The Washington Post
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By Ruth MarcusWednesday, October 28, 2009
"I bet he wasn't folding laundry."
-- Carol Greider, winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine, on what she was doing at 5 a.m. when the big call came, and her thoughts on learning of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
Is there a woman around who read this quote and didn't smile with recognition? Greider's wry assessment encapsulates so much about the state of modern women: Nobel laureates but also -- if not inevitably, then at least overwhelmingly -- laundry-folders, school-lunch makers, play-date arrangers, schedule-managers.
This is less a complaint than an observation. In fact, to some extent women are reluctant to yield dominion over the home front even as they become the majority of the paid workforce.
"A Woman's Nation Changes Everything" is the title of a new report by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress. It does -- and it doesn't. The "Battle Between the Sexes is over. It was a draw," Shriver writes. "Now we're engaged in Negotiation Between the Sexes."
True, but from an unequal start, and with an unequal appreciation of that disparity. "Both sexes agree that women continue to bear a disproportionate burden in taking care of children and elderly parents, even when both partners in a relationship have jobs," John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira write in one chapter of the report. Here's the interesting subtext, though: Fifty-five percent of women strongly agreed (and 85 percent overall agreed) that "in households where both partners have jobs, women take on more responsibilities for the home and family than their male partners." Just 28 percent of men strongly agreed, and 67 percent agreed. That's a pretty big perception gap.
Put President Obama down as a strong agreer. "Today's Obama family is obviously not typical," he told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. "Five years ago, six years ago, though, we were having a lot of negotiations, because, you know, Michelle was trying to figure out: Okay, if the kids get sick, why is it that she's the one who has to take time off of her job to go pick them up from school, as opposed to me? If, you know, the girls need to shop for clothes, why is it that it's her burden and not mine?"
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102702842.html
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Ruling Could Spur Hiring Bias Against Obese Workers
Workforce Management
October 19, 2009
An Indiana state court’s ruling that would require a small business to pay for weight-loss surgery could make employers more cautious when hiring obese people, employment attorneys say.The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a workers’ compensation board ruling in August that pizza chain Boston’s The Gourmet Pizza would be required to pay for the weight-loss surgery of a former cook, Adam Childers, after doctors said the procedure was necessary to fix a back injury he suffered on the job in 2007.The ruling mirrored a similar finding in August by the Oregon Supreme Court in which an employer was told to pay for weight-loss surgery for an employee whose workplace injury required a knee replacement.The issue could lead employers—particularly small businesses—to think twice before hiring an obese worker, just as some businesses have enacted policies against hiring smokers, says Joseph Lazzarotti, a partner in the benefits group of Jackson Lewis. Weight-loss surgery can cost upwards of $25,000.“How do you deal with the fact that … hiring somebody could potentially bankrupt you?” Lazzarotti says. “As a small-business owner, people might think of that and weigh the risks of a [discrimination] claim because the alternative is they may be bankrupt.”Obese employees, like smokers, so far have had little success claiming they were discriminated against.Weight generally is not considered a disability covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act despite changes that went into effect in January broadening the definition of a disability, says Ramona L. Paetzold, a professor at Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.“We don’t know yet if [the changes to the ADA] will include people on the basis of weight,” Paetzold says. “If so, what will ‘obese’ be defined as, and will causes of obesity play a role?”
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/26.php
October 19, 2009
An Indiana state court’s ruling that would require a small business to pay for weight-loss surgery could make employers more cautious when hiring obese people, employment attorneys say.The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a workers’ compensation board ruling in August that pizza chain Boston’s The Gourmet Pizza would be required to pay for the weight-loss surgery of a former cook, Adam Childers, after doctors said the procedure was necessary to fix a back injury he suffered on the job in 2007.The ruling mirrored a similar finding in August by the Oregon Supreme Court in which an employer was told to pay for weight-loss surgery for an employee whose workplace injury required a knee replacement.The issue could lead employers—particularly small businesses—to think twice before hiring an obese worker, just as some businesses have enacted policies against hiring smokers, says Joseph Lazzarotti, a partner in the benefits group of Jackson Lewis. Weight-loss surgery can cost upwards of $25,000.“How do you deal with the fact that … hiring somebody could potentially bankrupt you?” Lazzarotti says. “As a small-business owner, people might think of that and weigh the risks of a [discrimination] claim because the alternative is they may be bankrupt.”Obese employees, like smokers, so far have had little success claiming they were discriminated against.Weight generally is not considered a disability covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act despite changes that went into effect in January broadening the definition of a disability, says Ramona L. Paetzold, a professor at Mays Business School at Texas A&M University.“We don’t know yet if [the changes to the ADA] will include people on the basis of weight,” Paetzold says. “If so, what will ‘obese’ be defined as, and will causes of obesity play a role?”
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/26.php
HR Group Hails E-Verify Extension as Steppingstone to Something Better
Workforce Management
October 21, 2009
An organization that has criticized a government-run electronic employment verification system hailed Senate approval of a bill that would keep it operating for three more years.
The HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce views the extension contained in a $42.8 billion homeland security funding bill approved by the Senate, 79-19, on Tuesday, October 20, as a bridge to a better mechanism. The House passed the homeland bill October 15, 307-114.
Congress chose to keep the system, called E-Verify, in place while it decides how and when to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. The mechanism, which checks employee information from I-9 forms against Social Security and homeland security databases, is used by more than 148,000 employers.
Business groups have hammered E-Verify for being inefficient, ineffective and unable to detect identity theft. They say that mistakes in government records could cause hundreds of thousands of legal workers to be declared ineligible.
The Obama administration has made E-Verify the centerpiece of its workplace enforcement strategy, just as the Bush administration did. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services maintains that E-Verify confirms within 24 hours nearly 97 percent of employment queries.
The homeland measure allocates $137 million to improve E-Verify’s accuracy and compliance rates and $135 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire special agents for workplace immigration audits.
The HR Initiative, which is led by the Society for Human Resource Management, said the E-Verify extension is a good placeholder while Congress considers alternatives to the system.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/70.php
October 21, 2009
An organization that has criticized a government-run electronic employment verification system hailed Senate approval of a bill that would keep it operating for three more years.
The HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce views the extension contained in a $42.8 billion homeland security funding bill approved by the Senate, 79-19, on Tuesday, October 20, as a bridge to a better mechanism. The House passed the homeland bill October 15, 307-114.
Congress chose to keep the system, called E-Verify, in place while it decides how and when to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. The mechanism, which checks employee information from I-9 forms against Social Security and homeland security databases, is used by more than 148,000 employers.
Business groups have hammered E-Verify for being inefficient, ineffective and unable to detect identity theft. They say that mistakes in government records could cause hundreds of thousands of legal workers to be declared ineligible.
