa Roach” and “Old Man Roach.” Although Roach complained about the comments, the remarks continued and in fact spread among fellow and higher level managers. At age 52, Michael Roach was the oldest employee at both his stores. Valvoline fired Roach because of his age in October 2006.
Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects persons 40 years of age or older. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
The EEOC seeks to eliminate the discriminatory practices cited in the case and have Ashland compensate Roach for his monetary losses. In addition, the ADEA provides for liquidated damages (normally in an amount equal to a person’s monetary losses) in the case of a willful violation of the Act, as in this case.
“This litigation addresses the heart of the ADEA: that the value of older workers should be assessed on the basis of their true level of ability to perform their jobs, not on stereotypical beliefs based on age bias,” said EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.
According to company information, Kentucky-based Ashland Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is a diversified chemical company that provides innovative products, services and solutions to customers around the globe. Serving customers in more than 100 countries, it operates through five commercial units: Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution. Valvoline headquarters is in Covington, Ky.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, gender (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability and retaliation. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
College professor wins pay discrimination case against UTPA
The Monitor
February 25, 2009 - 7:37 PM
Jennifer L. Berghom
The Monitor
EDINBURG — Hilda Medrano was demoted from her job as dean of the University of Texas-Pan American's college of education almost four years ago.
Now the university is paying her almost $230,000.
A jury decided Monday that UTPA willfully violated the Equal Pay Act by not paying her as much as her male counterparts and did not pay her for unused vacation time when she was demoted.
Pending a final decision from the judge, Medrano stands to receive almost $350,000 in back pay, benefits, legal fees and damages, including $100,000 for mental anguish.
Although the jury awarded Medrano $37,857 for the difference in pay from any male employee who did comparable work and $26,800 in vacation pay, those amounts would be doubled because the jury found the university willfully violated the Equal Pay Act, said her attorney, Katie Pearson Klein.
"Dr. Medrano prevailed on every issue," Klein said.
Full Story: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/professor_23622___article.html/case_utpa.html
February 25, 2009 - 7:37 PM
Jennifer L. Berghom
The Monitor
EDINBURG — Hilda Medrano was demoted from her job as dean of the University of Texas-Pan American's college of education almost four years ago.
Now the university is paying her almost $230,000.
A jury decided Monday that UTPA willfully violated the Equal Pay Act by not paying her as much as her male counterparts and did not pay her for unused vacation time when she was demoted.
Pending a final decision from the judge, Medrano stands to receive almost $350,000 in back pay, benefits, legal fees and damages, including $100,000 for mental anguish.
Although the jury awarded Medrano $37,857 for the difference in pay from any male employee who did comparable work and $26,800 in vacation pay, those amounts would be doubled because the jury found the university willfully violated the Equal Pay Act, said her attorney, Katie Pearson Klein.
"Dr. Medrano prevailed on every issue," Klein said.
Full Story: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/professor_23622___article.html/case_utpa.html
The Corporate Media Is Shamelessly Pretending Racism Died When Obama Got Elected
AlterNet
By Janine Jackson, FAIR.
Posted February 28, 2009.
The elite white press corps has a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works. Their coverage has been squirm-inducing so far.
There were early indications that corporate media coverage of Barack Obama’s candidacy would be squirm-inducing, putting on display the elite (mainly white) press corps’ murky ideas about race much more than any straightforward reckoning of black Americans’ situation or what an Obama presidency might mean for their concerns. Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes.
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Full Story: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/129381/
By Janine Jackson, FAIR.
Posted February 28, 2009.
The elite white press corps has a myopic understanding of how racial inequality works. Their coverage has been squirm-inducing so far.
There were early indications that corporate media coverage of Barack Obama’s candidacy would be squirm-inducing, putting on display the elite (mainly white) press corps’ murky ideas about race much more than any straightforward reckoning of black Americans’ situation or what an Obama presidency might mean for their concerns. Journalists were sometimes embarrassingly frank about how they interpreted Obama’s blackness and what they hoped his success might mean. “No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery,” declared NBC’s Chris Matthews (1/21/07). “All the bad stuff in our history ain’t there with this guy.” “For many white Americans, it’s a twofer,” opined the New Republic (2/5/07). “Elect Obama, and you not only dethrone George W. Bush, you dethrone [Al] Sharpton, too.” (See Extra!, 3–4/07.)Looking to find parallels for the “stuff” they did like, journalists turned to fiction, as when Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/27/08) alleged that voters “decided they liked Obama when he reminded them more of Will Smith than Jesse Jackson,” or when CNN (6/22/08) told viewers that Michelle Obama “wants to appear to be Claire Huxtable and not Angela Davis.”The fondest hope seemed to be that an Obama victory (if not his strong candidacy alone) would absolve us of any need to talk about racism any more. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (5/14/08) wrote that, in announcing his run for office, Obama was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society. By electing a mixed-race man of evident brilliance, moderate mien and welcoming smile, we would finally cease seeing each other through color-coded eyes.
It’s not clear if Fineman meant Obama said that exactly, or if it was just implied by the way he “radiat[ed] uplift and glorious possibility.” Alas, he continued: “Well, that argument did not end. He and we were naive to think it would.”
Full Story: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/129381/
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
EEOC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING GENETIC INFORMATION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Commission Embarks on Historic New Area of Jurisdiction
PRESS RELEASE
2-25-09
WASHINGTON – Embarking on an historic new area of jurisdiction, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today presented a Notice of Proposed Rule Making implementing employment provisions of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and urged public comment.
“The addition of genetic information discrimination to the EEOC’s mandate is historic, and represents the first legislative expansion of the EEOC’s jurisdiction since the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990,” said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “We welcome the opportunity to implement important provisions of this landmark legislation, and to expand the promise of equal opportunity in the workplace for everyone.”
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “GINA is an important piece of legislation. As a deliberative body, we want to ensure that the intent of Congress is properly carried out through our regulations. Public comment on this NPRM is a critical part of that process. We look forward to a vigorous and thoughtful review.”
GINA, signed into law in May 2008, prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on people’s genetic information. The EEOC is charged with issuing regulations by May 21 implementing Title II of GINA, which prohibits the use of genetic information in employment, prohibits the intentional acquisition of genetic information about applicants and employees, and imposes strict confidentiality requirements.
The EEOC opened a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule-making at a Commission meeting today. Also at the meeting, a panel of experts hailed GINA for allowing people to advance their health care without risking their jobs.
“We know that in the past, patients have passed up genetic testing that could benefit their health, and have gone to great lengths to keep genetic information secret – even from their own doctors,” said Susannah Baruch, Law and Policy Director of the Pew Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. “With the passage of GINA and its implementation, we welcome a new era. There are many factors an individual may consider in deciding whether to take a genetic test, but the fear of discrimination must not be one of them.”
Other panelists at today’s meeting included:
Karen S. Elliott, attorney with Gregory Kaplan, PLC and member, Society for Human Resource Management
Jeremy Gruber, President and Executive Director, Council for Responsible Genetics
Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of People with Disabilities
Rae T. Vann, General Counsel, Equal Employment Advisory Council
Christopher J. Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, ADA Policy Division, EEOC
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Commission Embarks on Historic New Area of Jurisdiction
PRESS RELEASE
2-25-09
WASHINGTON – Embarking on an historic new area of jurisdiction, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today presented a Notice of Proposed Rule Making implementing employment provisions of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and urged public comment.
“The addition of genetic information discrimination to the EEOC’s mandate is historic, and represents the first legislative expansion of the EEOC’s jurisdiction since the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990,” said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “We welcome the opportunity to implement important provisions of this landmark legislation, and to expand the promise of equal opportunity in the workplace for everyone.”
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “GINA is an important piece of legislation. As a deliberative body, we want to ensure that the intent of Congress is properly carried out through our regulations. Public comment on this NPRM is a critical part of that process. We look forward to a vigorous and thoughtful review.”
GINA, signed into law in May 2008, prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on people’s genetic information. The EEOC is charged with issuing regulations by May 21 implementing Title II of GINA, which prohibits the use of genetic information in employment, prohibits the intentional acquisition of genetic information about applicants and employees, and imposes strict confidentiality requirements.
The EEOC opened a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule-making at a Commission meeting today. Also at the meeting, a panel of experts hailed GINA for allowing people to advance their health care without risking their jobs.
“We know that in the past, patients have passed up genetic testing that could benefit their health, and have gone to great lengths to keep genetic information secret – even from their own doctors,” said Susannah Baruch, Law and Policy Director of the Pew Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. “With the passage of GINA and its implementation, we welcome a new era. There are many factors an individual may consider in deciding whether to take a genetic test, but the fear of discrimination must not be one of them.”
Other panelists at today’s meeting included:
Karen S. Elliott, attorney with Gregory Kaplan, PLC and member, Society for Human Resource Management
Jeremy Gruber, President and Executive Director, Council for Responsible Genetics
Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of People with Disabilities
Rae T. Vann, General Counsel, Equal Employment Advisory Council
Christopher J. Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, ADA Policy Division, EEOC
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Solis Confirmed as Labor Secretary
The Washington Post
By Michael A. Fletcher
February 24, 2009
The Senate this afternoon confirmed Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as labor secretary, more than two months after she was nominated for the post by President Obama.The Senate voted 80 to 17 to confirm Solis, after Senate Republicans today assured Democrats that they would not filibuster the nomination. Solis had come under fire from Senate Republicans, who thought she was unresponsive to many of their questions during her confirmation hearing, a situation that was compounded by her work as treasurer for American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group.
There were also concerns among some Republicans about her support for a measure that would make it easier for workers to organize unions.
Consideration of Solis's nomination was further delayed when it was revealed that her husband had recently paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his California auto repair business.
While Solis's nomination generated skepticism among many Republicans and their backers in the business community, the new labor secretary enjoys solid support among members of organized labor. The daughter of immigrants from Mexico and Nicaragua, both of Solis's parents were union members. Also, as a member of Congress, Solis has shared union skepticism toward free trade agreements, and been a strong proponent of developing jobs in renewal energy and other "green collar" areas.
Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/24/solis_cleared_for_senate_confi.html
By Michael A. Fletcher
February 24, 2009
The Senate this afternoon confirmed Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as labor secretary, more than two months after she was nominated for the post by President Obama.The Senate voted 80 to 17 to confirm Solis, after Senate Republicans today assured Democrats that they would not filibuster the nomination. Solis had come under fire from Senate Republicans, who thought she was unresponsive to many of their questions during her confirmation hearing, a situation that was compounded by her work as treasurer for American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group.
There were also concerns among some Republicans about her support for a measure that would make it easier for workers to organize unions.
Consideration of Solis's nomination was further delayed when it was revealed that her husband had recently paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens against his California auto repair business.
While Solis's nomination generated skepticism among many Republicans and their backers in the business community, the new labor secretary enjoys solid support among members of organized labor. The daughter of immigrants from Mexico and Nicaragua, both of Solis's parents were union members. Also, as a member of Congress, Solis has shared union skepticism toward free trade agreements, and been a strong proponent of developing jobs in renewal energy and other "green collar" areas.
Full Story: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/24/solis_cleared_for_senate_confi.html
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Register for the Next AAAA Webinar:"Demystifying Compensation Analysis"
Register for the Next AAAA Webinar:"Demystifying Compensation Analysis"
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The passage of the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and other pending pay equity legislation increases virtually every organization's risk of regulatory and legal challenges to its pay-setting decisions. Consequently, now, more than ever before, employers need to prepare to defend the outcomes of their compensation systems. Labor economists with extensive experience in compensation analysis guide you through the fundamental principles of pay equity analysis using real world illustrations. Drs. Baker, Thornton and Amidon will introduce you to the preliminary methods used by regulatory auditors to identify contractors whose data may show patterns adverse to various demographic groups. You will become familiar with the concept of multiple regression analysis, the most common method of measuring the magnitude and statistical significance level of differences between the pay rates of similarly situated demographic groups. You will learn how to:
structure competent compensation regression analyses, including guidance for the creation of appropriate employee groupings;
measure factors that influence pay;
interpret the results of compensation models;
evaluate the meaningfulness of the model; and
identify employees whose pay rates have a substantial impact on the statistical outcome.
In addition, the labor economists will discuss pay policies and practices that have given rise to pay disparities in university and other settings.
To register, go to: https://www.regonline.com/63369_702490F
For more information, contact 800-252-8592 or email pdti@affirmativeaction.org.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The passage of the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and other pending pay equity legislation increases virtually every organization's risk of regulatory and legal challenges to its pay-setting decisions. Consequently, now, more than ever before, employers need to prepare to defend the outcomes of their compensation systems. Labor economists with extensive experience in compensation analysis guide you through the fundamental principles of pay equity analysis using real world illustrations. Drs. Baker, Thornton and Amidon will introduce you to the preliminary methods used by regulatory auditors to identify contractors whose data may show patterns adverse to various demographic groups. You will become familiar with the concept of multiple regression analysis, the most common method of measuring the magnitude and statistical significance level of differences between the pay rates of similarly situated demographic groups. You will learn how to:
structure competent compensation regression analyses, including guidance for the creation of appropriate employee groupings;
measure factors that influence pay;
interpret the results of compensation models;
evaluate the meaningfulness of the model; and
identify employees whose pay rates have a substantial impact on the statistical outcome.
In addition, the labor economists will discuss pay policies and practices that have given rise to pay disparities in university and other settings.
To register, go to: https://www.regonline.com/63369_702490F
For more information, contact 800-252-8592 or email pdti@affirmativeaction.org.
Don’t Cut Legal Compliance Training
Workforce Management
Workforce Week
February 2009
Commentary: A recession is exactly the wrong time to cut the budgets for training in support of legal compliance issues. In addition to preventing management mistakes that may give rise to legal claims after a negative job action, training can provide an important affirmative defense. Should a company be taken to court, every training dollar spent can be cited as proof of a good-faith effort to comply with worker protections. By David G. Bowman
Financially challenged companies that are facing the worst economic crisis in 60 years may be encouraged by bottom-line-conscious executives to cut costs by forgoing legal compliance training for their managers and HR staff. But major spikes in harassment and discrimination lawsuits following past meltdowns, including the 2000 tech bust, indicate that not "training the masses"—particularly after a year of significant expansions in protected worker categories—ultimately could cost businesses far more than they initially save.
If government reports are correct, the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, already longer than the 10-month average for post-World War II recessions, with no end in sight. Some of the biggest impacts from recessions are layoffs and unemployment, which, unfortunately, are also some of the strongest drivers of workplace litigation.
As in past downturns, today’s soaring unemployment rates reflect not only major reductions in force but also an increasing number of performance-based terminations. Many companies in distress are having difficulty providing sufficient severance packages to discharged employees. Factor in the stock market’s brutal plunge and greatly reduced 401(k) values, just as baby-boom workers approach retirement, and you have the recipe for employment insecurity.
Unemployment drives claims In this high-stakes climate of heightened worker insecurity about pay, benefits and merely keeping a job, any management mistakes in hiring, performance management, firing, restructurings, overtime pay or evaluating reasonable accommodations and leaves of absence could trigger an avalanche of claims, including major class and collective actions.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/26/15/79/index.html
Workforce Week
February 2009
Commentary: A recession is exactly the wrong time to cut the budgets for training in support of legal compliance issues. In addition to preventing management mistakes that may give rise to legal claims after a negative job action, training can provide an important affirmative defense. Should a company be taken to court, every training dollar spent can be cited as proof of a good-faith effort to comply with worker protections. By David G. Bowman
Financially challenged companies that are facing the worst economic crisis in 60 years may be encouraged by bottom-line-conscious executives to cut costs by forgoing legal compliance training for their managers and HR staff. But major spikes in harassment and discrimination lawsuits following past meltdowns, including the 2000 tech bust, indicate that not "training the masses"—particularly after a year of significant expansions in protected worker categories—ultimately could cost businesses far more than they initially save.