The Obama administration has made E-Verify the centerpiece of its workplace enforcement strategy, just as the Bush administration did. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services maintains that E-Verify confirms within 24 hours nearly 97 percent of employment queries.
The homeland measure allocates $137 million to improve E-Verify’s accuracy and compliance rates and $135 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire special agents for workplace immigration audits.
The HR Initiative, which is led by the Society for Human Resource Management, said the E-Verify extension is a good placeholder while Congress considers alternatives to the system.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/70.php
Monday, October 26, 2009
Managers' Hiring Practices Vary By Race, Ethnicity Says University of Miami Study
CORAL GABLES, Fla., Oct. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- White, Asian and Hispanic managers tend to hire more whites and fewer blacks than black managers do, according to a new study out of the University of Miami School of Business Administration.
Using more than two years of personnel data from a large U.S. retail chain, the study found that when a black manager in a typical store is replaced by a white, Asian or Hispanic manager, the share of newly hired blacks falls from 21 to 17 percent, and the share of whites hired rises from 60 to 64 percent. The effect is even stronger for stores located in the South, where the replacement of a black manager causes the share of newly hired blacks to fall from 29 to 21 percent. In locations with large Hispanic populations, Hispanics hire more Hispanics and fewer whites than white managers. The study is out this month in the Journal of Labor Economics.
The finding is clear evidence that the race or ethnicity of those who make hiring decisions can have a strong impact in the racial makeup of a company's workforce, says Laura Giuliano, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Miami School of Business, who authored the study with David Levine and Jonathan Leonard from the University of California, Berkeley.
How strong is the impact? Consider a typical store with 40 employees located in the Southern U.S. According to the data, replacing a black manager with a non-black manager would result in the replacement of three to four black workers with white workers over the course of one year.
The effect in a non-Southern store would also be significant, if a bit more subtle. Replacing a black manager in a non-Southern store would result in one black worker being replaced by a white worker over a year.
"From the viewpoint of a district manager who is observing just a small sample of stores, this change might go unnoticed or appear insignificant," Giuliano said. "However, the change may appear more significant from the point of view of job seekers -- and especially black job seekers. In fact, the change in non-Southern stores amounts to a proportional decline of 15 percent in the number of blacks employed."
The data used by Giuliano and her colleagues were especially well suited to sorting out the role race plays in hiring. While previous studies have also suggested that manager race plays a role, those studies have been unable to distinguish that role from other factors such as the demographic makeup of the local labor pool. Giuliano and her colleagues were able to isolate the race factor by tracking individual stores that experienced a change of manager.
"This means we can compare the hiring patterns of consecutive managers of different races in the same store," she said. "Hence we can isolate the effect of a manager's race by comparing the hiring patterns of managers when they hire from similar labor pools under similar conditions."
The researchers were also able to use their data to offer some partial explanations for why these differences in hiring patterns exist.
They found that both black and non-black managers tend to hire people who live close to them. So if black managers live in predominantly black neighborhoods, their hiring network is also likely to be predominantly black.
The research also suggests that black managers hire fewer whites because whites may be less willing to work for black managers. The study found that when a white manager is replaced with a black manager, the rate at which white workers quit their jobs increases by 15 percent.
"We interpret this increase in the white quit rate as evidence of discriminatory sorting by white job seekers," the authors write. "It implies that whites who dislike working for black managers often avoid working for black managers in the first place."
About the University of Miami School of Business Administration
The University of Miami School of Business Administration is a comprehensive business school, offering undergraduate business, full-time MBA, Executive MBA, MS, PhD and non-degree executive education programs. One of 12 colleges and schools at the University of Miami, the School is located in a major hub of international trade and commerce and acclaimed for the global orientation and diversity of its faculty, students and curriculum. The School delivers its programs at its main campus in Coral Gables as well as at locations across Florida and abroad. More information about the University of Miami School of Business can be found at www.bus.miami.edu.
NOTE TO EDITORS: A full copy of the study is available upon request. The University of Miami has a television studio on campus and can provide live expert interviews via satellite or Vyvx fiber.
Media Contact:
Tracy Simon
University of Miami School of Business Administration
267-679-2774
tsimon@sba.umiami.edu
SOURCE University of Miami School of Business Administration
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-15-2009/0005113487&EDATE=
Using more than two years of personnel data from a large U.S. retail chain, the study found that when a black manager in a typical store is replaced by a white, Asian or Hispanic manager, the share of newly hired blacks falls from 21 to 17 percent, and the share of whites hired rises from 60 to 64 percent. The effect is even stronger for stores located in the South, where the replacement of a black manager causes the share of newly hired blacks to fall from 29 to 21 percent. In locations with large Hispanic populations, Hispanics hire more Hispanics and fewer whites than white managers. The study is out this month in the Journal of Labor Economics.
The finding is clear evidence that the race or ethnicity of those who make hiring decisions can have a strong impact in the racial makeup of a company's workforce, says Laura Giuliano, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Miami School of Business, who authored the study with David Levine and Jonathan Leonard from the University of California, Berkeley.
How strong is the impact? Consider a typical store with 40 employees located in the Southern U.S. According to the data, replacing a black manager with a non-black manager would result in the replacement of three to four black workers with white workers over the course of one year.
The effect in a non-Southern store would also be significant, if a bit more subtle. Replacing a black manager in a non-Southern store would result in one black worker being replaced by a white worker over a year.
"From the viewpoint of a district manager who is observing just a small sample of stores, this change might go unnoticed or appear insignificant," Giuliano said. "However, the change may appear more significant from the point of view of job seekers -- and especially black job seekers. In fact, the change in non-Southern stores amounts to a proportional decline of 15 percent in the number of blacks employed."
The data used by Giuliano and her colleagues were especially well suited to sorting out the role race plays in hiring. While previous studies have also suggested that manager race plays a role, those studies have been unable to distinguish that role from other factors such as the demographic makeup of the local labor pool. Giuliano and her colleagues were able to isolate the race factor by tracking individual stores that experienced a change of manager.
"This means we can compare the hiring patterns of consecutive managers of different races in the same store," she said. "Hence we can isolate the effect of a manager's race by comparing the hiring patterns of managers when they hire from similar labor pools under similar conditions."
The researchers were also able to use their data to offer some partial explanations for why these differences in hiring patterns exist.
They found that both black and non-black managers tend to hire people who live close to them. So if black managers live in predominantly black neighborhoods, their hiring network is also likely to be predominantly black.
The research also suggests that black managers hire fewer whites because whites may be less willing to work for black managers. The study found that when a white manager is replaced with a black manager, the rate at which white workers quit their jobs increases by 15 percent.
"We interpret this increase in the white quit rate as evidence of discriminatory sorting by white job seekers," the authors write. "It implies that whites who dislike working for black managers often avoid working for black managers in the first place."
About the University of Miami School of Business Administration
The University of Miami School of Business Administration is a comprehensive business school, offering undergraduate business, full-time MBA, Executive MBA, MS, PhD and non-degree executive education programs. One of 12 colleges and schools at the University of Miami, the School is located in a major hub of international trade and commerce and acclaimed for the global orientation and diversity of its faculty, students and curriculum. The School delivers its programs at its main campus in Coral Gables as well as at locations across Florida and abroad. More information about the University of Miami School of Business can be found at www.bus.miami.edu.
NOTE TO EDITORS: A full copy of the study is available upon request. The University of Miami has a television studio on campus and can provide live expert interviews via satellite or Vyvx fiber.
Media Contact:
Tracy Simon
University of Miami School of Business Administration
267-679-2774
tsimon@sba.umiami.edu
SOURCE University of Miami School of Business Administration
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-15-2009/0005113487&EDATE=
EEOC Adds New Orleans to its List of ADA Hearings
[The following is the latest press release on all four hearings related to the ADA Amendments Act regulations]
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 - Town Hall Meetings
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division are holding four full-day Town Hall Listening Sessions in October and November to obtain direct input from the business/employer community and the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).
Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations.
The Listening Sessions will be held on October 26th in Oakland, October 30th in Philadelphia, November 17th in Chicago and November 20th in New Orleans.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis.
As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance.
Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil letting her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending.
See detailed information about each Listening Session and information about registration.
Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at www.regulations.gov the Federal eRulemaking Portal. To submit a comment, you can locate the NPRM by typing in the keyword "ADA Amendments Act." The ID# for the ADAAA regulation is 3046-AA85.
Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
Background Information
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [HTML] [PDF]
Question and Answers on the NPRM [HTML] [PDF]
Summary of the NPRM changes [HTML] [PDF] [En Español]
EEOC's Notice Concerning The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008
http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adaaa-townhall.html
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 - Town Hall Meetings
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division are holding four full-day Town Hall Listening Sessions in October and November to obtain direct input from the business/employer community and the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).
Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations.
The Listening Sessions will be held on October 26th in Oakland, October 30th in Philadelphia, November 17th in Chicago and November 20th in New Orleans.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis.
As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance.
Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil letting her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending.
See detailed information about each Listening Session and information about registration.
Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at www.regulations.gov the Federal eRulemaking Portal. To submit a comment, you can locate the NPRM by typing in the keyword "ADA Amendments Act." The ID# for the ADAAA regulation is 3046-AA85.
Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
Background Information
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [HTML] [PDF]
Question and Answers on the NPRM [HTML] [PDF]
Summary of the NPRM changes [HTML] [PDF] [En Español]
EEOC's Notice Concerning The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008
http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adaaa-townhall.html
EEOC Poster Request Form
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The law requires an employer to post notices describing the Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability and genetic information. EEOC's poster is available in English, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish. You may order up to 10 copies from this website.
EEOC has revised its “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. This new version reflects current federal employment discrimination law (including the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008). The poster was revised to add information about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which is effective November 21, 2009. The revised poster also includes updates from the Department of Labor.
There are several ways for employers to comply with the law:
Print the supplement below and post it alongside EEOC’s September 2002 “EEO is the Law” poster or OFCCP’s August 2008 “EEO is the Law” poster.
“EEO is the Law” poster supplement
Print and post the EEOC’s November 2009 version of the “EEO is the Law” poster.
“EEO is the Law” poster
Order a new poster through the EEOC Clearinghouse at the address provided below. Please note that the EEOC poster is on backorder and will be shipped when the poster becomes available in the near future. The new poster will also be available in Spanish, Chinese and Arabic before the GINA statute becomes effective on November 21, 2009.
If you need more than ten copies of the poster, please contact:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ClearinghouseP.O. Box 541Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Fax: (301) 206-9789or call: 1-800-669-3362 (voice)1-800-800-3302 (TTY)
To order the poster, please complete and submit the form below. Your name and address information is required. Including your phone number and/or e-mail address will allow us to contact you if we have questions about your order.
To obtain free copies of other federal required posters please contact:
U.S. Department of Labor(202) 693-0200
U.S. Department of Labor Poster Page
For order form, go to: http://www.eeoc.gov/posterform.html
The law requires an employer to post notices describing the Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability and genetic information. EEOC's poster is available in English, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish. You may order up to 10 copies from this website.
EEOC has revised its “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. This new version reflects current federal employment discrimination law (including the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008). The poster was revised to add information about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which is effective November 21, 2009. The revised poster also includes updates from the Department of Labor.
There are several ways for employers to comply with the law:
Print the supplement below and post it alongside EEOC’s September 2002 “EEO is the Law” poster or OFCCP’s August 2008 “EEO is the Law” poster.
“EEO is the Law” poster supplement
Print and post the EEOC’s November 2009 version of the “EEO is the Law” poster.
“EEO is the Law” poster
Order a new poster through the EEOC Clearinghouse at the address provided below. Please note that the EEOC poster is on backorder and will be shipped when the poster becomes available in the near future. The new poster will also be available in Spanish, Chinese and Arabic before the GINA statute becomes effective on November 21, 2009.
If you need more than ten copies of the poster, please contact:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ClearinghouseP.O. Box 541Annapolis Junction, MD 20701
Fax: (301) 206-9789or call: 1-800-669-3362 (voice)1-800-800-3302 (TTY)
To order the poster, please complete and submit the form below. Your name and address information is required. Including your phone number and/or e-mail address will allow us to contact you if we have questions about your order.
To obtain free copies of other federal required posters please contact:
U.S. Department of Labor(202) 693-0200
U.S. Department of Labor Poster Page
For order form, go to: http://www.eeoc.gov/posterform.html
Friday, October 23, 2009
EEOC TO HOLD LISTENING SESSION OCT. 26 IN OAKLAND TO ADVANCE HIRING OF WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
10-20-09
Town Hall Forum Allows Public to Comment Directly on Proposed Regulations
SAN FRANCISCO – Top officials of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights (DOJ), will jointly hold a town hall listening session to draw public input on new federal regulations and procedures to promote the hiring of people with disabilities. The forum, the first of four in major cities nationwide, will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 26 at the Greater Bay Area Regional Office, 1111 Broadway, 7th floor, Oakland, Calif.
The EEOC-DOJ listening sessions are part of a series of national initiatives by the Obama Administration to ensure fair and equal access to employment for all Americans, particularly the 54 million people in this country living with disabilities. The sessions provide direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on proposed regulations in the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
"The EEOC continues pressing to empower individuals with disabilities to participate to the fullest extent possible in the American workplace," said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. "We're pleased to hold listening sessions around the country in conjunction with the Department of Justice and to play a lead role in the Administration's initiative."
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “For too long, Americans with disabilities have been pushed to the rear of the hiring line. The EEOC-DOJ town hall listening sessions, in concert with other Administration measures, should position workers with disabilities for a fair chance at a federal job.”