If government reports are correct, the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, already longer than the 10-month average for post-World War II recessions, with no end in sight. Some of the biggest impacts from recessions are layoffs and unemployment, which, unfortunately, are also some of the strongest drivers of workplace litigation.
As in past downturns, today’s soaring unemployment rates reflect not only major reductions in force but also an increasing number of performance-based terminations. Many companies in distress are having difficulty providing sufficient severance packages to discharged employees. Factor in the stock market’s brutal plunge and greatly reduced 401(k) values, just as baby-boom workers approach retirement, and you have the recipe for employment insecurity.
Unemployment drives claims In this high-stakes climate of heightened worker insecurity about pay, benefits and merely keeping a job, any management mistakes in hiring, performance management, firing, restructurings, overtime pay or evaluating reasonable accommodations and leaves of absence could trigger an avalanche of claims, including major class and collective actions.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/26/15/79/index.html
SPARTAN AERONAUTICS COLLEGE TO PAY $32,500 TO SETTLE EEOC SEX DISCRIMINATION SUIT
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
February 19, 2009
Flight School Fired Female Instructor for Complaining About Gender Bias, Federal Agency Charged
TULSA, Okla. – Spartan Aeronautics College will pay $32,500 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 707-cv-00544 ), the EEOC charged that the college’s management treated J.C. Shine, a certified flight instructor, more harshly than her male counterparts and terminated her because she complained about the sex discrimination. Shine, a long-time employee of Spartan, had received excellent reviews from her supervisors, coworkers, and students as a safe and competent instructor. She was terminated under circumstances in which male instructors were not disciplined, according to the EEOC.
“As more women enter what have traditionally been ‘male occupations,’ employers will need to be vigilant in their efforts to provide an equal and fair working environment for women as well as men who choose these careers,” said EEOC St. Louis Regional Attorney Barbara A. Seely. “When the EEOC files suit against an employer for sex discrimination and retaliation, we are reminding all employers that discrimination and retaliation in the workplace is their problem and not the employee’s problem.”
The consent decree settling the suit, filed today for approval by the court, also requires Spartan to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its supervisors and other managers, and to report all allegations of sex discrimination and/or retaliation to the EEOC immediately.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
Press Release
February 19, 2009
Flight School Fired Female Instructor for Complaining About Gender Bias, Federal Agency Charged
TULSA, Okla. – Spartan Aeronautics College will pay $32,500 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Case No. 707-cv-00544 ), the EEOC charged that the college’s management treated J.C. Shine, a certified flight instructor, more harshly than her male counterparts and terminated her because she complained about the sex discrimination. Shine, a long-time employee of Spartan, had received excellent reviews from her supervisors, coworkers, and students as a safe and competent instructor. She was terminated under circumstances in which male instructors were not disciplined, according to the EEOC.
“As more women enter what have traditionally been ‘male occupations,’ employers will need to be vigilant in their efforts to provide an equal and fair working environment for women as well as men who choose these careers,” said EEOC St. Louis Regional Attorney Barbara A. Seely. “When the EEOC files suit against an employer for sex discrimination and retaliation, we are reminding all employers that discrimination and retaliation in the workplace is their problem and not the employee’s problem.”
The consent decree settling the suit, filed today for approval by the court, also requires Spartan to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its supervisors and other managers, and to report all allegations of sex discrimination and/or retaliation to the EEOC immediately.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
DISABLED PERSON’S APPLICATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS NO BAR TO EEOC SUIT, JUDGE RULES
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-23-09
Defendant Autozone Denied Leave to Contend That EEOC ‘Estopped’ by Individual Proceedings Before SSA
CHICAGO – A federal court in Peoria, Ill., decided today that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could not be blocked from continuing its pursuit of relief on behalf of a disabled sales manager employee of Autozone, Inc. because the employee had applied for and obtained Social Security disability benefits.
Autozone, one of the nation’s largest retailers of auto parts and accessories, had been sued by EEOC on June 13, 2007 because, the EEOC charged, the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to reasonably accommodate the manager, who had back and neck impairments, at its Macomb, Ill., retail outlet. The suit is pending before Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, and is captioned EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., C.D. Ill. No. 07-1154.
The company had sought leave from the court to amend its answer in the case by asserting that based on the employee’s statements to the Social Security Administration, the EEOC is judicially estopped from claiming that [the employee] is capable of performing essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.
In an eight-page order issued today, Judge Gorman rejected Autozone’s application for leave to amend its answer. (EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., C.D. Ill. No. 07-1154, Order, 2/23/2009, Gorman, J.) Citing EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.. 279 (2002), In re Bemis Company, 279 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2002), and EEOC v. Sidley & Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 20060, among other precedent-setting cases, the court wrote:
[T]he EEOC’s interest in pursuing perpetuators of discrimination is much broader than simply obtaining relief for the victim of that discrimination. Narrowing that interest by placing on it the same boundaries that limit individual litigants would be ill-advised. * * * The EEOC was not (and could not have been) a litigant in the administrative proceedings before the SSA. It had no control or input into the application process. * * * The EEOC is not a proxy for [the employee]. Its interest in pursuing relief on [the employee’s] behalf is a public interest in eliminating discrimination, and that interest is not as narrow as is [the employee’s] interest. The EEOC is therefore not estopped by [the employee’s] statements and conduct, and I conclude that the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel is futile as a matter of law.
According to the EEOC, the sales manager worked under medical restrictions that prevented him from performing tasks that required rotation of his upper body or heavy lifting. However, the agency’s investigation revealed that starting in 2003, new store management started requiring the sales manager to mop floors and perform other tasks inconsistent with his medical restrictions. These assignments led to further injury, necessitating a medical leave. Once the sales manager had recovered, the EEOC said, Autozone refused to permit him to return to work and instead kept him on an involuntary, unpaid leave and eventually discharged him.
“Over the years, some employers have attempted to defend disability discrimination lawsuits on the basis of a victim’s interactions with the Social Security Administration or on the basis that some individual action or agreement by the victim trumps the EEOC’s statutory authority to act in the public interest,” said John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Today’s decision by the court in this case demonstrates, once again, that those arguments are non-starters.”
The EEOC is also represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorney Justin Mulaire, both of the Chicago District Office.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
2-23-09
Defendant Autozone Denied Leave to Contend That EEOC ‘Estopped’ by Individual Proceedings Before SSA
CHICAGO – A federal court in Peoria, Ill., decided today that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could not be blocked from continuing its pursuit of relief on behalf of a disabled sales manager employee of Autozone, Inc. because the employee had applied for and obtained Social Security disability benefits.
Autozone, one of the nation’s largest retailers of auto parts and accessories, had been sued by EEOC on June 13, 2007 because, the EEOC charged, the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to reasonably accommodate the manager, who had back and neck impairments, at its Macomb, Ill., retail outlet. The suit is pending before Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division, and is captioned EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., C.D. Ill. No. 07-1154.
The company had sought leave from the court to amend its answer in the case by asserting that based on the employee’s statements to the Social Security Administration, the EEOC is judicially estopped from claiming that [the employee] is capable of performing essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.
In an eight-page order issued today, Judge Gorman rejected Autozone’s application for leave to amend its answer. (EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., C.D. Ill. No. 07-1154, Order, 2/23/2009, Gorman, J.) Citing EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S.. 279 (2002), In re Bemis Company, 279 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2002), and EEOC v. Sidley & Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 20060, among other precedent-setting cases, the court wrote:
[T]he EEOC’s interest in pursuing perpetuators of discrimination is much broader than simply obtaining relief for the victim of that discrimination. Narrowing that interest by placing on it the same boundaries that limit individual litigants would be ill-advised. * * * The EEOC was not (and could not have been) a litigant in the administrative proceedings before the SSA. It had no control or input into the application process. * * * The EEOC is not a proxy for [the employee]. Its interest in pursuing relief on [the employee’s] behalf is a public interest in eliminating discrimination, and that interest is not as narrow as is [the employee’s] interest. The EEOC is therefore not estopped by [the employee’s] statements and conduct, and I conclude that the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel is futile as a matter of law.
According to the EEOC, the sales manager worked under medical restrictions that prevented him from performing tasks that required rotation of his upper body or heavy lifting. However, the agency’s investigation revealed that starting in 2003, new store management started requiring the sales manager to mop floors and perform other tasks inconsistent with his medical restrictions. These assignments led to further injury, necessitating a medical leave. Once the sales manager had recovered, the EEOC said, Autozone refused to permit him to return to work and instead kept him on an involuntary, unpaid leave and eventually discharged him.
“Over the years, some employers have attempted to defend disability discrimination lawsuits on the basis of a victim’s interactions with the Social Security Administration or on the basis that some individual action or agreement by the victim trumps the EEOC’s statutory authority to act in the public interest,” said John Hendrickson, the EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago. “Today’s decision by the court in this case demonstrates, once again, that those arguments are non-starters.”
The EEOC is also represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorney Justin Mulaire, both of the Chicago District Office.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
EEOC TO HOLD FEB. 25 MEETING ON GENETIC BIAS
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
2-23-09
Agency to Invite Comment on Draft Rule Implementing Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on the subject of genetic discrimination at 10 a.m. (Eastern Time) Wednesday, Feb. 25, at the agency’s new headquarters, 131 M Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting is open for public observation of the Commission’s deliberations.
At the meeting, the Commission is scheduled to present its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) implementing Title II (employment provisions) of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Congress enacted Title II of GINA to protect people from employment discrimination based on their genetic information. Title II of GINA requires the EEOC to issue implementing regulations by May of this year.
The Commission is scheduled to hear from the following invited panelists about the new law and the impact of genetic discrimination in the workplace:
Susannah A. Baruch, Law and Policy Director, Genetics and Public Policy Center
Karen S. Elliott, attorney with Gregory Kaplan, PLC and member, Society for Human Resource Management
Jeremy Gruber, President and Executive Director, Council for Responsible Genetics
Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of People with Disabilities
Rae T. Vann, General Counsel, Equal Employment Advisory Council
Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over to a later meeting. The Commission agenda is subject to revision. You may call (202) 663-7100 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY) on the day of the Commission Meeting to confirm the above schedule.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
2-23-09
Agency to Invite Comment on Draft Rule Implementing Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on the subject of genetic discrimination at 10 a.m. (Eastern Time) Wednesday, Feb. 25, at the agency’s new headquarters, 131 M Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting is open for public observation of the Commission’s deliberations.
At the meeting, the Commission is scheduled to present its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) implementing Title II (employment provisions) of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). Congress enacted Title II of GINA to protect people from employment discrimination based on their genetic information. Title II of GINA requires the EEOC to issue implementing regulations by May of this year.
The Commission is scheduled to hear from the following invited panelists about the new law and the impact of genetic discrimination in the workplace:
Susannah A. Baruch, Law and Policy Director, Genetics and Public Policy Center
Karen S. Elliott, attorney with Gregory Kaplan, PLC and member, Society for Human Resource Management
Jeremy Gruber, President and Executive Director, Council for Responsible Genetics
Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of People with Disabilities
Rae T. Vann, General Counsel, Equal Employment Advisory Council
Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over to a later meeting. The Commission agenda is subject to revision. You may call (202) 663-7100 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY) on the day of the Commission Meeting to confirm the above schedule.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
'A Nation of Cowards'?
The Washington Post
Editorial
The attorney general's speech on race
Saturday, February 21, 2009; A12
ATTORNEY GENERAL Eric H. Holder Jr. took his fair share of lumps this week for calling the United States "a nation of cowards" because "we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." His provocative choice of words sparked a debate that has distracted from his main point, which is important despite its familiarity: Americans need to engage in an ongoing and honest conversation about race.
Mr. Holder lauded the now-commonplace interactions between and among the races at work but lamented that "there is almost no significant interaction between us" outside the workplace. "Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle," he said, "it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race-conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated." Notice what he didn't say. The nation's chief law enforcement officer and the first African American to hold the post did not prescribe a government solution or a legal remedy. Government has its role in promoting and defending equal rights, of course, and we expect Mr. Holder to restore the civil rights division to its rightful place of pride in his department. But he was asking for Americans to engage in personal conversations about race.
He's hardly the first. President Bill Clinton called for a national conversation on race in 1997, and that didn't get very far. Nearly a year ago, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, President Obama issued the same call in a speech that addressed head-on the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites. Now we have Mr. Holder's contribution, which we hope will spur Americans to put more content into the call for "conversation."
Is the voluntary self-segregation he decries a benign personal choice or is it more sinister? What role is played by school inequality, by inequality in capital accumulation, by popular culture? Is affirmative action a solution, or has it become an obstacle? Do others agree with Mr. Holder's contention that black history "is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular"?
This is just to get things started.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003643.html
Editorial
The attorney general's speech on race
Saturday, February 21, 2009; A12
ATTORNEY GENERAL Eric H. Holder Jr. took his fair share of lumps this week for calling the United States "a nation of cowards" because "we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." His provocative choice of words sparked a debate that has distracted from his main point, which is important despite its familiarity: Americans need to engage in an ongoing and honest conversation about race.
Mr. Holder lauded the now-commonplace interactions between and among the races at work but lamented that "there is almost no significant interaction between us" outside the workplace. "Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle," he said, "it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race-conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated." Notice what he didn't say. The nation's chief law enforcement officer and the first African American to hold the post did not prescribe a government solution or a legal remedy. Government has its role in promoting and defending equal rights, of course, and we expect Mr. Holder to restore the civil rights division to its rightful place of pride in his department. But he was asking for Americans to engage in personal conversations about race.
He's hardly the first. President Bill Clinton called for a national conversation on race in 1997, and that didn't get very far. Nearly a year ago, as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, President Obama issued the same call in a speech that addressed head-on the pain, anger and frustration of generations of blacks and whites. Now we have Mr. Holder's contribution, which we hope will spur Americans to put more content into the call for "conversation."
Is the voluntary self-segregation he decries a benign personal choice or is it more sinister? What role is played by school inequality, by inequality in capital accumulation, by popular culture? Is affirmative action a solution, or has it become an obstacle? Do others agree with Mr. Holder's contention that black history "is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular"?
This is just to get things started.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003643.html
Friday, February 20, 2009
Racial and Gender Diversity in College Sports Is 'Worst' in Many Years, Report Says
Chronicle of Higher Education
February 19, 2009
White people still dominate key leadership positions in college athletics, and opportunities for coaches of color in sports other than basketball remain poor, according to a new report on race and gender in college sports.
Even in the NCAA’s Division I men’s basketball, the percentage of head-coach positions held by African-Americans has dropped. In 2008, 23 percent of head coaches were African-American, the report says, down two percentage points from the all-time high of 25 percent, in 2006.
“The 2008 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport,” as it is called, was released this morning by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. The organization, based at the University of Central Florida, releases similar reports on the NBA, the WNBA, the NFL, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer.
In all, the report gave college sports a grade of C-plus for hiring in race and gender.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/news/article/6002/race-and-gender-in-college-sports-is-worst-in-many-years?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
February 19, 2009
White people still dominate key leadership positions in college athletics, and opportunities for coaches of color in sports other than basketball remain poor, according to a new report on race and gender in college sports.