Commissioner Constance Barker said, "I strongly support the Town Hall concept and hope this will be the beginning of similar initiatives by the EEOC to increase transparency and opportunities for public input."
Acting Chairman Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair Griffin and Commissioner Barker will preside at the Oakland forum, along with DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., some on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis. Those wishing to register as a speaker should contact Linda Li at 415-625-5618 (TTY 415-625-5610) or Linda.Li@eeoc.gov. Speakers are also invited to submit written statements, either at the event or on-line at www.regulations.gov. Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. Persons requiring printed materials in an alternative format should email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil, noting specific needs and the location (city) of the event they will attend.
The listening sessions follow EEOC action last month to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that implements the amendments to the ADA. On Sept. 16, the EEOC approved a revision to its regulations providing that an individual seeking protection under the ADA establish that he or she has a disability consistent with the original, expansive intent of Congress when it enacted the statute in 1990. The amendments provide increased opportunity for persons with disabilities by returning the ADA to the broad and strong civil rights statute that Congress originally intended. The NPRM carries a 60-day period for public comment.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities – defined as people with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of a disability, or who, while not actually disabled, are regarded as disabled.
The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2009, states that Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so.
Consistent with the ADAAA, the NPRM emphasizes that the definition of disability -- an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity -- must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis; that major life activities include “major bodily functions”; that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the listening sessions and the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
10-20-09
Town Hall Forum Allows Public to Comment Directly on Proposed Regulations
SAN FRANCISCO – Top officials of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights (DOJ), will jointly hold a town hall listening session to draw public input on new federal regulations and procedures to promote the hiring of people with disabilities. The forum, the first of four in major cities nationwide, will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 26 at the Greater Bay Area Regional Office, 1111 Broadway, 7th floor, Oakland, Calif.
The EEOC-DOJ listening sessions are part of a series of national initiatives by the Obama Administration to ensure fair and equal access to employment for all Americans, particularly the 54 million people in this country living with disabilities. The sessions provide direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on proposed regulations in the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
"The EEOC continues pressing to empower individuals with disabilities to participate to the fullest extent possible in the American workplace," said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. "We're pleased to hold listening sessions around the country in conjunction with the Department of Justice and to play a lead role in the Administration's initiative."
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “For too long, Americans with disabilities have been pushed to the rear of the hiring line. The EEOC-DOJ town hall listening sessions, in concert with other Administration measures, should position workers with disabilities for a fair chance at a federal job.”
Commissioner Constance Barker said, "I strongly support the Town Hall concept and hope this will be the beginning of similar initiatives by the EEOC to increase transparency and opportunities for public input."
Acting Chairman Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair Griffin and Commissioner Barker will preside at the Oakland forum, along with DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., some on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis. Those wishing to register as a speaker should contact Linda Li at 415-625-5618 (TTY 415-625-5610) or Linda.Li@eeoc.gov. Speakers are also invited to submit written statements, either at the event or on-line at www.regulations.gov. Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. Persons requiring printed materials in an alternative format should email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil, noting specific needs and the location (city) of the event they will attend.
The listening sessions follow EEOC action last month to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that implements the amendments to the ADA. On Sept. 16, the EEOC approved a revision to its regulations providing that an individual seeking protection under the ADA establish that he or she has a disability consistent with the original, expansive intent of Congress when it enacted the statute in 1990. The amendments provide increased opportunity for persons with disabilities by returning the ADA to the broad and strong civil rights statute that Congress originally intended. The NPRM carries a 60-day period for public comment.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities – defined as people with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of a disability, or who, while not actually disabled, are regarded as disabled.
The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2009, states that Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so.
Consistent with the ADAAA, the NPRM emphasizes that the definition of disability -- an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity -- must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis; that major life activities include “major bodily functions”; that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the listening sessions and the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Williamson: Racism still plagues our nation
The Daily Toreador
Texas Tech University
By Paul Williamson
Columnist
Published: Friday, October 23, 2009
Updated: Thursday, October 22, 2009
Racism is a word that has been tossed around a lot lately. Most of the time it is misused causing it to have a watered-down meaning. It becomes trivialized to a point were we cannot see true racism.
In Louisiana, Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to perform a marriage for an interracial couple. On CBS news he argues that since children of interracial couples are often denied by their families, he will not perform a marriage because he is concerned about the kids.
On that CBS news program he said one other scenario in which he would not perform a ceremony is if the couple is intoxicated or on drugs. He then said they have to come back when they are sober.
Let me get this straight, Bardwell. Parents who abuse alcohol and drugs will be married by you, but not interracial couples. The data shows children living in that situation are much better off than interracial couples. Right?
He also said interracial marriages do not last.
So does he also refuse to perform marriages for younger couples? Data shows they have a much higher divorce rate than those of their elders. There is data out there that shows the divorce-rate amongst those who are conservative Christians is higher than that of those that claim to be agnostic or atheist. Does Bardwell not perform marriages for them?
I can go on and on and break down random statistics from random studies and show people with lower IQ’s have a higher divorce rate (or vice versa). Will Bardwell refuse to perform for people because they are too stupid or too smart?
Oh, you want me to marry you? Well take this IQ test first and we will see.
Bardwell argues he is not a racist. He claims he allows black people to use his bathroom, as reported by the Associated Press. While I applaud Bardwell in his courageous act of racial unity to allow black people to use his toilet, he is still racist. Taking an action based solely on the basis of color is racist.
This is not just an isolated incidence of racism. Racism is all around us. Poverty in this country still disproportionately affects minority groups, as does education levels. The reason is because of the segregationist policies of the past put generations of minorities behind whites by about 200 years.
The situation today for minorities is a lot better today than it was prior to the civil rights movement. But predominantly minority schools are still poorer than their white counter-parts.
Full Opinion: http://www.dailytoreador.com/opinions/williamson-racism-still-plagues-our-nation-1.2034040
Texas Tech University
By Paul Williamson
Columnist
Published: Friday, October 23, 2009
Updated: Thursday, October 22, 2009
Racism is a word that has been tossed around a lot lately. Most of the time it is misused causing it to have a watered-down meaning. It becomes trivialized to a point were we cannot see true racism.
In Louisiana, Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell refused to perform a marriage for an interracial couple. On CBS news he argues that since children of interracial couples are often denied by their families, he will not perform a marriage because he is concerned about the kids.
On that CBS news program he said one other scenario in which he would not perform a ceremony is if the couple is intoxicated or on drugs. He then said they have to come back when they are sober.
Let me get this straight, Bardwell. Parents who abuse alcohol and drugs will be married by you, but not interracial couples. The data shows children living in that situation are much better off than interracial couples. Right?
He also said interracial marriages do not last.
So does he also refuse to perform marriages for younger couples? Data shows they have a much higher divorce rate than those of their elders. There is data out there that shows the divorce-rate amongst those who are conservative Christians is higher than that of those that claim to be agnostic or atheist. Does Bardwell not perform marriages for them?
I can go on and on and break down random statistics from random studies and show people with lower IQ’s have a higher divorce rate (or vice versa). Will Bardwell refuse to perform for people because they are too stupid or too smart?
Oh, you want me to marry you? Well take this IQ test first and we will see.
Bardwell argues he is not a racist. He claims he allows black people to use his bathroom, as reported by the Associated Press. While I applaud Bardwell in his courageous act of racial unity to allow black people to use his toilet, he is still racist. Taking an action based solely on the basis of color is racist.
This is not just an isolated incidence of racism. Racism is all around us. Poverty in this country still disproportionately affects minority groups, as does education levels. The reason is because of the segregationist policies of the past put generations of minorities behind whites by about 200 years.
The situation today for minorities is a lot better today than it was prior to the civil rights movement. But predominantly minority schools are still poorer than their white counter-parts.
Full Opinion: http://www.dailytoreador.com/opinions/williamson-racism-still-plagues-our-nation-1.2034040
ASU job-seeker files discrimination suit
montgomeryadvertiser.com
October 22, 2009
By Jill Nolin
Gayle H. Gear, a potential candidate for president of Alabama State University before the university stopped the process and named interim president William H. Harris to the position, has filed a federal court suit against ASU, alleging racial and sexual discrimination.
The lawsuit, naming ASU and its board of trustees as defendants, asks the court to restore Harris to the position of interim and to continue the search until the search committee can properly select a president.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims that Gear, who is white, "is a racial minority as defined by ASU."
It also claims that the university created a presidential search committee as a pretext and that the committee violated both the university's Affirmative Action Plan and internal employment policies when it never advertised for the position before appointing the new president.
After the Montgomery Advertiser faxed a copy of the lawsuit to ASU spokesman Kenneth Mullinax on Wednesday afternoon, he declined to comment. A phone call made to ASU Board Chairman Elton Dean was not returned Wednesday evening.
The suit says that Gear had sent written correspondence and her resume to Harris, who was then interim president, on June 19, 2009. The search was ultimately halted, and Harris was named president of the historically black college.
"To date, Dr. Gear has received no response to her request to be considered as a candidate for the position of president," the lawsuit states.
Full Story: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091022/NEWS01/910220319/ASU+job-seeker+files+discrimination+suit
October 22, 2009
By Jill Nolin
Gayle H. Gear, a potential candidate for president of Alabama State University before the university stopped the process and named interim president William H. Harris to the position, has filed a federal court suit against ASU, alleging racial and sexual discrimination.
The lawsuit, naming ASU and its board of trustees as defendants, asks the court to restore Harris to the position of interim and to continue the search until the search committee can properly select a president.
The lawsuit, filed Monday, claims that Gear, who is white, "is a racial minority as defined by ASU."
It also claims that the university created a presidential search committee as a pretext and that the committee violated both the university's Affirmative Action Plan and internal employment policies when it never advertised for the position before appointing the new president.
After the Montgomery Advertiser faxed a copy of the lawsuit to ASU spokesman Kenneth Mullinax on Wednesday afternoon, he declined to comment. A phone call made to ASU Board Chairman Elton Dean was not returned Wednesday evening.
The suit says that Gear had sent written correspondence and her resume to Harris, who was then interim president, on June 19, 2009. The search was ultimately halted, and Harris was named president of the historically black college.
"To date, Dr. Gear has received no response to her request to be considered as a candidate for the position of president," the lawsuit states.
Full Story: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20091022/NEWS01/910220319/ASU+job-seeker+files+discrimination+suit
Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature
CNN.Com
October 23, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.
President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.
The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.
"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.
Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."Watch survivor of attack discuss legislation »
"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."
"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."
This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html
October 23, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.
President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.
The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.
"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."
Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.
Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.
Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."Watch survivor of attack discuss legislation »
"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."
"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."
This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.
"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."
Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.
Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ledbetter Law Sets the Tone for Work Rules to Come
Workforce Management
August 2009
by Monica Ginsburg
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Barack Obama, looks to ensure that workers alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, race, age or disability have a fair chance to sue their employers.
The act, signed into law in January, is named after a woman who was paid less than her male co-workers at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Alabama over the course of her 19-year career there. She sued.
A jury ruled in her favor, but in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out her claim, saying she should have filed suit within 180 days of the first time Goodyear paid her less than her peers. Having missed that window, she had no grounds to sue, the court determined.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act essentially restarts the 180-day clock every time an employee receives a paycheck. As a result, workers now have many years to claim pay discrimination. And they can sue to recover up to two years in back pay.
To comply with the new act, and to protect your business from discrimination claims, human resources consultants and legal advisors recommend taking a close look at compensation decisions and how those decisions are documented.
For example:
• Review employee pay and ensure there are demonstrable business reasons—such as education, training or experience—for any disparities.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/59/34/
August 2009
by Monica Ginsburg
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first piece of legislation signed by President Barack Obama, looks to ensure that workers alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, race, age or disability have a fair chance to sue their employers.
The act, signed into law in January, is named after a woman who was paid less than her male co-workers at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Alabama over the course of her 19-year career there. She sued.
A jury ruled in her favor, but in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out her claim, saying she should have filed suit within 180 days of the first time Goodyear paid her less than her peers. Having missed that window, she had no grounds to sue, the court determined.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act essentially restarts the 180-day clock every time an employee receives a paycheck. As a result, workers now have many years to claim pay discrimination. And they can sue to recover up to two years in back pay.
To comply with the new act, and to protect your business from discrimination claims, human resources consultants and legal advisors recommend taking a close look at compensation decisions and how those decisions are documented.
For example:
• Review employee pay and ensure there are demonstrable business reasons—such as education, training or experience—for any disparities.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/59/34/
EEOC SUES VANGUARD FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 9-30-09
Investment Management Giant Refused to Hire Black Applicant as Financial Planning Manager, Federal Agency Charges
PHILADELPHIA – Malvern, Pa.- based Vanguard Group, Inc., one of the world's largest investment management companies, violated federal law when it refused to hire an African American applicant because of her race, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Barbara Alexander was the only African American applicant for a financial planning manager position at Vanguard’s Charlotte, N.C., office. She was well qualified for the position based on her 14 years of financial management experience and MBA in finance. The EEOC charges, however, that even though a company official told Alexander during the lengthy application process that she was “obviously qualified for the position.” The company later claimed it did not select her because she was “unqualified,” in part because she did not have a certified financial planner (CFP) certification. The EEOC says that race discrimination was the real reason Vanguard did not hire Alexander, because it hired a less qualified white applicant who also lacked a CFP certification and who, unlike Alexander, did not have work experience in financial planning.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before filing suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No.---- . The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination, as well as back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
“Unfortunately, 45 years after enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Act, the EEOC continues to see far too many cases of race discrimination against African Americans,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “This lawsuit should remind employers that the EEOC will take action when a company impermissibly makes hiring decisions based on the race of the applicants instead of on their experience and qualifications.”