Even in the NCAA’s Division I men’s basketball, the percentage of head-coach positions held by African-Americans has dropped. In 2008, 23 percent of head coaches were African-American, the report says, down two percentage points from the all-time high of 25 percent, in 2006.
“The 2008 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport,” as it is called, was released this morning by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. The organization, based at the University of Central Florida, releases similar reports on the NBA, the WNBA, the NFL, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer.
In all, the report gave college sports a grade of C-plus for hiring in race and gender.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/news/article/6002/race-and-gender-in-college-sports-is-worst-in-many-years?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Creating a Sustainable Pipeline
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Calvin Hennick
Feb 18, 2009, 05:12
When Dr. James L. Sherley began a hunger strike outside the Massachusetts Institute of Technology provost’s office in February 2007 alleging racism in his tenure denial, the then-associate professor of biological engineering re-ignited, in a very public way, concerns about the institution’s commitment to diversity.
The lack of diversity has been a recurring problem at MIT. At the time of Sherley’s protest, just 27 of MIT’s 740 tenured faculty members were American Indian, Black and Hispanic. Today, there are 34 underrepresented minorities out of 767 tenured faculty members.
Sherley never won tenure, and a Black faculty member and a Black former trustee broke their ties to MIT as well in protest over the manner in which the school handled the Sherley incident as well as its seeming lack of commitment to diversity. Two years later, the administration is taking steps to ensure the school is welcoming to faculty members of color — an effort some say is moving too slowly.
‘Something Widespread’
Many of Sherley’s supporters say they were not in a position to know if he should have been granted tenure based on his scientific credentials. However, former MIT professor Frank Douglas and former trustee Bernard Loyd, who both left the university as a result of how Sherley was treated, say the case was symptomatic of an unwillingness to grapple with diversity issues, a problem they had witnessed during their relationships with the school.
“I was not insisting that James should get tenure because I was not present at the university when [the tenure denial] happened,” says Douglas. “I didn’t know the case. My issue was, ‘Is there an environment which led him to believe that he was treated unfairly?’ And, in fact, I think there were things that gave him reason to believe he was treated unfairly.”
In a letter circulated at the beginning of Sherley’s hunger strike, 11 MIT faculty members (Douglas was not one of them) outlined what they said were a number of problems with the case. Supporters pointed out what they said were problems with the mentoring and lab space that Sherley received, felt that the school had failed to adequately acknowledge Sherley’s achievements, and asserted that Sherley’s racial discrimination complaint was mishandled.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejected Sherley’s racial discrimination complaint in February 2008, saying in its ruling that MIT had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying tenure. Last June, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination also rejected Sherley’s complaint.
In his interaction with other faculty, Douglas says, “what I discovered … is that many of the young [minority] faculty were unsure as to how they would be evaluated and what type of career they would have.”
“What I also discovered is that there were a number of individuals who left MIT, either because they did not receive tenure or because they felt unwelcome. James Sherley is a symbol of something that is more widespread than you would think,” adds Douglas, who is now a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, a partner at PureTech Ventures, and a senior scientific adviser for Bayer Healthcare.
Former MIT trustee Loyd, who finished his five-year trustee stint in 1995 but stayed active on university committees, says the Sherley case was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
“We had been told by senior leaders within MIT that these were important issues, but they needed time,” Loyd says. “Time came and went.”
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12312.shtml
by Calvin Hennick
Feb 18, 2009, 05:12
When Dr. James L. Sherley began a hunger strike outside the Massachusetts Institute of Technology provost’s office in February 2007 alleging racism in his tenure denial, the then-associate professor of biological engineering re-ignited, in a very public way, concerns about the institution’s commitment to diversity.
The lack of diversity has been a recurring problem at MIT. At the time of Sherley’s protest, just 27 of MIT’s 740 tenured faculty members were American Indian, Black and Hispanic. Today, there are 34 underrepresented minorities out of 767 tenured faculty members.
Sherley never won tenure, and a Black faculty member and a Black former trustee broke their ties to MIT as well in protest over the manner in which the school handled the Sherley incident as well as its seeming lack of commitment to diversity. Two years later, the administration is taking steps to ensure the school is welcoming to faculty members of color — an effort some say is moving too slowly.
‘Something Widespread’
Many of Sherley’s supporters say they were not in a position to know if he should have been granted tenure based on his scientific credentials. However, former MIT professor Frank Douglas and former trustee Bernard Loyd, who both left the university as a result of how Sherley was treated, say the case was symptomatic of an unwillingness to grapple with diversity issues, a problem they had witnessed during their relationships with the school.
“I was not insisting that James should get tenure because I was not present at the university when [the tenure denial] happened,” says Douglas. “I didn’t know the case. My issue was, ‘Is there an environment which led him to believe that he was treated unfairly?’ And, in fact, I think there were things that gave him reason to believe he was treated unfairly.”
In a letter circulated at the beginning of Sherley’s hunger strike, 11 MIT faculty members (Douglas was not one of them) outlined what they said were a number of problems with the case. Supporters pointed out what they said were problems with the mentoring and lab space that Sherley received, felt that the school had failed to adequately acknowledge Sherley’s achievements, and asserted that Sherley’s racial discrimination complaint was mishandled.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejected Sherley’s racial discrimination complaint in February 2008, saying in its ruling that MIT had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying tenure. Last June, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination also rejected Sherley’s complaint.
In his interaction with other faculty, Douglas says, “what I discovered … is that many of the young [minority] faculty were unsure as to how they would be evaluated and what type of career they would have.”
“What I also discovered is that there were a number of individuals who left MIT, either because they did not receive tenure or because they felt unwelcome. James Sherley is a symbol of something that is more widespread than you would think,” adds Douglas, who is now a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation, a partner at PureTech Ventures, and a senior scientific adviser for Bayer Healthcare.
Former MIT trustee Loyd, who finished his five-year trustee stint in 1995 but stayed active on university committees, says the Sherley case was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
“We had been told by senior leaders within MIT that these were important issues, but they needed time,” Loyd says. “Time came and went.”
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12312.shtml
On Faculty Diversity, Johns Hopkins University Puts Its Money Where Its Mouth Is
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
JBHE Weekly Bulletin
February 19, 2009
Many colleges and universities pay lip service to the view that they want to increase the racial diversity of their faculties. But very few actually take concrete steps to make it happen.
Recently Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore announced the Mosaic Initiative, a five-year program that would allocate $1 million each year in matching funds from the administration for deans, department chairs, and search committees to use to attract black and other minority faculty members. The initiative is under the direction of Ray Gillian, vice provost for institutional equity.
Departments at Johns Hopkins can ask the university administration for funds for salary, research, and laboratory equipment and supplies.
Full Story: http://www.jbhe.com/latest/news/2-19-09/hopkins.html
JBHE Weekly Bulletin
February 19, 2009
Many colleges and universities pay lip service to the view that they want to increase the racial diversity of their faculties. But very few actually take concrete steps to make it happen.
Recently Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore announced the Mosaic Initiative, a five-year program that would allocate $1 million each year in matching funds from the administration for deans, department chairs, and search committees to use to attract black and other minority faculty members. The initiative is under the direction of Ray Gillian, vice provost for institutional equity.
Departments at Johns Hopkins can ask the university administration for funds for salary, research, and laboratory equipment and supplies.
Full Story: http://www.jbhe.com/latest/news/2-19-09/hopkins.html
Holder: U.S. a 'nation of cowards' on race discussions
CNN
By Terry Frieden CNN
February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people "essentially a nation of cowards" in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.
In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.
Holder urged Americans of all races to use Black History Month as a time to have a forthright national conversation between blacks and whites to discuss aspects of race which are ignored because they are uncomfortable.
The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character." Watch Holder talk about race »
"On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad," Holder said.
Following his address, Holder declined to say whether his unexpectedly stern message would be translated into policy.
"It's a question of being honest with ourselves and racial issues that divide us," Holder told reporters in a hastily arranged news conference. "It's not easy to talk about it. We have to have the guts to be honest with each other, accept criticism, accept new proposals."
The nation's top law enforcement official vowed to "revitalize the Civil Rights Division" at the Justice Department but offered no specifics.
In a reference to the highly divisive issue of affirmative action, Holder said there can be "very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can and should be nuanced, principled and spirited." Watch CNN panel discuss Holder's remarks »
The attorney general criticized past public debates on the issue as "too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest."
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/index.html
By Terry Frieden CNN
February 19, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people "essentially a nation of cowards" in failing to openly discuss the issue of race.
In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."
"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.
Holder urged Americans of all races to use Black History Month as a time to have a forthright national conversation between blacks and whites to discuss aspects of race which are ignored because they are uncomfortable.
The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character." Watch Holder talk about race »
"On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad," Holder said.
Following his address, Holder declined to say whether his unexpectedly stern message would be translated into policy.
"It's a question of being honest with ourselves and racial issues that divide us," Holder told reporters in a hastily arranged news conference. "It's not easy to talk about it. We have to have the guts to be honest with each other, accept criticism, accept new proposals."
The nation's top law enforcement official vowed to "revitalize the Civil Rights Division" at the Justice Department but offered no specifics.
In a reference to the highly divisive issue of affirmative action, Holder said there can be "very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can and should be nuanced, principled and spirited." Watch CNN panel discuss Holder's remarks »
The attorney general criticized past public debates on the issue as "too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own narrow self-interest."
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/holder.race.relations/index.html
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
French Approve Paid Time Off for Those With Dying Relatives
CNS News
February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
By Staff, Associated Press
Paris (AP) - France's lower house of parliament unanimously passed a law Tuesday granting government payments to those who take time off work to care for dying relatives in their last weeks of life. French law already allows people to take up to six months of unpaid leave from their jobs to care for a dying family member. The new bill would allow people who leave work in such circumstances to receive euro49 ($62) a day for up to three weeks from the government. Unusually, the law enjoyed across-the-board support by legislators on left and right in the National Assembly. It now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to pass. The law's authors estimate the bill would affect about 20,000 families a year and cost a total of euro20 million ($25.2 million).
Full Story: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43664
February 17, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
By Staff, Associated Press
Paris (AP) - France's lower house of parliament unanimously passed a law Tuesday granting government payments to those who take time off work to care for dying relatives in their last weeks of life. French law already allows people to take up to six months of unpaid leave from their jobs to care for a dying family member. The new bill would allow people who leave work in such circumstances to receive euro49 ($62) a day for up to three weeks from the government. Unusually, the law enjoyed across-the-board support by legislators on left and right in the National Assembly. It now goes to the Senate, where it is likely to pass. The law's authors estimate the bill would affect about 20,000 families a year and cost a total of euro20 million ($25.2 million).
Full Story: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43664
The Brave New World of Electronic I-9s
Workforce Management
January 2009
Nearly three years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an interim rule that allows employers to continue completing I-9 forms on paper while storing the forms electronically. However, its guidance stops short of identifying which systems will be acceptable under the law. Here are some of the issues that organizations should keep in mind when it comes to electronic storage of these required documents.
In April 2005, Public Law 108-390 came into effect, permitting employers to store electronic versions of completed I-9 forms rather than paper versions. Specifically, the new law allows I-9s, which are the forms that employers must complete to show that an employee is eligible to work in the U.S., to be completed and signed electronically. No regulations have as yet been promulgated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, in June 2006, ICE issued an interim rule that mirrors its previous guidance on this matter. According to the interim rule, employers who choose to sign and store I-9s electronically should follow this guidance until final regulations are published.
The electronic I-9 law did not change any of the previous requirements for employers regarding the completion of I-9 forms for all employees hired on or before November 6, 1986.
The interim rule allows employers the option to continue to complete I-9s on paper while storing the forms electronically, although ICE has not yet clarified whether such paper versions may be discarded. Alternatively, under the new law and pursuant to the ICE guidelines, employers may now both complete and retain I-9s electronically.
However, the guidance stops short of identifying which systems will be acceptable under the law. ICE acknowledges in its guidance that there is no single government-wide electronic signature or storage protocol. The ICE guidance suggests that employers may wish to adopt the electronic storage and signature standards of a federal government agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service, until ICE issues the relevant regulations on this topic. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has implemented an electronic signature mechanism for its "e-filing" procedures that requires users to "e-sign" electronic documents by selecting a checkbox that indicates approval of the information contained in the form. The ICE guidance mentions signature methods such as electronic signature pads, personal identification numbers, biometrics and "click to accept" dialogue boxes. The ICE guidance also suggests that employers use a quality assurance program to evaluate their electronic signature and storage systems to ensure integrity.
With respect to I-9 maintenance for inspection purposes, ICE suggests that employers use indexing systems and employ printing functions so that employers will be able to access and print hard copies of specific I-9 forms upon the request of the government—typically meaning ICE or the Department of Labor. As HR readers know, upon notification of an audit, employers are required to produce I-9s and requested supporting documents for inspection within three business days. The ICE interim rule on electronic I-9s states that at the time of inspection, "Forms I-9 must be made available in their original paper, electronic form, a paper copy of the electronic form, or on microfilm or microfiche." In addition, the interim rule states that employers must provide to requesting government agencies the "resources, such as hardware and software, necessary to locate, retrieve, read and reproduce any electronically stored Forms I-9."
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/26/10/61/index.html
January 2009
Nearly three years ago, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued an interim rule that allows employers to continue completing I-9 forms on paper while storing the forms electronically. However, its guidance stops short of identifying which systems will be acceptable under the law. Here are some of the issues that organizations should keep in mind when it comes to electronic storage of these required documents.
In April 2005, Public Law 108-390 came into effect, permitting employers to store electronic versions of completed I-9 forms rather than paper versions. Specifically, the new law allows I-9s, which are the forms that employers must complete to show that an employee is eligible to work in the U.S., to be completed and signed electronically. No regulations have as yet been promulgated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, in June 2006, ICE issued an interim rule that mirrors its previous guidance on this matter. According to the interim rule, employers who choose to sign and store I-9s electronically should follow this guidance until final regulations are published.
The electronic I-9 law did not change any of the previous requirements for employers regarding the completion of I-9 forms for all employees hired on or before November 6, 1986.
The interim rule allows employers the option to continue to complete I-9s on paper while storing the forms electronically, although ICE has not yet clarified whether such paper versions may be discarded. Alternatively, under the new law and pursuant to the ICE guidelines, employers may now both complete and retain I-9s electronically.
However, the guidance stops short of identifying which systems will be acceptable under the law. ICE acknowledges in its guidance that there is no single government-wide electronic signature or storage protocol. The ICE guidance suggests that employers may wish to adopt the electronic storage and signature standards of a federal government agency, such as the Internal Revenue Service, until ICE issues the relevant regulations on this topic. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has implemented an electronic signature mechanism for its "e-filing" procedures that requires users to "e-sign" electronic documents by selecting a checkbox that indicates approval of the information contained in the form. The ICE guidance mentions signature methods such as electronic signature pads, personal identification numbers, biometrics and "click to accept" dialogue boxes. The ICE guidance also suggests that employers use a quality assurance program to evaluate their electronic signature and storage systems to ensure integrity.