According to its web site, www.vanguard.com, as of December 31, 2008, Vanguard had approximately $1 trillion in U.S. mutual funds and 12,500 employees in the United States.
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 9-30-09
Investment Management Giant Refused to Hire Black Applicant as Financial Planning Manager, Federal Agency Charges
PHILADELPHIA – Malvern, Pa.- based Vanguard Group, Inc., one of the world's largest investment management companies, violated federal law when it refused to hire an African American applicant because of her race, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Barbara Alexander was the only African American applicant for a financial planning manager position at Vanguard’s Charlotte, N.C., office. She was well qualified for the position based on her 14 years of financial management experience and MBA in finance. The EEOC charges, however, that even though a company official told Alexander during the lengthy application process that she was “obviously qualified for the position.” The company later claimed it did not select her because she was “unqualified,” in part because she did not have a certified financial planner (CFP) certification. The EEOC says that race discrimination was the real reason Vanguard did not hire Alexander, because it hired a less qualified white applicant who also lacked a CFP certification and who, unlike Alexander, did not have work experience in financial planning.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement before filing suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No.---- . The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination, as well as back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages.
“Unfortunately, 45 years after enactment of the landmark Civil Rights Act, the EEOC continues to see far too many cases of race discrimination against African Americans,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “This lawsuit should remind employers that the EEOC will take action when a company impermissibly makes hiring decisions based on the race of the applicants instead of on their experience and qualifications.”
According to its web site, www.vanguard.com, as of December 31, 2008, Vanguard had approximately $1 trillion in U.S. mutual funds and 12,500 employees in the United States.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Some Firms Get Tougher on Workers’ Health Habits to Help Control Insurance Costs
Workforce Management
October 19, 2009
Stinging from yet another year of rising health care costs, some employers are forcing high-risk employees to pay more—in some cases, a lot more—for their health care coverage in 2010.
While smoking surcharges remain the most popular added premium assessment used, the size has grown significantly from a nominal fee when such surcharges were introduced several years ago to what many consider “real money,” especially during a recession.
A few intrepid employers have gone a step further, relegating employees who decline to take better care of themselves to health plans that provide less coverage.
Some benefits law experts are concerned these employers may be pushing the envelope a bit too far, but legislation passed last week by the Senate Finance Committee appears to reinforce employers’ aggressive efforts to rein in health care costs through the use of incentives.
More than half of employers plan to introduce or expand an existing wellness program next year to lower health care costs, according to the 2009 Benefits & Talent Survey by Aon Consulting, a unit of Chicago-based Aon Corp. Of those, 34 percent plan to either introduce or increase financial incentives for their wellness programs in 2010.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/25.php
October 19, 2009
Stinging from yet another year of rising health care costs, some employers are forcing high-risk employees to pay more—in some cases, a lot more—for their health care coverage in 2010.
While smoking surcharges remain the most popular added premium assessment used, the size has grown significantly from a nominal fee when such surcharges were introduced several years ago to what many consider “real money,” especially during a recession.
A few intrepid employers have gone a step further, relegating employees who decline to take better care of themselves to health plans that provide less coverage.
Some benefits law experts are concerned these employers may be pushing the envelope a bit too far, but legislation passed last week by the Senate Finance Committee appears to reinforce employers’ aggressive efforts to rein in health care costs through the use of incentives.
More than half of employers plan to introduce or expand an existing wellness program next year to lower health care costs, according to the 2009 Benefits & Talent Survey by Aon Consulting, a unit of Chicago-based Aon Corp. Of those, 34 percent plan to either introduce or increase financial incentives for their wellness programs in 2010.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/74/25.php
House OKs Three-Year Extension of E-Verify Program
Workforce Management
October 16, 2009
With action on comprehensive immigration reform pushed off to next year, the House approved a homeland security funding bill on Thursday, October 15, that would renew a government-run electronic employment verification system.
A provision to extend the mechanism, known as E-Verify, for three years was included in a $42.8 billion appropriations measure the House approved, 307-114, that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year.
The bill was a product of House-Senate negotiations and is expected to be approved by the Senate.
It allocates $137 million to improve E-Verify’s accuracy and compliance rates and $135 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire special agents for workplace immigration audits.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/73/45.php
October 16, 2009
With action on comprehensive immigration reform pushed off to next year, the House approved a homeland security funding bill on Thursday, October 15, that would renew a government-run electronic employment verification system.
A provision to extend the mechanism, known as E-Verify, for three years was included in a $42.8 billion appropriations measure the House approved, 307-114, that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for the next fiscal year.
The bill was a product of House-Senate negotiations and is expected to be approved by the Senate.
It allocates $137 million to improve E-Verify’s accuracy and compliance rates and $135 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire special agents for workplace immigration audits.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/73/45.php
Monday, October 19, 2009
The best-kept secret in town
Chiroeco.com
Your Online Chiropractic Community
May 2008
Linda Segall, Editor-in-Chief
Twenty years ago, affirmative action was a hot phrase for government contractors.
If a business did any kind of dealings with the federal government, it had to have a written affirmative action plan (AAP) — and actively work toward recruiting, hiring, training, and promoting minorities and women.
The company where I was employed had an AAP that had to be updated each year. The updating literally took months of one employee’s time because she had to review goals set for the previous year, record accomplishments, and set new goals.
As the company’s new HR manager, I reviewed the plan and was appalled to see little change from year to year. I discovered the reason why: Our AAP was an unintentional but well-kept secret. Neither managers nor the community-at-large knew we wanted to hire women and minorities.
The AAP was a secret that had to be brought into the open. My staff and I developed an action plan to make the AAP a living instrument. Some of the things we did were to:
• Discuss the situation with each manager. We explained the status, its impact, the manager’s obligation, and how we could help;
Full Story: http://www.chiroeco.com/chiropractic/news/4302/899/The-best-kept-secret-in-town/
Your Online Chiropractic Community
May 2008
Linda Segall, Editor-in-Chief
Twenty years ago, affirmative action was a hot phrase for government contractors.
If a business did any kind of dealings with the federal government, it had to have a written affirmative action plan (AAP) — and actively work toward recruiting, hiring, training, and promoting minorities and women.
The company where I was employed had an AAP that had to be updated each year. The updating literally took months of one employee’s time because she had to review goals set for the previous year, record accomplishments, and set new goals.
As the company’s new HR manager, I reviewed the plan and was appalled to see little change from year to year. I discovered the reason why: Our AAP was an unintentional but well-kept secret. Neither managers nor the community-at-large knew we wanted to hire women and minorities.