With respect to I-9 maintenance for inspection purposes, ICE suggests that employers use indexing systems and employ printing functions so that employers will be able to access and print hard copies of specific I-9 forms upon the request of the government—typically meaning ICE or the Department of Labor. As HR readers know, upon notification of an audit, employers are required to produce I-9s and requested supporting documents for inspection within three business days. The ICE interim rule on electronic I-9s states that at the time of inspection, "Forms I-9 must be made available in their original paper, electronic form, a paper copy of the electronic form, or on microfilm or microfiche." In addition, the interim rule states that employers must provide to requesting government agencies the "resources, such as hardware and software, necessary to locate, retrieve, read and reproduce any electronically stored Forms I-9."
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/26/10/61/index.html
NAACP and Cyrus Mehri Announce Madison Avenue Project to End Race Discrimination in Advertising Industry
Madison Avenue Project - Ending Racial Discrimination in America's Advertising Industry
Press Release
January 8, 2009
Contact: Deb Colbert, 301-565-5329 (O) or 301-332-0813 (C), daccomm@aol.com;
Richard J. McIntire, NAACP Communications Department, 202-463-2940 x1021,
rmcintire@naacpnet.org
NEW DATA EXPOSES DRAMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN U.S. ADVERTISING INDUSTRY
NAACP, MEHRI & SKALET ANNOUNCE MADISON AVENUE PROJECT
NEW YORK, NEW YORK --- An exhaustive new study of America’s advertising industryreleased today has found dramatic levels of racial discrimination throughout the industry. Bias against African-American professionals was found in pay, hiring, promotions, assignments, andother areas.The study was initiated by a coalition of legal, civil rights, and industry leaders who created theMadison Avenue Project. The Project was created in 2008 to address advertising’s deep-rooted racial bias and today, Cyrus Mehri, Project leader and prominent civil rights lawyer, called thefindings “absolutely astonishing in this day and age.” Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP, anotherProject partner, commented that “the time has come to stand up to change this industry.”Overall, the findings reveal that racial discrimination is 38% worse in the advertising industrythan in the overall U.S. labor market, and that the “discrimination divide” between advertisingand other U.S. industries is more than twice as bad now as it was 30 years ago.
Specific findings include:• Black college graduates working in advertising earn $.80 for every dollar earned by theirequally-qualified White counterparts;• Based on national demographic data, 9.6% of advertising managers and professionals shouldbe African-Americans. The actual percentage in 2008 is 5.3%, representing a difference of7,200 executive-level jobs;• About 16% of large advertising firms employ no black managers or professionals, a rate60% higher than in the overall labor market;• Black managers and professionals in the industry are only one-tenth as likely as their Whitecounterparts to earn $100,000 a year;• Blacks are only 62% as likely as their White counterparts to work in the powerful “creative”and “client contact” functions in advertising agencies;• Eliminating the industry’s current Black-White employment gap would require tripling itsBlack managers and professionals.Though employment discrimination has sharply diminished in America in the last 40 years,systemic barriers to equality in the $31 billion a year advertising industry have not budged. In1978, for example, the New York City Human Rights Commission found that limited minorityemployment “was not simply the result of neutral forces, but emanated directly from discriminatorypractices.” Those practices continue today.The study found the primary source of discrimination to be agencies’ implicit assumption that thecause of Black under-representation is a shortage of ‘qualified’ Black job seekers. In reality, theproblem is not a shortage but a “persistent unwillingness by mainstream advertising agencies tohire, assign, advance, and retain already-available Black talent.”Moreover, the study found, the industry’s response to long-running charges of discrimination hasconsisted of “token efforts. The industry’s primary response has been extremely modest expansionsin training and entry-level hiring.” At today’s rate of progress, Black numbers among advertisingmanagers and professionals will not reach their expected level for another 71 years.An appropriate response, the study concluded, “will require fundamentally transforming theworkplace culture of general market advertising agencies.” Specifically, agencies must root out thestereotypes that make race, not ability, determine employment potential; halt the “buddy system,” inwhich personal relationships and social comfort often count for more than job performance; andeliminate the assumptions that racial minorities can’t succeed in non-ethnic markets.The Madison Avenue Project is led by the NAACP and attorney Cyrus Mehri, of Mehri & Skalet,PLLC, who has won several multi-million dollar discrimination settlements against suchcorporations as The Coca-Cola Company, Morgan Stanley and Texaco Inc.; with the cooperation ofSanford Moore, a former advertising executive, current New York City talk radio co-host, andlongtime advocate for racial parity in advertising.“Today we are sending a message to the advertising industry: this conduct is unacceptable and mustchange,” Mehri said today.“I have witnessed first-hand the mendacity and machinations that have kept African-Americansinvisible on and to Madison Avenue for over four decades,” Moore said. “Madison Avenue hascreated and perpetuated a ‘separate and unequal’ marketing paradigm which is reflected in theiradvertising, their workforce and among their executive ranks. Even though our dollars provide theprofits, the industry is still afraid of the dark.”Angela Ciccolo announced, on behalf of the NAACP, that “we are going to circulate the report notjust to our units to inform our members, but also to Fortune 100 companies to urge them to stopaiding and abetting widespread discrimination by this industry.” "The Madison Avenue Project isdesigned to send a special wake up call to the advertising industry. It's time for Madison Avenue towake up to civil rights and to the meaningful inclusion of African Americans in this highlysegregated industry," she continued.
The study, entitled “Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry,”was conducted by a leading research firm, Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants. http://www.findjustice.com/UserFiles/File/Madison%20Avenue%20Project%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
The complete study can be found at www.findjustice.com (Mehri & Skalet), www.naacp.org (NAACP), and www.bendickegan.com (Bendick and Egan).
Press Release
January 8, 2009
Contact: Deb Colbert, 301-565-5329 (O) or 301-332-0813 (C), daccomm@aol.com;
Richard J. McIntire, NAACP Communications Department, 202-463-2940 x1021,
rmcintire@naacpnet.org
NEW DATA EXPOSES DRAMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN U.S. ADVERTISING INDUSTRY
NAACP, MEHRI & SKALET ANNOUNCE MADISON AVENUE PROJECT
NEW YORK, NEW YORK --- An exhaustive new study of America’s advertising industryreleased today has found dramatic levels of racial discrimination throughout the industry. Bias against African-American professionals was found in pay, hiring, promotions, assignments, andother areas.The study was initiated by a coalition of legal, civil rights, and industry leaders who created theMadison Avenue Project. The Project was created in 2008 to address advertising’s deep-rooted racial bias and today, Cyrus Mehri, Project leader and prominent civil rights lawyer, called thefindings “absolutely astonishing in this day and age.” Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP, anotherProject partner, commented that “the time has come to stand up to change this industry.”Overall, the findings reveal that racial discrimination is 38% worse in the advertising industrythan in the overall U.S. labor market, and that the “discrimination divide” between advertisingand other U.S. industries is more than twice as bad now as it was 30 years ago.
Specific findings include:• Black college graduates working in advertising earn $.80 for every dollar earned by theirequally-qualified White counterparts;• Based on national demographic data, 9.6% of advertising managers and professionals shouldbe African-Americans. The actual percentage in 2008 is 5.3%, representing a difference of7,200 executive-level jobs;• About 16% of large advertising firms employ no black managers or professionals, a rate60% higher than in the overall labor market;• Black managers and professionals in the industry are only one-tenth as likely as their Whitecounterparts to earn $100,000 a year;• Blacks are only 62% as likely as their White counterparts to work in the powerful “creative”and “client contact” functions in advertising agencies;• Eliminating the industry’s current Black-White employment gap would require tripling itsBlack managers and professionals.Though employment discrimination has sharply diminished in America in the last 40 years,systemic barriers to equality in the $31 billion a year advertising industry have not budged. In1978, for example, the New York City Human Rights Commission found that limited minorityemployment “was not simply the result of neutral forces, but emanated directly from discriminatorypractices.” Those practices continue today.The study found the primary source of discrimination to be agencies’ implicit assumption that thecause of Black under-representation is a shortage of ‘qualified’ Black job seekers. In reality, theproblem is not a shortage but a “persistent unwillingness by mainstream advertising agencies tohire, assign, advance, and retain already-available Black talent.”Moreover, the study found, the industry’s response to long-running charges of discrimination hasconsisted of “token efforts. The industry’s primary response has been extremely modest expansionsin training and entry-level hiring.” At today’s rate of progress, Black numbers among advertisingmanagers and professionals will not reach their expected level for another 71 years.An appropriate response, the study concluded, “will require fundamentally transforming theworkplace culture of general market advertising agencies.” Specifically, agencies must root out thestereotypes that make race, not ability, determine employment potential; halt the “buddy system,” inwhich personal relationships and social comfort often count for more than job performance; andeliminate the assumptions that racial minorities can’t succeed in non-ethnic markets.The Madison Avenue Project is led by the NAACP and attorney Cyrus Mehri, of Mehri & Skalet,PLLC, who has won several multi-million dollar discrimination settlements against suchcorporations as The Coca-Cola Company, Morgan Stanley and Texaco Inc.; with the cooperation ofSanford Moore, a former advertising executive, current New York City talk radio co-host, andlongtime advocate for racial parity in advertising.“Today we are sending a message to the advertising industry: this conduct is unacceptable and mustchange,” Mehri said today.“I have witnessed first-hand the mendacity and machinations that have kept African-Americansinvisible on and to Madison Avenue for over four decades,” Moore said. “Madison Avenue hascreated and perpetuated a ‘separate and unequal’ marketing paradigm which is reflected in theiradvertising, their workforce and among their executive ranks. Even though our dollars provide theprofits, the industry is still afraid of the dark.”Angela Ciccolo announced, on behalf of the NAACP, that “we are going to circulate the report notjust to our units to inform our members, but also to Fortune 100 companies to urge them to stopaiding and abetting widespread discrimination by this industry.” "The Madison Avenue Project isdesigned to send a special wake up call to the advertising industry. It's time for Madison Avenue towake up to civil rights and to the meaningful inclusion of African Americans in this highlysegregated industry," she continued.
The study, entitled “Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry,”was conducted by a leading research firm, Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants. http://www.findjustice.com/UserFiles/File/Madison%20Avenue%20Project%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
The complete study can be found at www.findjustice.com (Mehri & Skalet), www.naacp.org (NAACP), and www.bendickegan.com (Bendick and Egan).
Sanford Moore Speaks Out: Advocate of Racial Parity on Madison Avenue
Workforce Management
February 2009
By Rupal Parekh
For 40 years, Sanford Moore has been an advocate for racial parity on Madison Avenue, particularly for African-Americans. He has been a thorn in the side of the agency structure, a chief cheerleader of government attempts to intervene and a critic of other African-Americans whose methods he doesn’t agree with. This interview was conducted by Advertising Age, a sister publication to Workforce Management.
He started out at BBDO in 1969, and left the agency two years later to establish his own consulting firm that specialized in ethnic marketing. In the late 1970s, he had a stint at Lockhart & Pettus, a black advertising agency.
As an independent consultant in the three decades since, Moore’s interest in civil rights has led him to work with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, as well as Walter Fauntroy and Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.
His lobbying for African-Americans on Madison Avenue laid the groundwork for the Madison Avenue Project, a class-action lawsuit led by Cyrus Mehri and the NAACP.
Ad Age: How did the Madison Avenue Project come about?
Moore: I was introduced to Cyrus Mehri, and I presented the case and supporting documentation. He saw the injustice of the situation and agreed to undertake the effort. One of the things that Cyrus does in his settlements is that he puts in place certain ongoing mechanisms that monitor where there’s accountability from the top down to change the corporate culture from discrimination and exclusion. I’m not going to be here forever, and unfortunately, if I hadn’t gotten this done, [Madison Avenue] would have gotten away scot-free.
Ad Age: What motivates you to take on the industry?
Moore: I’ve never liked bullies, and I don’t like mendacity and obfuscation. Madison Avenue is like a plantation where the slave owners, the heads of the holding companies, benefit from the labor and the profits generated by the slaves and sharecroppers. I’m not finished with them yet! Before it’s over, Madison Avenue will pay the price for its historical discrimination.
Were it not for black consumer spending, many of the icons of the American marketplace would not enjoy the advantages and profits that they do. Black consumers are the profit margin for many of Madison Avenue’s clients, yet Madison Avenue refuses to acknowledge and give the correct value and importance that these consumers play to the overall success of their clients.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/26/16/81/index.html
February 2009
By Rupal Parekh
For 40 years, Sanford Moore has been an advocate for racial parity on Madison Avenue, particularly for African-Americans. He has been a thorn in the side of the agency structure, a chief cheerleader of government attempts to intervene and a critic of other African-Americans whose methods he doesn’t agree with. This interview was conducted by Advertising Age, a sister publication to Workforce Management.
He started out at BBDO in 1969, and left the agency two years later to establish his own consulting firm that specialized in ethnic marketing. In the late 1970s, he had a stint at Lockhart & Pettus, a black advertising agency.
As an independent consultant in the three decades since, Moore’s interest in civil rights has led him to work with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, as well as Walter Fauntroy and Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.
His lobbying for African-Americans on Madison Avenue laid the groundwork for the Madison Avenue Project, a class-action lawsuit led by Cyrus Mehri and the NAACP.
Ad Age: How did the Madison Avenue Project come about?
Moore: I was introduced to Cyrus Mehri, and I presented the case and supporting documentation. He saw the injustice of the situation and agreed to undertake the effort. One of the things that Cyrus does in his settlements is that he puts in place certain ongoing mechanisms that monitor where there’s accountability from the top down to change the corporate culture from discrimination and exclusion. I’m not going to be here forever, and unfortunately, if I hadn’t gotten this done, [Madison Avenue] would have gotten away scot-free.
Ad Age: What motivates you to take on the industry?
Moore: I’ve never liked bullies, and I don’t like mendacity and obfuscation. Madison Avenue is like a plantation where the slave owners, the heads of the holding companies, benefit from the labor and the profits generated by the slaves and sharecroppers. I’m not finished with them yet! Before it’s over, Madison Avenue will pay the price for its historical discrimination.
Were it not for black consumer spending, many of the icons of the American marketplace would not enjoy the advantages and profits that they do. Black consumers are the profit margin for many of Madison Avenue’s clients, yet Madison Avenue refuses to acknowledge and give the correct value and importance that these consumers play to the overall success of their clients.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/26/16/81/index.html
For Diversity Officers, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Workforce Management
February 2009
Diversity officers struggling to increase minority headcounts come in for criticism. As the executives themselves note, having a thick skin and a healthy dose of perspective can be essential to the role. By Rupal Parekh
It’s not easy being a chief diversity officer.
Some of the insults hurled at those taking the job have included "pimp," "Uncle Tom" and "window dressing." In fact, as the executives themselves note, having a thick skin and a healthy dose of perspective can be essential to the role.
"I don’t see those individuals who say those things standing with me on the front lines," says Tiffany R. Warren, who recently left her position as a diversity executive at Havas-owned Arnold to take on the newly created role of chief diversity officer at Omnicom Group.
"I’m literally on the front lines, and sometimes it’s a lonely place. If there were more of me, maybe we could make more of a difference," she says.
The ad agencies who have hired diversity officers are likely praying that they do figure out a way to make a difference—and quick. Civil rights attorney Cyrus Mehri is knocking on the door, after all. Last month, he released research in partnership with the NAACP that is believed to be the groundwork for a race discrimination suit against the ad industry.
Nancy Hill, president and CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said after reading the report: "The numbers speak for themselves."
Ask the advertising companies that have hired diversity officers—only Interpublic and Omnicom have done so at the holding-company level—and they say the fact that they have appointed chief diversity officers shows their commitment to improving diversity, a massive task that requires sweeping organizational and cultural changes.
What’s more, they say, these individuals are responsible for some measurable strides—from rising awareness to rising numbers of minorities in agency ranks.
Making strides Interpublic Group of Cos., for example, reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that from 2004 to 2007, it increased minority headcount across various ethnic groups by 25 percent overall and by 50 percent in terms of total "officials and managers."
Interpublic’s U.S. headcount during this period was essentially flat (up 1.5 percent, or fewer than 300 people), but it changed the composition of the workforce to increase minority professionals and managers by more than 1,000 people.
Beyond headcount, it points to initiatives such as a two-year multicultural fellowship program, relationships with historically black colleges, minority job fairs and linking executives’ incentive compensation to how well it is meeting its diversity objectives.
"When I got here, all there was a desk and a chair and a telephone," says Heide Gardner, Interpublic’s chief diversity officer.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/26/16/87/index.html
February 2009
Diversity officers struggling to increase minority headcounts come in for criticism. As the executives themselves note, having a thick skin and a healthy dose of perspective can be essential to the role. By Rupal Parekh
It’s not easy being a chief diversity officer.
Some of the insults hurled at those taking the job have included "pimp," "Uncle Tom" and "window dressing." In fact, as the executives themselves note, having a thick skin and a healthy dose of perspective can be essential to the role.
"I don’t see those individuals who say those things standing with me on the front lines," says Tiffany R. Warren, who recently left her position as a diversity executive at Havas-owned Arnold to take on the newly created role of chief diversity officer at Omnicom Group.
"I’m literally on the front lines, and sometimes it’s a lonely place. If there were more of me, maybe we could make more of a difference," she says.
The ad agencies who have hired diversity officers are likely praying that they do figure out a way to make a difference—and quick. Civil rights attorney Cyrus Mehri is knocking on the door, after all. Last month, he released research in partnership with the NAACP that is believed to be the groundwork for a race discrimination suit against the ad industry.
Nancy Hill, president and CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said after reading the report: "The numbers speak for themselves."
Ask the advertising companies that have hired diversity officers—only Interpublic and Omnicom have done so at the holding-company level—and they say the fact that they have appointed chief diversity officers shows their commitment to improving diversity, a massive task that requires sweeping organizational and cultural changes.
What’s more, they say, these individuals are responsible for some measurable strides—from rising awareness to rising numbers of minorities in agency ranks.
Making strides Interpublic Group of Cos., for example, reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that from 2004 to 2007, it increased minority headcount across various ethnic groups by 25 percent overall and by 50 percent in terms of total "officials and managers."
Interpublic’s U.S. headcount during this period was essentially flat (up 1.5 percent, or fewer than 300 people), but it changed the composition of the workforce to increase minority professionals and managers by more than 1,000 people.
Beyond headcount, it points to initiatives such as a two-year multicultural fellowship program, relationships with historically black colleges, minority job fairs and linking executives’ incentive compensation to how well it is meeting its diversity objectives.
"When I got here, all there was a desk and a chair and a telephone," says Heide Gardner, Interpublic’s chief diversity officer.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/26/16/87/index.html
Q&A: Researcher Describes Mixed Educational Benefits of Campus Diversity
Chronicle of Higher Education
February 17, 2009
Peter Schmidt
Colleges have talked for decades about the educational benefits of diversity on their campuses without offering much research to show how students are affected by exposure to members of other racial and ethnic groups. In an effort to fill that gap in knowledge, James Sidanius, a professor of psychology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard University, led a team of researchers in conducting a long-term study of about 2,000 students who entered the University of California at Los Angeles in the fall of 1996. The students were surveyed in the summer before they entered UCLA, at the end of their freshman year, and again each year until their graduation or the end of their fifth year in college.
Mr. Sidanius and the co-authors of his study—Shana Levin, an associate professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College; Colette van Laar, a professor of psychology at Leiden University, in the Netherlands; and David O. Sears, a professor of psychology and political science at UCLA–describe their results in a new book, The Diversity Challenge: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College Campus, published by the Russell Sage Foundation. The Chronicle interviewed Mr. Sidanius by e-mail to ask him about the study's major findings.
Q. Please talk about how your study compares to other studies on campus diversity. Where did you tread new ground or try to build on—or put to the test—research that had been done before?
A. Our study, The Diversity Challenge, is unique in the literature concerning intergroup relations in two major ways. First, as far as we know, it is the longest panel (i.e., longitudinal) study of intergroup relations on campus ever done. And secondly, it is the most comprehensive study of its type ever attempted—that is to say, that asks the largest number of theoretically driven questions, using numerous indices of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes.
Q. Your book says you had expected to find that "cultural diversity and the multicultural practices that universities have put in place as a response to it have some profound effects on students." What was your basis for having such expectations? Instead of finding profound effects—good or bad—your book reaches the bottom-line conclusions that cultural diversity and multicultural practices failed to either significantly change students' ethnic identities and views on race or to have the feared effects of heightening ethnic conflict and separation on campus. At the end of the day, does your study buttress—or does it undermine—the argument that race-conscious college-admissions policies serve a compelling government interest by producing educational benefits? In which direction (and how far) does your study move the ball in the affirmative-action debate?
A. We found that neither the multicultural policies of the university nor the general multiethnic environment had profound effects on the intergroup attitudes of the students. Thus, in broad terms, the students left the university with largely the same social and political views that they entered college with.
However, three facts show that this does not mean that there were no theoretically expected changes. First, in general, students did become less politically conservative, ethnocentric, and racist over four years of college. Secondly, for the most part, increased levels of intergroup contact (e.g., in the form of having roommates from other ethnic groups) did attenuate levels of racism, and increased positive affect for members of other ethnic outgroups. Thirdly, in terms of the effects of affirmative action, we were interested in addressing the issue of whether or not being an affirmative-action admittee affected the academic self-confidence and academic performance of minority students. The negative effects of affirmative action on student performance were complex and conditional. For example, for black students who thought that they were affirmative-action admittees, grade-point average was negatively affected, but only among those with high personal-identity stereotype threat (concerns about confirming negative stereotypes of their ethnic groups). However, among those with no such stereotype-threat concerns, being an affirmative-action admittee had no deleterious effects on academic achievement....
Q. On a related note, your study involves students who entered college 12 years ago. Are you confident that a study undertaken today would reach similar conclusions, or, especially given the election of Barack Obama, is there reason to hope students' attitudes toward race and ethnicity have changed?
A. While there is no reason to believe that, in and of itself, the 12-year time gap will have made a substantial difference in the results we found, we cannot be as certain about the possible effects of Barack Obama's electoral victory. While there is little reason to actually believe that Obama's election has sent America into a state of post-racialism, there is probably a substantial number of whites who might believe this to be the case. It is not at all clear what the net results of this will be. This election might augur in a period of substantially relaxed racial attitudes and attenuated levels of institutional discrimination. On the other hand, Obama's election might convince people that postracialism has indeed become a fact of American life, and that no further efforts to eliminate group-based disadvantage and discrimination are necessary. It is simply too early to tell.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/11811n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
February 17, 2009
Peter Schmidt
Colleges have talked for decades about the educational benefits of diversity on their campuses without offering much research to show how students are affected by exposure to members of other racial and ethnic groups. In an effort to fill that gap in knowledge, James Sidanius, a professor of psychology and of African and African-American studies at Harvard University, led a team of researchers in conducting a long-term study of about 2,000 students who entered the University of California at Los Angeles in the fall of 1996. The students were surveyed in the summer before they entered UCLA, at the end of their freshman year, and again each year until their graduation or the end of their fifth year in college.
Mr. Sidanius and the co-authors of his study—Shana Levin, an associate professor of psychology at Claremont McKenna College; Colette van Laar, a professor of psychology at Leiden University, in the Netherlands; and David O. Sears, a professor of psychology and political science at UCLA–describe their results in a new book, The Diversity Challenge: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations on the College Campus, published by the Russell Sage Foundation. The Chronicle interviewed Mr. Sidanius by e-mail to ask him about the study's major findings.
Q. Please talk about how your study compares to other studies on campus diversity. Where did you tread new ground or try to build on—or put to the test—research that had been done before?
A. Our study, The Diversity Challenge, is unique in the literature concerning intergroup relations in two major ways. First, as far as we know, it is the longest panel (i.e., longitudinal) study of intergroup relations on campus ever done. And secondly, it is the most comprehensive study of its type ever attempted—that is to say, that asks the largest number of theoretically driven questions, using numerous indices of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes.
Q. Your book says you had expected to find that "cultural diversity and the multicultural practices that universities have put in place as a response to it have some profound effects on students." What was your basis for having such expectations? Instead of finding profound effects—good or bad—your book reaches the bottom-line conclusions that cultural diversity and multicultural practices failed to either significantly change students' ethnic identities and views on race or to have the feared effects of heightening ethnic conflict and separation on campus. At the end of the day, does your study buttress—or does it undermine—the argument that race-conscious college-admissions policies serve a compelling government interest by producing educational benefits? In which direction (and how far) does your study move the ball in the affirmative-action debate?
A. We found that neither the multicultural policies of the university nor the general multiethnic environment had profound effects on the intergroup attitudes of the students. Thus, in broad terms, the students left the university with largely the same social and political views that they entered college with.
However, three facts show that this does not mean that there were no theoretically expected changes. First, in general, students did become less politically conservative, ethnocentric, and racist over four years of college. Secondly, for the most part, increased levels of intergroup contact (e.g., in the form of having roommates from other ethnic groups) did attenuate levels of racism, and increased positive affect for members of other ethnic outgroups. Thirdly, in terms of the effects of affirmative action, we were interested in addressing the issue of whether or not being an affirmative-action admittee affected the academic self-confidence and academic performance of minority students. The negative effects of affirmative action on student performance were complex and conditional. For example, for black students who thought that they were affirmative-action admittees, grade-point average was negatively affected, but only among those with high personal-identity stereotype threat (concerns about confirming negative stereotypes of their ethnic groups). However, among those with no such stereotype-threat concerns, being an affirmative-action admittee had no deleterious effects on academic achievement....
Q. On a related note, your study involves students who entered college 12 years ago. Are you confident that a study undertaken today would reach similar conclusions, or, especially given the election of Barack Obama, is there reason to hope students' attitudes toward race and ethnicity have changed?
A. While there is no reason to believe that, in and of itself, the 12-year time gap will have made a substantial difference in the results we found, we cannot be as certain about the possible effects of Barack Obama's electoral victory. While there is little reason to actually believe that Obama's election has sent America into a state of post-racialism, there is probably a substantial number of whites who might believe this to be the case. It is not at all clear what the net results of this will be. This election might augur in a period of substantially relaxed racial attitudes and attenuated levels of institutional discrimination. On the other hand, Obama's election might convince people that postracialism has indeed become a fact of American life, and that no further efforts to eliminate group-based disadvantage and discrimination are necessary. It is simply too early to tell.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/02/11811n.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Backers of Title IX Hope Obama Will End 'Stalemate' Over Enforcement
Chronicle of Higher Education
February 17, 2009
By LIBBY SANDER
Supporters of Title IX say they hope that President Obama will step up enforcement of the federal gender-equity law and help college athletics departments comply with its requirements during a time of fiscal hardship.
Although the new president has not spoken substantively about Title IX since taking office last month, he gave signals on the campaign trail as to how he will approach the issue. Those comments were a welcome change of pace among gender-equity advocates, who say enforcement was in a holding pattern during the Bush administration.
Last year Mr. Obama singled out the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title IX, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, as ineffective in its efforts to police institutions under the law.
"Compliance reviews have dropped, the focus of the reviews has narrowed, and the agency has taken a lax approach to enforcement," Mr. Obama told USA Today.
He said he would devote more resources to the agency and, in the realm of athletics, called on high schools and colleges to be more "proactive" in complying with the law, which is part of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Advocates say they are eager to see an end to a "stalemate" on the issue under President George W. Bush, when Title IX enforcement slowed and the tenor of the political debate about the law grew ever more strained.
From 2002 to 2006, the Office for Civil Rights conducted just one compliance review, according to a study by the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy group. The office investigated 105 complaints alleging sex discrimination in college athletics, but "the impression remained that it should have taken a more proactive approach to enforcing Title IX," says Daniel A. Cohen, a lawyer in Atlanta who represents colleges and universities in Title IX cases.
Mr. Cohen says the Obama administration is also likely to revise, if not do away with, a 2005 "clarification" of Title IX that allows institutions to use an interest survey to show that they are in compliance. The measure failed to gain traction on campuses and never received the endorsement of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. But it was nonetheless viewed as a setback by gender-equity advocates, who felt that it weakened the intent of the law.
After that, the Bush administration was largely quiet on the issue — not making any more regulatory changes, but not offering any guidance, either.
And while advocates' hopes for Mr. Obama are speculative at best, whatever comes next, says Christine Grant, a longtime supporter of Title IX, "will be better than the last eight years, because I don't think it can be worse."
A New Chapter
For some longtime gender-equity advocates, the ebb and flow of political tides with each new administration has become a familiar if not always comforting cycle. This time, in part because the new president has two young daughters and speaks often — and fondly — of the role of sports in his own life, the feeling is positively chipper.
"I have been listening carefully to what President Obama has been saying, and he has been saying all the right things," Ms. Grant says. "This president gets it."
The enthusiasm is predictable, says Jeffrey H. Orleans, departing executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents. "People who care about Title IX always feel more positive when there's a Democratic administration," says the former civil-rights lawyer, who was a principal author of the regulations for carrying out the landmark legislation.
Title IX bans sex discrimination at institutions that receive federal funds. Although it applies to many programs, it is best known for swelling the ranks of the nation's highschool and college sports teams with women.
The most widely used method of showing compliance with the law is to have the percentage of women playing sports be proportionate to a college's overall female student population. This method, known as proportionality, has been challenged by groups that advocate for men's sports, who argue that it forces colleges to fulfill "quota" requirements and cut men's teams in order to do so. Full Story: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i24/24a02001.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
February 17, 2009
By LIBBY SANDER
Supporters of Title IX say they hope that President Obama will step up enforcement of the federal gender-equity law and help college athletics departments comply with its requirements during a time of fiscal hardship.
Although the new president has not spoken substantively about Title IX since taking office last month, he gave signals on the campaign trail as to how he will approach the issue. Those comments were a welcome change of pace among gender-equity advocates, who say enforcement was in a holding pattern during the Bush administration.
Last year Mr. Obama singled out the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title IX, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, as ineffective in its efforts to police institutions under the law.
"Compliance reviews have dropped, the focus of the reviews has narrowed, and the agency has taken a lax approach to enforcement," Mr. Obama told USA Today.
He said he would devote more resources to the agency and, in the realm of athletics, called on high schools and colleges to be more "proactive" in complying with the law, which is part of the Education Amendments of 1972.
Advocates say they are eager to see an end to a "stalemate" on the issue under President George W. Bush, when Title IX enforcement slowed and the tenor of the political debate about the law grew ever more strained.
From 2002 to 2006, the Office for Civil Rights conducted just one compliance review, according to a study by the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy group. The office investigated 105 complaints alleging sex discrimination in college athletics, but "the impression remained that it should have taken a more proactive approach to enforcing Title IX," says Daniel A. Cohen, a lawyer in Atlanta who represents colleges and universities in Title IX cases.