The AAP was a secret that had to be brought into the open. My staff and I developed an action plan to make the AAP a living instrument. Some of the things we did were to:
• Discuss the situation with each manager. We explained the status, its impact, the manager’s obligation, and how we could help;
Full Story: http://www.chiroeco.com/chiropractic/news/4302/899/The-best-kept-secret-in-town/
EEOC and DOJ Town Hall in Chicago
(From the EEOC)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announce a full-day Town Hall Listening Session, on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Access Living, 115 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60654.
This is one of a series of forums for public input being held throughout the country in coming weeks to obtain direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).
Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJâD™s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis.
As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance.
Individuals representing themselves or organizations are urged to take advantage of this opportunity to provide input on the EEOC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which can be viewed, along with a question-and-answer guide, at www.eeoc.gov.
For more information, or to register as a speaker, please contact Ms. Rita Coffey at 312-353-7254 (TTY 312-353-2421) or at Rita.Coffey@eeoc.gov
Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil Please let her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending.
Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The ID # is 3046-AA85. Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announce a full-day Town Hall Listening Session, on Tuesday, November 17, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Access Living, 115 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago, IL 60654.
This is one of a series of forums for public input being held throughout the country in coming weeks to obtain direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).
Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJâD™s Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations.
Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis.
As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance.
Individuals representing themselves or organizations are urged to take advantage of this opportunity to provide input on the EEOC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which can be viewed, along with a question-and-answer guide, at www.eeoc.gov.
For more information, or to register as a speaker, please contact Ms. Rita Coffey at 312-353-7254 (TTY 312-353-2421) or at Rita.Coffey@eeoc.gov
Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil Please let her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending.
Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The ID # is 3046-AA85. Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
NEW: EEOC and DOJ to hold Town Hall Meeting on ADA Proposed Regulations:
From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announce a full-day Town Hall Listening Session, on Friday, October 30, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Liberty Resources, 714 Market Street, Suite 100, Philadelphia, PA 19106. This is one of a series of forums for public input being held throughout the country in coming weeks to obtain direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJ's Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations. Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis. As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance. Individuals representing themselves or organizations are urged to take advantage of this opportunity to provide input on the EEOC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which can be viewed, along with a question-and-answer guide, at www.eeoc.gov. For more information, or to register as a speaker, please contact Ms. Mary Tiernan at 215-440-2671 (TTY 215-440-2610) or at Mary.Tiernan@eeoc.gov Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil Please let her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending. Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The ID # is 3046-AA85. Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
(If your organization submits comments on these proposed regulations, please share them with AAAA. Email comments to: execdir@affirmativeaction.org. Thanks!)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division announce a full-day Town Hall Listening Session, on Friday, October 30, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Liberty Resources, 714 Market Street, Suite 100, Philadelphia, PA 19106. This is one of a series of forums for public input being held throughout the country in coming weeks to obtain direct input from the business/employer communities as well as the disability and disability advocacy community on EEOC's proposed regulations under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Presided over by EEOC's Acting Chair, Stuart J. Ishimaru, Acting Vice Chair, Christine Griffin, and Commissioner Constance S. Barker, as well as DOJ's Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Samuel Bagenstos, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mazen Baswari, and Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, John Wodatch, the Town Hall Listening Session is an opportunity for these officials to hear directly from stakeholders of all perspectives on the proposed regulations. Five-minute time slots to address the panel will be available from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Some of the slots will be available on an advance registration basis and some on first-come, first-served sign up basis at the event. Members of the public are also invited to attend and view the proceedings, with space available on a first-come, first-served basis. As a reasonable accommodation, there will be limited availability to provide public input by telephone. To request this accommodation you must register in advance. Individuals representing themselves or organizations are urged to take advantage of this opportunity to provide input on the EEOC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which can be viewed, along with a question-and-answer guide, at www.eeoc.gov. For more information, or to register as a speaker, please contact Ms. Mary Tiernan at 215-440-2671 (TTY 215-440-2610) or at Mary.Tiernan@eeoc.gov Sign Language Interpreters, CART, and assistive listening devices will be available. If you need printed materials in an alternative format please email Elisa.gonzalez.ctr@tma.osd.mil Please let her know what you need and the location (city) of the event you will be attending. Both EEOC and DOJ want to encourage all individuals and organizations who cannot attend this event to make sure you submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The ID # is 3046-AA85. Written comments may also be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Secretariat, EEOC, 131 M Street, NE., Suite 4NW08R, Room 6NE03F, Washington, DC 20507. Comments may be transmitted by facsimile (``FAX'') machine by dialing (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.
(If your organization submits comments on these proposed regulations, please share them with AAAA. Email comments to: execdir@affirmativeaction.org. Thanks!)
What the Morehouse Man Wears
Inside Higher Ed
October 19, 2009
Since he was named as president of Morehouse College in 2007, Robert M. Franklin has stressed the importance of defining education broadly, well beyond courses. He has been talking about the social and ethical obligations of those who are studying at the elite historically black college. Of late he has been calling for students to have "five wells" -- to be "well read, well spoken, well traveled, well dressed and well balanced.”
Last week, the idea of being "well dressed" became much more specific, with the start of an "appropriate attire policy," under which Morehouse is joining a small group of colleges that have in recent years adopted dress codes. Morehouse's policy is generally being well received by students -- and college officials stress that 90-plus percent of students are already in compliance. But the policy is getting some criticism from gay students over the idea of regulating dress, and specifically for banning the wearing of women's attire.
Here are some of the policy's features:
Caps, do-rags and hoods are banned in classrooms, the cafeteria and other indoor venues. Do-rags may not be worn outside of the residence halls.
Sunglasses may not be worn in class or at formal programs.
Jeans may not be worn at major programs such as convocation, commencement or Founder's Day.
Clothing with "derogatory, offensive and/or lewd messages either in words or pictures" may not be worn.
"Sagging," defined as "the wearing of one’s pants or shorts low enough to reveal undergarments or secondary layers of clothing," is banned.
Pajamas are banned in public areas.
Wearing of "clothing associated with women’s garb (for example, dresses, tunics, purses, handbags, pumps, wigs, make-up, etc.)" is banned. (Morehouse educates only male students.)
William Bynum, vice president for student services at Morehouse, said that the clothing rules are part of a broader agenda to develop students' minds and "social consciences." He said that Franklin, the president, has pushed President Obama's idea that there should be "no excuses" for black men in an era when one of their own has been elected president of the United States.
Bynum said that while the clothing rules are capturing attention, it is important to view those rules as part of a broad set of values being promoted. For instance, on Saturday, 200 students spent the morning going door-to-door in area neighborhoods, briefing residents on tutoring and mentoring programs run by students, and providing information about nutrition, energy efficiency and job training.