Mr. Cohen says the Obama administration is also likely to revise, if not do away with, a 2005 "clarification" of Title IX that allows institutions to use an interest survey to show that they are in compliance. The measure failed to gain traction on campuses and never received the endorsement of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. But it was nonetheless viewed as a setback by gender-equity advocates, who felt that it weakened the intent of the law.
After that, the Bush administration was largely quiet on the issue — not making any more regulatory changes, but not offering any guidance, either.
And while advocates' hopes for Mr. Obama are speculative at best, whatever comes next, says Christine Grant, a longtime supporter of Title IX, "will be better than the last eight years, because I don't think it can be worse."
A New Chapter
For some longtime gender-equity advocates, the ebb and flow of political tides with each new administration has become a familiar if not always comforting cycle. This time, in part because the new president has two young daughters and speaks often — and fondly — of the role of sports in his own life, the feeling is positively chipper.
"I have been listening carefully to what President Obama has been saying, and he has been saying all the right things," Ms. Grant says. "This president gets it."
The enthusiasm is predictable, says Jeffrey H. Orleans, departing executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents. "People who care about Title IX always feel more positive when there's a Democratic administration," says the former civil-rights lawyer, who was a principal author of the regulations for carrying out the landmark legislation.
Title IX bans sex discrimination at institutions that receive federal funds. Although it applies to many programs, it is best known for swelling the ranks of the nation's highschool and college sports teams with women.
The most widely used method of showing compliance with the law is to have the percentage of women playing sports be proportionate to a college's overall female student population. This method, known as proportionality, has been challenged by groups that advocate for men's sports, who argue that it forces colleges to fulfill "quota" requirements and cut men's teams in order to do so. Full Story: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i24/24a02001.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Minorities in Massachusetts find path to university presidential ranks difficult to tread
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
February 17, 2009
Kenneth J. Cooper
As the new vice chancellor for student affairs at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1971, Dr. Randolph W. Bromery had not given any thought to moving up to chancellor. But the president of the UMass system, Dr. Robert C. Wood, had contemplated the possibility. Then he made it happen.
When the chancellor of the state flagship university resigned that year, Wood asked Bromery to serve as interim chancellor and to apply for the permanent job, which the trustees gave him six months later. His elevation made Bromery the first African-American to lead a college in Massachusetts and only the second at a predominantly White campus, after Dr. Clifton R. Wharton Jr. at Michigan State University.
“I had no previous experience running a public college or university, especially one with 25,000 students,” recalls Bromery, 83. “It takes a person like Bob Wood to take that risk. A lot of people wouldn’t take that risk.”
Indisputably, Wood’s gamble worked out. For eight years, Bromery led UMass Amherst so capably that other colleges in the state kept summoning him to straighten out their management problems. He was acting president of Westfield State College in the 1980s, acting and then permanent president of Springfield College in the 1990s and then acting president of Roxbury Community College earlier this decade.
“He’s the godfather in Massachusetts,” says Dr. Charles Desmond, an African-American who chairs the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education.
After that groundbreaking start four decades ago, the history of college presidents of color in Massachusetts, a state known for its liberal politics and elite private colleges, has unfolded at about the same halting pace as it has in the rest of the country.
With the exception of Dr. Ruth J. Simmons, who was president of Smith College before becoming the first Black president of an Ivy League school at Brown University, no minority has led on a permanent basis any of the elite schools that give Massachusetts its reputation for quality higher education.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12308.shtml
February 17, 2009
Kenneth J. Cooper
As the new vice chancellor for student affairs at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1971, Dr. Randolph W. Bromery had not given any thought to moving up to chancellor. But the president of the UMass system, Dr. Robert C. Wood, had contemplated the possibility. Then he made it happen.
When the chancellor of the state flagship university resigned that year, Wood asked Bromery to serve as interim chancellor and to apply for the permanent job, which the trustees gave him six months later. His elevation made Bromery the first African-American to lead a college in Massachusetts and only the second at a predominantly White campus, after Dr. Clifton R. Wharton Jr. at Michigan State University.
“I had no previous experience running a public college or university, especially one with 25,000 students,” recalls Bromery, 83. “It takes a person like Bob Wood to take that risk. A lot of people wouldn’t take that risk.”
Indisputably, Wood’s gamble worked out. For eight years, Bromery led UMass Amherst so capably that other colleges in the state kept summoning him to straighten out their management problems. He was acting president of Westfield State College in the 1980s, acting and then permanent president of Springfield College in the 1990s and then acting president of Roxbury Community College earlier this decade.
“He’s the godfather in Massachusetts,” says Dr. Charles Desmond, an African-American who chairs the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education.
After that groundbreaking start four decades ago, the history of college presidents of color in Massachusetts, a state known for its liberal politics and elite private colleges, has unfolded at about the same halting pace as it has in the rest of the country.
With the exception of Dr. Ruth J. Simmons, who was president of Smith College before becoming the first Black president of an Ivy League school at Brown University, no minority has led on a permanent basis any of the elite schools that give Massachusetts its reputation for quality higher education.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12308.shtml
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama, Connerly on affirmative action
SFGate
Victor Merina
Thursday, February 5, 2009
As President Obama prepares to take the first policy steps of his administration, some Obama watchers are eager to hear what the president has to say about an issue that may prove tricky for the first African American to occupy the Oval Office: affirmative action. Among those listening is Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who can match his multiracial background with the biracial Obama.
To his many detractors, Connerly is the villainous arch-enemy of affirmative action who has helped decrease minority admissions to public universities and undermined public contracting programs in states where he has taken his political campaigns to the electorate.
To his followers, he is the champion of equality who wants to do away with racial preferences and is determined to dismantle affirmative action programs, state by state.
Connerly's scorecard on election day was mixed. In Nebraska, voters approved an anti-affirmative action initiative, 58 to 42 percent. Colorado voters, meanwhile, spurned their version of the measure by a margin of 33,000 votes among the 2.1 million cast.
In Colorado, Connerly attributes his loss to a slew of other initiatives that confused voters. He also says the heavy turnout of Obama supporters helped reject what was formally dubbed Amendment 46. His opponents, however, say voters learned about the benefits of affirmative action and rejected the stealth tactics of Connerly and his supporters.
In the end, it was a rare loss for Connerly. He had triumphed with similar measures in the past - Proposition 209 in California, Initiative 200 in Washington state and Proposal 2 in Michigan - along with Initiative 424 in Nebraska last November.
So what does that bode for the future in the battle over affirmative action? The answer may be shaped by the new president, who criticized Sen. John McCain for backing the Connerly proposals but also signaled he may be open to a socioeconomic basis for any preferential treatment.
Full Commentary: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/04/EDK215MGDL.DTL
Victor Merina
Thursday, February 5, 2009
As President Obama prepares to take the first policy steps of his administration, some Obama watchers are eager to hear what the president has to say about an issue that may prove tricky for the first African American to occupy the Oval Office: affirmative action. Among those listening is Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who can match his multiracial background with the biracial Obama.
To his many detractors, Connerly is the villainous arch-enemy of affirmative action who has helped decrease minority admissions to public universities and undermined public contracting programs in states where he has taken his political campaigns to the electorate.
To his followers, he is the champion of equality who wants to do away with racial preferences and is determined to dismantle affirmative action programs, state by state.
Connerly's scorecard on election day was mixed. In Nebraska, voters approved an anti-affirmative action initiative, 58 to 42 percent. Colorado voters, meanwhile, spurned their version of the measure by a margin of 33,000 votes among the 2.1 million cast.
In Colorado, Connerly attributes his loss to a slew of other initiatives that confused voters. He also says the heavy turnout of Obama supporters helped reject what was formally dubbed Amendment 46. His opponents, however, say voters learned about the benefits of affirmative action and rejected the stealth tactics of Connerly and his supporters.
In the end, it was a rare loss for Connerly. He had triumphed with similar measures in the past - Proposition 209 in California, Initiative 200 in Washington state and Proposal 2 in Michigan - along with Initiative 424 in Nebraska last November.
So what does that bode for the future in the battle over affirmative action? The answer may be shaped by the new president, who criticized Sen. John McCain for backing the Connerly proposals but also signaled he may be open to a socioeconomic basis for any preferential treatment.
Full Commentary: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/04/EDK215MGDL.DTL
U.S. Labor Department to begin new monthly data series on people with disabilities from Current Population Survey on Feb. 6
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Disability Employment Policy
ODEP News Release: [02/5/2009]Contact Name: Bennett Gamble or Gary SteinbergPhone Number: (202) 693-4667 or (202) 691-5902Release Number: 09-0133-NAT
Data will mark 1st official measure of unemployment rate facing Americans with disabilities
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor will, for the first time, release employment and unemployment data on people with disabilities on Friday, Feb. 6. This information will assist the nation in understanding how changing labor market conditions affect Americans with disabilities. Although it is widely believed that this group typically faces a higher rate of unemployment than individuals without disabilities, official estimates were not available until now.
"Now that so many Americans are suffering job losses, there is a tremendous amount of attention being paid to employment problems and solutions affecting the general population. Americans with disabilities typically experience similar employment difficulties — even when there is a robust economy. The economic downturn may just exacerbate their struggle. These data will go far toward efforts to increase the employment of people with disabilities," said John Davey, deputy assistant secretary for the department's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).
ODEP is sponsoring the collection of these data by the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) using the Current Population Survey (CPS), which provides comprehensive information on the employment status of the civilian, non-institutional population 16 years of age and older. Six disability questions have been added to the CPS to satisfy a requirement specified in Executive Order 13078, signed by President Bill Clinton, to measure the employment status of people with disabilities on a timely basis.
Beginning Feb. 6 at about 8:30 a.m. EST, BLS and ODEP will publish on their Web sites — at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm and www.dol.gov/odep, respectively — data on individuals with disabilities. The disability data to be released on this date will cover October 2008 through January 2009. Thereafter, the data will be updated monthly.
ODEP is leading a 21st century federal response to the historic underemployment of people with disabilities. In collaboration with other government agencies, public and private employers, and additional stakeholders, ODEP facilitates the development and implementation of innovative policies and practices necessary to achieve a fully inclusive workplace. ODEP's work primarily falls into three categories: employers and the workplace; workforce systems; and employment-related supports, which include education and training, health care, reliable transportation, affordable housing and assistive technology.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/odep/ODEP20090133.htm
Office of Disability Employment Policy
ODEP News Release: [02/5/2009]Contact Name: Bennett Gamble or Gary SteinbergPhone Number: (202) 693-4667 or (202) 691-5902Release Number: 09-0133-NAT
Data will mark 1st official measure of unemployment rate facing Americans with disabilities
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor will, for the first time, release employment and unemployment data on people with disabilities on Friday, Feb. 6. This information will assist the nation in understanding how changing labor market conditions affect Americans with disabilities. Although it is widely believed that this group typically faces a higher rate of unemployment than individuals without disabilities, official estimates were not available until now.
"Now that so many Americans are suffering job losses, there is a tremendous amount of attention being paid to employment problems and solutions affecting the general population. Americans with disabilities typically experience similar employment difficulties — even when there is a robust economy. The economic downturn may just exacerbate their struggle. These data will go far toward efforts to increase the employment of people with disabilities," said John Davey, deputy assistant secretary for the department's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP).
ODEP is sponsoring the collection of these data by the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) using the Current Population Survey (CPS), which provides comprehensive information on the employment status of the civilian, non-institutional population 16 years of age and older. Six disability questions have been added to the CPS to satisfy a requirement specified in Executive Order 13078, signed by President Bill Clinton, to measure the employment status of people with disabilities on a timely basis.
Beginning Feb. 6 at about 8:30 a.m. EST, BLS and ODEP will publish on their Web sites — at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm and www.dol.gov/odep, respectively — data on individuals with disabilities. The disability data to be released on this date will cover October 2008 through January 2009. Thereafter, the data will be updated monthly.
ODEP is leading a 21st century federal response to the historic underemployment of people with disabilities. In collaboration with other government agencies, public and private employers, and additional stakeholders, ODEP facilitates the development and implementation of innovative policies and practices necessary to achieve a fully inclusive workplace. ODEP's work primarily falls into three categories: employers and the workplace; workforce systems; and employment-related supports, which include education and training, health care, reliable transportation, affordable housing and assistive technology.
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/odep/ODEP20090133.htm
Notice Concerning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
February 11, 2009
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ("Act"), which supersedes the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). Ledbetter had required a compensation discrimination charge to be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory pay-setting decision (or 300 days in jurisdictions that have a local or state law prohibiting the same form of compensation discrimination).
The Act restores the pre-Ledbetter position of the EEOC that each paycheck that delivers discriminatory compensation is a wrong actionable under the federal EEO statutes, regardless of when the discrimination began. As noted in the Act, it recognizes the "reality of wage discrimination" and restores "bedrock principles of American law."
Under the Act, an individual subjected to compensation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may file a charge within 180 (or 300) days of any of the following:
when a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice affecting compensation is adopted;
when the individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice affecting compensation; or
when the individual's compensation is affected by the application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice, including each time the individual receives compensation that is based in whole or part on such compensation decision or other practice.
The Act has a retroactive effective date of May 28, 2007, and applies to all claims of discriminatory compensation pending on or after that date.
Notice to Potential Charging Parties: If you are aware of unexplained differences between your own compensation and coworkers' compensation and believe that the difference is because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability, you should call 1-800-669-4000 or 1-800-669-6820 (TTY) for more information on filing a charge with the EEOC.
February 11, 2009
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 ("Act"), which supersedes the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). Ledbetter had required a compensation discrimination charge to be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory pay-setting decision (or 300 days in jurisdictions that have a local or state law prohibiting the same form of compensation discrimination).
The Act restores the pre-Ledbetter position of the EEOC that each paycheck that delivers discriminatory compensation is a wrong actionable under the federal EEO statutes, regardless of when the discrimination began. As noted in the Act, it recognizes the "reality of wage discrimination" and restores "bedrock principles of American law."
Under the Act, an individual subjected to compensation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 may file a charge within 180 (or 300) days of any of the following:
when a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice affecting compensation is adopted;
when the individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice affecting compensation; or
when the individual's compensation is affected by the application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice, including each time the individual receives compensation that is based in whole or part on such compensation decision or other practice.
The Act has a retroactive effective date of May 28, 2007, and applies to all claims of discriminatory compensation pending on or after that date.
Notice to Potential Charging Parties: If you are aware of unexplained differences between your own compensation and coworkers' compensation and believe that the difference is because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability, you should call 1-800-669-4000 or 1-800-669-6820 (TTY) for more information on filing a charge with the EEOC.
Friday, February 13, 2009
J.C. PENNEY TO PAY $50,000 TO SETTLE EEOC RACE DISCRIMINATION SUIT
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
African American Greeter Targeted With Racial Slurs and Fired Due to Race, Federal Agency Charged
NEW YORK -- J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. will pay $50,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC had charged that J.C. Penney discriminated against Reinell Singh, an African American who worked as a greeter welcoming customers into Penney’s Staten Island store at the Staten Island Mall on 140 Marsh Avenue. The EEOC's lawsuit says that Singh's supervisor referred to her several times using racially offensive names and subsequently fired her for racial reasons.
In addition to the $50,000 in compensatory damages to be paid to Singh, the three-year consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Civil Action No.06 5192 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) includes injunctive relief enjoining J.C. Penney from race discrimination or retaliation; requiring the adoption of a non-discrimination policy and complaint procedures; anti-discrimination training; posting of a notice about the EEOC and the lawsuit; a memorandum setting forth the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all store employees; monitoring and reporting.
“In spite of advances since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted 44 years ago, race discrimination still remains one of the most pervasive problems in today’s workplace,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York District Office. “Racial slurs must simply not be tolerated, and the EEOC will fight to eradicate any such discrimination from the workplace.”
Konrad Batog, the EEOC’s trial attorney assigned to the case, added, “All employees have a right to be judged by their work performance and not their race. This consent decree will help make sure that what happened to Ms. Singh does not happen to any other J.C. Penney employee.”
On February 28, 2007, the Commission launched its E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), a national outreach, and education and enforcement campaign focusing on new and emerging race and color issues in the 21st century workplace. Further information about the E-RACE Initiative is available on the EEOC's website at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiative/e-race/index.html.
The EEOC is the government agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about EEOC is available on the agency's web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
African American Greeter Targeted With Racial Slurs and Fired Due to Race, Federal Agency Charged
NEW YORK -- J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. will pay $50,000 to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC had charged that J.C. Penney discriminated against Reinell Singh, an African American who worked as a greeter welcoming customers into Penney’s Staten Island store at the Staten Island Mall on 140 Marsh Avenue. The EEOC's lawsuit says that Singh's supervisor referred to her several times using racially offensive names and subsequently fired her for racial reasons.
In addition to the $50,000 in compensatory damages to be paid to Singh, the three-year consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Civil Action No.06 5192 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) includes injunctive relief enjoining J.C. Penney from race discrimination or retaliation; requiring the adoption of a non-discrimination policy and complaint procedures; anti-discrimination training; posting of a notice about the EEOC and the lawsuit; a memorandum setting forth the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all store employees; monitoring and reporting.
“In spite of advances since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted 44 years ago, race discrimination still remains one of the most pervasive problems in today’s workplace,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York District Office. “Racial slurs must simply not be tolerated, and the EEOC will fight to eradicate any such discrimination from the workplace.”
Konrad Batog, the EEOC’s trial attorney assigned to the case, added, “All employees have a right to be judged by their work performance and not their race. This consent decree will help make sure that what happened to Ms. Singh does not happen to any other J.C. Penney employee.”
On February 28, 2007, the Commission launched its E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), a national outreach, and education and enforcement campaign focusing on new and emerging race and color issues in the 21st century workplace. Further information about the E-RACE Initiative is available on the EEOC's website at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiative/e-race/index.html.
The EEOC is the government agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. Further information about EEOC is available on the agency's web site at http://www.eeoc.gov.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Are College Athletes Psyching Themselves Out?
Inside Higher Ed
February 11, 2009
More than a year ago, a major study of 71 Division III member institutions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association documented a significant academic achievement gap separating male athletes and non-athletes at selective liberal arts colleges. Although admissions practices — potentially biased in favor of enrolling athletes — might be to blame for this gap, a new study suggests that the perceived threat among athletes of confirming the negative stereotype of the “dumb jock” might also help perpetuate the gap.
A new “working paper,” released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, explores a phenomenon known as “stereotype threat” among athletes at Swarthmore College. Thomas S. Dee, the paper’s author and Swarthmore economics professor, writes that this trend “refers to the perceived risk of confirming, through one’s behavior or outcomes, negative stereotypes that are held about one’s social identity.” Dee argues that the “stigma” attached to athletic participation at some selective institutions might trigger the “stereotype threat” response among athletes, accounting for some portion of their weaker academic performance.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/stereotype
February 11, 2009
More than a year ago, a major study of 71 Division III member institutions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association documented a significant academic achievement gap separating male athletes and non-athletes at selective liberal arts colleges. Although admissions practices — potentially biased in favor of enrolling athletes — might be to blame for this gap, a new study suggests that the perceived threat among athletes of confirming the negative stereotype of the “dumb jock” might also help perpetuate the gap.
A new “working paper,” released this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, explores a phenomenon known as “stereotype threat” among athletes at Swarthmore College. Thomas S. Dee, the paper’s author and Swarthmore economics professor, writes that this trend “refers to the perceived risk of confirming, through one’s behavior or outcomes, negative stereotypes that are held about one’s social identity.” Dee argues that the “stigma” attached to athletic participation at some selective institutions might trigger the “stereotype threat” response among athletes, accounting for some portion of their weaker academic performance.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/stereotype
EEOC Can Sue Public University, Court Rules
Inside Higher Ed
February 11, 2009
The Eleventh Amendment protects public universities from lawsuits by former employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — but it does not prevent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from suing the colleges on the aggrieved employees’ behalf, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit came in a case in which the EEOC sued the University of Louisiana System over alleged discrimination by the university’s Monroe campus against a former administrator and professor, Van McGraw.
McGraw and another longtime official at Louisiana-Monroe, Dwight Vines, had, after retiring from their permanent administrative positions, worked on a series of annual contracts during the early 1990s. But when the university told them in 1996 that they would not be rehired because of a new policy that that prohibited the full-time re-employment of retirees, the two men filed a series of federal and state lawsuits, all of which were unsuccessful, the Fifth Circuit court said.
From 2002 to 2004, McGraw sought to be rehired as an associate dean or professor, also unsuccessfully, prompting him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC and a state lawsuit against Louisiana-Monroe. The federal employment agency sued the university in 2005, alleging that it had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by denying him the positions either because of his age or out of retaliation for his previous lawsuits. The agency sought to win McGraw the position of his choice, back pay, and other compensation. Louisiana sought to have the case dismissed, saying it was protected from such suits by sovereign immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.
It is “well established” that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from lawsuits by private individuals, the Fifth Circuit panel said in its decision Tuesday. But the court cites decisions in two other federal appeals courts — including a 2002 case involving the University of Wisconsin System — to assert that the Constitution does not in any way bar the federal government from suing a state (or one of its entities, like a public college) to enforce federal law.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/02/11/eeoc
February 11, 2009
The Eleventh Amendment protects public universities from lawsuits by former employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — but it does not prevent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from suing the colleges on the aggrieved employees’ behalf, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit came in a case in which the EEOC sued the University of Louisiana System over alleged discrimination by the university’s Monroe campus against a former administrator and professor, Van McGraw.
McGraw and another longtime official at Louisiana-Monroe, Dwight Vines, had, after retiring from their permanent administrative positions, worked on a series of annual contracts during the early 1990s. But when the university told them in 1996 that they would not be rehired because of a new policy that that prohibited the full-time re-employment of retirees, the two men filed a series of federal and state lawsuits, all of which were unsuccessful, the Fifth Circuit court said.
From 2002 to 2004, McGraw sought to be rehired as an associate dean or professor, also unsuccessfully, prompting him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC and a state lawsuit against Louisiana-Monroe. The federal employment agency sued the university in 2005, alleging that it had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by denying him the positions either because of his age or out of retaliation for his previous lawsuits. The agency sought to win McGraw the position of his choice, back pay, and other compensation. Louisiana sought to have the case dismissed, saying it was protected from such suits by sovereign immunity guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment.
It is “well established” that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from lawsuits by private individuals, the Fifth Circuit panel said in its decision Tuesday. But the court cites decisions in two other federal appeals courts — including a 2002 case involving the University of Wisconsin System — to assert that the Constitution does not in any way bar the federal government from suing a state (or one of its entities, like a public college) to enforce federal law.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/02/11/eeoc
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Senate Committee Cancels Vote on Labor Secretary Nomination
Workforce Management
February 6, 2009
Senate Committee Cancels Vote on Labor Secretary Nomination
Rep. Hilda Solis will have to wait a while longer for her nomination as the next secretary of labor to come before the full Senate after a committee postponed its vote on her nomination on Thursday, February 5.
USA Today reported Thursday that the California Democrat’s husband had not paid $6,400 in tax liens against his auto repair business until February 4. Some of the penalties had been outstanding for 16 years.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing Thursday that Solis’ nomination is not in jeopardy.
“We reviewed her tax returns and her tax returns are in order,” Gibbs said. “We’re not going to penalize her for her husband’s business mistakes. Obviously, her husband I think has and should pay any taxes that he owes.”
The Solis confirmation process has been stalled since her
-appearance before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on January 9. Solis refused to state a position on a controversial bill that would make it easier for employees to form a union and did not offer her opinion about right-to-work laws and other policies.
After the hearing, panel Republicans submitted a series of written questions to Solis about the union legislation as well as her service on the board of American Rights at Work, an advocacy organization. Solis had not indicated her position in House financial disclosures, according to published reports.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/16/09.php
February 6, 2009
Senate Committee Cancels Vote on Labor Secretary Nomination
Rep. Hilda Solis will have to wait a while longer for her nomination as the next secretary of labor to come before the full Senate after a committee postponed its vote on her nomination on Thursday, February 5.
USA Today reported Thursday that the California Democrat’s husband had not paid $6,400 in tax liens against his auto repair business until February 4. Some of the penalties had been outstanding for 16 years.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a briefing Thursday that Solis’ nomination is not in jeopardy.
“We reviewed her tax returns and her tax returns are in order,” Gibbs said. “We’re not going to penalize her for her husband’s business mistakes. Obviously, her husband I think has and should pay any taxes that he owes.”
The Solis confirmation process has been stalled since her
-appearance before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on January 9. Solis refused to state a position on a controversial bill that would make it easier for employees to form a union and did not offer her opinion about right-to-work laws and other policies.
After the hearing, panel Republicans submitted a series of written questions to Solis about the union legislation as well as her service on the board of American Rights at Work, an advocacy organization. Solis had not indicated her position in House financial disclosures, according to published reports.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/16/09.php
Judge Says Colleges' Bias Policy Does Not Impede Rights of Christian Student Groups
Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
February 9, 2009
A federal judge ruled on Friday that a nondiscrimination policy at San Diego State University and California State University at Long Beach does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Christian student groups, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports.
Every Nation Campus Ministries, a recognized student group eligible for money and privileges, established a new constitution in 2005 that required its members to be Christians and barred people “who believe they are innately homosexual, or advocate the viewpoint that homosexuality is a natural part of God’s created order.”
The group was denied official recognition that year because its new membership requirements violated the institutions’ nondiscrimination policy, and Every Nation Campus Ministries sued. Other groups with similar membership policies were denied recognition at both universities.
Full story: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5944/judge-says-colleges-bias-policy-does-not-impede-rights-of-christian-student-groups?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
News Blog
February 9, 2009
A federal judge ruled on Friday that a nondiscrimination policy at San Diego State University and California State University at Long Beach does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of Christian student groups, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports.
Every Nation Campus Ministries, a recognized student group eligible for money and privileges, established a new constitution in 2005 that required its members to be Christians and barred people “who believe they are innately homosexual, or advocate the viewpoint that homosexuality is a natural part of God’s created order.”
The group was denied official recognition that year because its new membership requirements violated the institutions’ nondiscrimination policy, and Every Nation Campus Ministries sued. Other groups with similar membership policies were denied recognition at both universities.
Full story: http://chronicle.com/news/article/5944/judge-says-colleges-bias-policy-does-not-impede-rights-of-christian-student-groups?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Chief Diversity Officers: Different Models for Success
Diverse Issues in Higher Education
by Diverse Staff
Feb 10, 2009, 04:20
“Someone once told me diversity work wasn’t rocket science. If only it was that easy.”
That’s how Dr. Archie Ervin, associate provost and director of diversity and multicultural affairs at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, opened his presentation Monday at the Leadership Institute, sponsored by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.
At some institutions the Chief Diversity Officer has a limited staff and works collaboratively with other departments to achieve diversity goals while at others the diversity work is so integrated into the traditional academic structure the CDO has responsibility over several departments, from institutional research to student support, in what is called a ‘portfolio’ model. At some institutions or university systems, the work of the CDO is centralized. In some cases diversity work falls under academic affairs, others student affairs. Some CDOs have responsibility for diversity, but no real authority while some have the chancellor’s ear on diversity issues.
The role of a Chief Diversity Officer can be configured in so many different ways, NADOHE’s Leadership Institute sought to demystify and examine challenges and opportunities of the various configurations, before an audience of diversity officers and higher education administrators seeking to develop such a position.
Whatever the design, the CDOs who presented said it was essential to have the president’s or chancellor’s support and that includes their commitment to hold faculty and administrators accountable for achieving diversity benchmarks.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12272.shtml
by Diverse Staff
Feb 10, 2009, 04:20
“Someone once told me diversity work wasn’t rocket science. If only it was that easy.”
That’s how Dr. Archie Ervin, associate provost and director of diversity and multicultural affairs at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, opened his presentation Monday at the Leadership Institute, sponsored by the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.
At some institutions the Chief Diversity Officer has a limited staff and works collaboratively with other departments to achieve diversity goals while at others the diversity work is so integrated into the traditional academic structure the CDO has responsibility over several departments, from institutional research to student support, in what is called a ‘portfolio’ model. At some institutions or university systems, the work of the CDO is centralized. In some cases diversity work falls under academic affairs, others student affairs. Some CDOs have responsibility for diversity, but no real authority while some have the chancellor’s ear on diversity issues.
The role of a Chief Diversity Officer can be configured in so many different ways, NADOHE’s Leadership Institute sought to demystify and examine challenges and opportunities of the various configurations, before an audience of diversity officers and higher education administrators seeking to develop such a position.
Whatever the design, the CDOs who presented said it was essential to have the president’s or chancellor’s support and that includes their commitment to hold faculty and administrators accountable for achieving diversity benchmarks.
Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_12272.shtml
Monday, February 9, 2009
EEOC GENERAL COUNSEL RONALD COOPER RETURNS TO PRIVATE PRACTICE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
February 2, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Ronald S. Cooper, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), will return to private law practice after two-and-one-half years leading the agency’s litigation program.
Cooper will rejoin the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP in its Washington, DC office. He came to the EEOC in August 2006, after being appointed by former President Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a four-year term. As General Counsel, he was responsible for the Commission’s litigation program.
“The Commission was fortunate to have had someone of Mr. Cooper’s caliber leading our litigation program. His contributions have made an indelible mark on the Office of General Counsel and leave the agency a better place,” Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said. “The Commission thanks Mr. Cooper for his service as General Counsel at a critical time for the agency.”
Cooper said, "At my swearing-in, I said that I came to the EEOC with considerable respect for the capabilities and dedication of its personnel. The past two-and-one-half years have confirmed and enhanced that assessment. I very much appreciate the support and cooperation I received from all the staff and hope that, together, we have strengthened the Office of General Counsel."
Cooper made improvements in technology and implementation of the Commission’s systemic enforcement program his top priorities. Noteworthy cases that were resolved during his tenure include EEOC v. Walgreen Co., a nationwide race discrimination case, and EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, involving the question of when members of a professional partnership can be covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee will oversee operations of the Office of General Counsel, effective today. Lee has been serving as Deputy General Counsel since 2003. A longtime EEOC employee, Lee has held several other management positions at the agency, including District Director of the Baltimore office and Regional Attorney of the New York office.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
February 2, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Ronald S. Cooper, General Counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), will return to private law practice after two-and-one-half years leading the agency’s litigation program.
Cooper will rejoin the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP in its Washington, DC office. He came to the EEOC in August 2006, after being appointed by former President Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a four-year term. As General Counsel, he was responsible for the Commission’s litigation program.
“The Commission was fortunate to have had someone of Mr. Cooper’s caliber leading our litigation program. His contributions have made an indelible mark on the Office of General Counsel and leave the agency a better place,” Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said. “The Commission thanks Mr. Cooper for his service as General Counsel at a critical time for the agency.”
Cooper said, "At my swearing-in, I said that I came to the EEOC with considerable respect for the capabilities and dedication of its personnel. The past two-and-one-half years have confirmed and enhanced that assessment. I very much appreciate the support and cooperation I received from all the staff and hope that, together, we have strengthened the Office of General Counsel."
Cooper made improvements in technology and implementation of the Commission’s systemic enforcement program his top priorities. Noteworthy cases that were resolved during his tenure include EEOC v. Walgreen Co., a nationwide race discrimination case, and EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, involving the question of when members of a professional partnership can be covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee will oversee operations of the Office of General Counsel, effective today. Lee has been serving as Deputy General Counsel since 2003. A longtime EEOC employee, Lee has held several other management positions at the agency, including District Director of the Baltimore office and Regional Attorney of the New York office.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
President Obama Issues Pro Labor Executive Order on Notification of Labor Rights
On January 30, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order requiring federal contractors to post a notice regardig the rights of employees under federal labor laws including the National Labor Relations Act. The order revokes Executive Order 13021, signed by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which required contractors to inform employees of their rights regarding the payment of union fees or dues through “Beck rights” notices, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
The executive order follows and can be viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/notificiation_of_employee_rights_under_federal_labor_laws/
Friday, January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Executive Order -- Notificiation of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor LawsFor Immediate Release
January 30, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER- - - - - - -NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LABOR LAWS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts, it is hereby ordered that: Section 1. Policy. This order is designed to promote economy and efficiency in Government procurement. When the Federal Government contracts for goods or services, it has a proprietary interest in ensuring that those contracts will be performed by contractors whose work will not be interrupted by labor unrest. The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers' productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under Federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. As the Act recognizes, "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and . . . protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection" will "eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce" and "mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred." 29 U.S.C. 151. Relying on contractors whose employees are informed of such rights under Federal labor laws facilitates the efficient and economical completion of the Federal Government's contracts. Sec. 2. Contract Clause. Except in contracts exempted in accordance with section 3 of this order, all Government contracting departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, include the following provisions in every Government contract, other than collective bargaining agreements as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(8) and purchases under the simplified acquisition threshold as defined in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 403. "1. During the term of this contract, the contractor agrees to post a notice, of such size and in such form, and containing such content as the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe, in conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices where employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act engage in activities relating to the performance of the contract, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted both physically and electronically. The notice shall include the information contained in the notice published by the Secretary of Labor in the Federal Register (Secretary's Notice). "2. The contractor will comply with all provisions of the Secretary's Notice, and related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. "3. In the event that the contractor does not comply with any of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) or (2) above, this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in or adopted pursuant to Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date]. Such other sanctions or remedies may be imposed as are provided in Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date], or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as are otherwise provided by law. "4. The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) above in every subcontract entered into in connection with this contract (unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 3 of Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date]) so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any such subcontract as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non compliance: Provided, however, that if the contractor becomes involved in litigation with a subcontractor, or is threatened with such involvement, as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States." Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this order. The Secretary shall adopt such rules and regulations and issue such orders as are necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of this order. (b) Within 120 days of the effective date of this order, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to prescribe the size, form, and content of the notice to be posted by a contractor under paragraph 1 of the contract clause described in section 2 of this order. Such notice shall describe the rights of employees under Federal labor laws, consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. (c) Whenever the Secretary finds that an act of Congress, clarification of existing law by the courts or the National Labor Relations Board, or other circumstances make modification of the contractual provisions set out in subsection (a) of this section necessary to achieve the purposes of this order, the Secretary promptly shall issue such rules, regulations, or orders as are needed to cause the substitution or addition of appropriate contractual provisions in Government contracts thereafter entered into. Sec. 4. Exemptions. (a) If the Secretary finds that the application of any of the requirements of this order would not serve the purposes of this order or would impair the ability of the Government to procure goods or services on an economical and efficient basis, the Secretary may exempt a contracting department or agency or group of departments or agencies from the requirements of any or all of the provisions of this order with respect to a particular contract or subcontract or any class of contracts or subcontracts. (b) The Secretary may, if the Secretary finds that special circumstances require an exemption in order to serve the national interest, exempt a contracting department or agency from the requirements of any or all of the provisions of section 2 of this order with respect to a particular contract or subcontract or class of contracts or subcontracts. Sec. 5. Investigation. (a) The Secretary may investigate any Government contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to determine whether the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order have been violated. Such investigations shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. (b) The Secretary shall receive and investigate complaints by employees of a Government contractor or subcontractor, where such complaints allege a failure to perform or a violation of the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order. Sec. 6. Compliance. (a) The Secretary, or any agency or officer in the executive branch lawfully designated by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary, may hold such hearings, public or private, regarding compliance with this order as the Secretary may deem advisable. (b) The Secretary may hold hearings, or cause hearings to be held, in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, prior to imposing, ordering, or recommending the imposition of sanctions under this order. Neither an order for cancellation, termination, or suspension of any contract or debarment of any contractor from further Government contracts under section 7(b) of this order nor the inclusion of a contractor on a published list of noncomplying contractors under section 7(c) of this order shall be carried out without affording the contractor an opportunity for a hearing. Sec. 7. Remedies. In accordance with such rules, regulations, or orders as the Secretary may issue or adopt, the Secretary may: (a) after consulting with the contracting department or agency, direct that department or agency to cancel, terminate, suspend, or cause to be cancelled, terminated, or suspended, any contract, or any portion or portions thereof, for failure of the contractor to comply with the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order; contracts may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended absolutely, or continuance of contracts may be conditioned upon future compliance: Provided, that before issuing a directive under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide the head of the contracting department or agency an opportunity to offer written objections to the issuance of such a directive, which objections shall include a complete statement of reasons for the objections, among which reasons shall be a finding that completion of the contract is essential to the agency's mission: And provided further, that no directive shall be issued by the Secretary under this subsection so long as the head of the contracting department or agency, or his or her designee, continues to object to the issuance of such directive; (b) after consulting with each affected contracting department or agency, provide that one or more contracting departments or agencies shall refrain from entering into further contracts, or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts, with any noncomplying contractor, until such contractor has satisfied the Secretary that such contractor has complied with and will carry out the provisions of this order: Provided, that before issuing a directive under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide the head of each contracting department or agency an opportunity to offer written objections to the issuance of such a directive, which objections shall include a complete statement of reasons for the objections, among which reasons shall be a finding that further contracts or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts with the noncomplying contractor are essential to the agency's mission: And provided further, that no directive shall be issued by the Secretary under this subsection so long as the head of a contracting department or agency, or his or her designee, continues to object to the issuance of such directive; and (c) publish, or cause to be published, the names of contractors that have, in the judgment of the Secretary, failed to comply with the provisions of this order or of related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary. Sec. 8. Reports. Whenever the Secretary invokes section 7(a) or 7(b) of this order, the contracting department or agency shall report to the Secretary the results of the action it has taken within such time as the Secretary shall specify. Sec. 9. Cooperation. Each contracting department and agency shall cooperate with the Secretary and provide such information and assistance as the Secretary may require in the performance of the Secretary's functions under this order. Sec. 10. Sufficiency of Remedies. If the Secretary finds that the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 5 through 9 of this order is not sufficient to effectuate the purposes of this order, the Secretary shall develop recommendations on how better to effectuate those purposes. Sec. 11. Delegation. The Secretary may, in accordance with law, delegate any function or duty of the Secretary under this order to any officer in the Department of Labor or to any other officer in the executive branch of the Government, with the consent of the head of the department or agency in which that officer serves. Sec. 12. Implementation. To the extent permitted by law, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) shall take whatever action is required to implement in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) the provisions of this order and any related rules, regulations, or orders issued by the Secretary under this order and shall amend the FAR to require each solicitation of offers for a contract to include a provision that implements section 2 of this order. Sec. 13. Revocation of Prior Order and Actions. Executive Order 13201 of February 17, 2001, is revoked. The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, revoke expeditiously any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 13201. Sec. 14. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 15. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 16. Effective Date. This order shall become effective immediately, and shall apply to contracts resulting from solicitations issued on or after the effective date of the rule promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 3(b) of this order.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2009.
The executive order follows and can be viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/notificiation_of_employee_rights_under_federal_labor_laws/
Friday, January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Executive Order -- Notificiation of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor LawsFor Immediate Release
January 30, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER- - - - - - -NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LABOR LAWS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts, it is hereby ordered that: Section 1. Policy. This order is designed to promote economy and efficiency in Government procurement. When the Federal Government contracts for goods or services, it has a proprietary interest in ensuring that those contracts will be performed by contractors whose work will not be interrupted by labor unrest. The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers' productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under Federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. As the Act recognizes, "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and . . . protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection" will "eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce" and "mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred." 29 U.S.C. 151. Relying on contractors whose employees are informed of such rights under Federal labor laws facilitates the efficient and economical completion of the Federal Government's contracts. Sec. 2. Contract Clause. Except in contracts exempted in accordance with section 3 of this order, all Government contracting departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, include the following provisions in every Government contract, other than collective bargaining agreements as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(8) and purchases under the simplified acquisition threshold as defined in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. 403. "1. During the term of this contract, the contractor agrees to post a notice, of such size and in such form, and containing such content as the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe, in conspicuous places in and about its plants and offices where employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act engage in activities relating to the performance of the contract, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted both physically and electronically. The notice shall include the information contained in the notice published by the Secretary of Labor in the Federal Register (Secretary's Notice). "2. The contractor will comply with all provisions of the Secretary's Notice, and related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor. "3. In the event that the contractor does not comply with any of the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) or (2) above, this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in or adopted pursuant to Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date]. Such other sanctions or remedies may be imposed as are provided in Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date], or by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as are otherwise provided by law. "4. The contractor will include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) above in every subcontract entered into in connection with this contract (unless exempted by rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to section 3 of Executive Order [number as provided by the Federal Register] of [insert new date]) so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any such subcontract as may be directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non compliance: Provided, however, that if the contractor becomes involved in litigation with a subcontractor, or is threatened with such involvement, as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States." Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The Secretary of Labor (Secretary) shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this order. The Secretary shall adopt such rules and regulations and issue such orders as are necessary and appropriate to achieve the purposes of this order. (b) Within 120 days of the effective date of this order, the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to prescribe the size, form, and content of the notice to be posted by a contractor under paragraph 1 of the contract clause described in section 2 of this order. Such notice shall describe the rights of employees under Federal labor laws, consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. (c) Whenever the Secretary finds that an act of Congress, clarification of existing law by the courts or the National Labor Relations Board, or other circumstances make modification of the contractual provisions set out in subsection (a) of this section necessary to achieve the purposes of this order, the Secretary promptly shall issue such rules, regulations, or orders as are needed to cause the substitution or addition of appropriate contractual provisions in Government contracts thereafter entered into. Sec. 4. Exemptions. (a) If the Secretary finds that the application of any of the requirements of this order would not serve the purposes of this order or would impair the ability of the Government to procure goods or services on an economical and efficient basis, the Secretary may exempt a contracting department or agency or group of departments or agencies from the requirements of any or all of the provisions of this order with respect to a particular contract or subcontract or any class of contracts or subcontracts. (b) The Secretary may, if the Secretary finds that special circumstances require an exemption in order to serve the national interest, exempt a contracting department or agency from the requirements of any or all of the provisions of section 2 of this order with respect to a particular contract or subcontract or class of contracts or subcontracts. Sec. 5. Investigation. (a) The Secretary may investigate any Government contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to determine whether the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order have been violated. Such investigations shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. (b) The Secretary shall receive and investigate complaints by employees of a Government contractor or subcontractor, where such complaints allege a failure to perform or a violation of the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order. Sec. 6. Compliance. (a) The Secretary, or any agency or officer in the executive branch lawfully designated by rule, regulation, or order of the Secretary, may hold such hearings, public or private, regarding compliance with this order as the Secretary may deem advisable. (b) The Secretary may hold hearings, or cause hearings to be held, in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, prior to imposing, ordering, or recommending the imposition of sanctions under this order. Neither an order for cancellation, termination, or suspension of any contract or debarment of any contractor from further Government contracts under section 7(b) of this order nor the inclusion of a contractor on a published list of noncomplying contractors under section 7(c) of this order shall be carried out without affording the contractor an opportunity for a hearing. Sec. 7. Remedies. In accordance with such rules, regulations, or orders as the Secretary may issue or adopt, the Secretary may: (a) after consulting with the contracting department or agency, direct that department or agency to cancel, terminate, suspend, or cause to be cancelled, terminated, or suspended, any contract, or any portion or portions thereof, for failure of the contractor to comply with the contractual provisions required by section 2 of this order; contracts may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended absolutely, or continuance of contracts may be conditioned upon future compliance: Provided, that before issuing a directive under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide the head of the contracting department or agency an opportunity to offer written objections to the issuance of such a directive, which objections shall include a complete statement of reasons for the objections, among which reasons shall be a finding that completion of the contract is essential to the agency's mission: And provided further, that no directive shall be issued by the Secretary under this subsection so long as the head of the contracting department or agency, or his or her designee, continues to object to the issuance of such directive; (b) after consulting with each affected contracting department or agency, provide that one or more contracting departments or agencies shall refrain from entering into further contracts, or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts, with any noncomplying contractor, until such contractor has satisfied the Secretary that such contractor has complied with and will carry out the provisions of this order: Provided, that before issuing a directive under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide the head of each contracting department or agency an opportunity to offer written objections to the issuance of such a directive, which objections shall include a complete statement of reasons for the objections, among which reasons shall be a finding that further contracts or extensions or other modifications of existing contracts with the noncomplying contractor are essential to the agency's mission: And provided further, that no directive shall be issued by the Secretary under this subsection so long as the head of a contracting department or agency, or his or her designee, continues to object to the issuance of such directive; and (c) publish, or cause to be published, the names of contractors that have, in the judgment of the Secretary, failed to comply with the provisions of this order or of related rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary. Sec. 8. Reports. Whenever the Secretary invokes section 7(a) or 7(b) of this order, the contracting department or agency shall report to the Secretary the results of the action it has taken within such time as the Secretary shall specify. Sec. 9. Cooperation. Each contracting department and agency shall cooperate with the Secretary and provide such information and assistance as the Secretary may require in the performance of the Secretary's functions under this order. Sec. 10. Sufficiency of Remedies. If the Secretary finds that the authority vested in the Secretary by sections 5 through 9 of this order is not sufficient to effectuate the purposes of this order, the Secretary shall develop recommendations on how better to effectuate those purposes. Sec. 11. Delegation. The Secretary may, in accordance with law, delegate any function or duty of the Secretary under this order to any officer in the Department of Labor or to any other officer in the executive branch of the Government, with the consent of the head of the department or agency in which that officer serves. Sec. 12. Implementation. To the extent permitted by law, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) shall take whatever action is required to implement in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) the provisions of this order and any related rules, regulations, or orders issued by the Secretary under this order and shall amend the FAR to require each solicitation of offers for a contract to include a provision that implements section 2 of this order. Sec. 13. Revocation of Prior Order and Actions. Executive Order 13201 of February 17, 2001, is revoked. The heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, revoke expeditiously any orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing Executive Order 13201. Sec. 14. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Sec. 15. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 16. Effective Date. This order shall become effective immediately, and shall apply to contracts resulting from solicitations issued on or after the effective date of the rule promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 3(b) of this order.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)