Generally, he said, students have responded well to the clothing rules. And while there are plenty of examples of student attire in the past that would have violated the rules, most students won't have to change the way they dress. An unscientific review of Morehouse students' Facebook pages finds many posing in ties, not the drinking shots that are common at some institutions.
Cameron Thomas-Shah, co-chief of staff of the Student Government Association, said that he backs the new policy, and sees it as consistent with the college's values. "It's about the ideals of the school. If you come to Morehouse college, and want to become a Morehouse man, you should know these things. You should know you don't wear do-rags. You should know that you don't wear caps inside. You shouldn't deviate from the norms of what a man wears."
Many of the styles banned at Morehouse are popular at other colleges, and Thomas-Shah said that doesn't create any doubts in his mind about Morehouse's approach. "On other college campuses, this is common. Other campuses are common, but Morehouse isn't common. It's an institution founded on the principles of producing black male leaders. We have a legacy to protect."
The only vocal opposition to the new rules has come from some gay students on campus. Kevin Webb, co-president of Safe Space @ Morehouse, a gay-straight student alliance, said that under Franklin's leadership, the college has been more committed to equity for gay students than ever before, and that "as an openly gay student, I feel privileged to have matriculated now."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/19/morehouse
October 19, 2009
Since he was named as president of Morehouse College in 2007, Robert M. Franklin has stressed the importance of defining education broadly, well beyond courses. He has been talking about the social and ethical obligations of those who are studying at the elite historically black college. Of late he has been calling for students to have "five wells" -- to be "well read, well spoken, well traveled, well dressed and well balanced.”
Last week, the idea of being "well dressed" became much more specific, with the start of an "appropriate attire policy," under which Morehouse is joining a small group of colleges that have in recent years adopted dress codes. Morehouse's policy is generally being well received by students -- and college officials stress that 90-plus percent of students are already in compliance. But the policy is getting some criticism from gay students over the idea of regulating dress, and specifically for banning the wearing of women's attire.
Here are some of the policy's features:
Caps, do-rags and hoods are banned in classrooms, the cafeteria and other indoor venues. Do-rags may not be worn outside of the residence halls.
Sunglasses may not be worn in class or at formal programs.
Jeans may not be worn at major programs such as convocation, commencement or Founder's Day.
Clothing with "derogatory, offensive and/or lewd messages either in words or pictures" may not be worn.
"Sagging," defined as "the wearing of one’s pants or shorts low enough to reveal undergarments or secondary layers of clothing," is banned.
Pajamas are banned in public areas.
Wearing of "clothing associated with women’s garb (for example, dresses, tunics, purses, handbags, pumps, wigs, make-up, etc.)" is banned. (Morehouse educates only male students.)
William Bynum, vice president for student services at Morehouse, said that the clothing rules are part of a broader agenda to develop students' minds and "social consciences." He said that Franklin, the president, has pushed President Obama's idea that there should be "no excuses" for black men in an era when one of their own has been elected president of the United States.
Bynum said that while the clothing rules are capturing attention, it is important to view those rules as part of a broad set of values being promoted. For instance, on Saturday, 200 students spent the morning going door-to-door in area neighborhoods, briefing residents on tutoring and mentoring programs run by students, and providing information about nutrition, energy efficiency and job training.
Generally, he said, students have responded well to the clothing rules. And while there are plenty of examples of student attire in the past that would have violated the rules, most students won't have to change the way they dress. An unscientific review of Morehouse students' Facebook pages finds many posing in ties, not the drinking shots that are common at some institutions.
Cameron Thomas-Shah, co-chief of staff of the Student Government Association, said that he backs the new policy, and sees it as consistent with the college's values. "It's about the ideals of the school. If you come to Morehouse college, and want to become a Morehouse man, you should know these things. You should know you don't wear do-rags. You should know that you don't wear caps inside. You shouldn't deviate from the norms of what a man wears."
Many of the styles banned at Morehouse are popular at other colleges, and Thomas-Shah said that doesn't create any doubts in his mind about Morehouse's approach. "On other college campuses, this is common. Other campuses are common, but Morehouse isn't common. It's an institution founded on the principles of producing black male leaders. We have a legacy to protect."
The only vocal opposition to the new rules has come from some gay students on campus. Kevin Webb, co-president of Safe Space @ Morehouse, a gay-straight student alliance, said that under Franklin's leadership, the college has been more committed to equity for gay students than ever before, and that "as an openly gay student, I feel privileged to have matriculated now."
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/19/morehouse
Gallaudet University names new president
The Washington Post
By Daniel de ViseMonday, October 19, 2009
Gallaudet University trustees appointed T. Alan Hurwitz, leader of a respected rival institute, as president of the nation's premier college for the deaf and hard of hearing Sunday, with none of the tumult surrounding the last presidential search.
Hurwitz, 67, will come to Gallaudet after a 39-year career at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, where he rose from instructor to president of one of eight colleges within the Rochester Institute of Technology. His 5 1/2 -year term starts in January.
Three years ago, student protests brought Gallaudet to a standstill over the selection of Jane K. Fernandes, the school's provost, as successor to popular president I. King Jordan. Students occupied the administration building and barricaded the gates of the school, prompting more than 100 arrests. Trustees rescinded the appointment and installed Robert Davila, who is credited with restoring peace and rebuilding Gallaudet.
After Davila leaves in December, Hurwitz will inherit a college with a freshman class of 300, about 70 more than last year's class, and with a rising rate of student retention. Roughly 90 percent of last year's freshmen returned this semester, the school's highest "persistence" rate in years.
"I see this as the institution of first choice for all students," Hurwitz said. His goals include raising Gallaudet enrollment to 3,000 from the current 1,870.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101801302.html
By Daniel de ViseMonday, October 19, 2009
Gallaudet University trustees appointed T. Alan Hurwitz, leader of a respected rival institute, as president of the nation's premier college for the deaf and hard of hearing Sunday, with none of the tumult surrounding the last presidential search.
Hurwitz, 67, will come to Gallaudet after a 39-year career at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, where he rose from instructor to president of one of eight colleges within the Rochester Institute of Technology. His 5 1/2 -year term starts in January.
Three years ago, student protests brought Gallaudet to a standstill over the selection of Jane K. Fernandes, the school's provost, as successor to popular president I. King Jordan. Students occupied the administration building and barricaded the gates of the school, prompting more than 100 arrests. Trustees rescinded the appointment and installed Robert Davila, who is credited with restoring peace and rebuilding Gallaudet.
After Davila leaves in December, Hurwitz will inherit a college with a freshman class of 300, about 70 more than last year's class, and with a rising rate of student retention. Roughly 90 percent of last year's freshmen returned this semester, the school's highest "persistence" rate in years.
"I see this as the institution of first choice for all students," Hurwitz said. His goals include raising Gallaudet enrollment to 3,000 from the current 1,870.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101801302.html
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Latin America's worst wage gap for women and minorities? Powerhouse Brazil
Christian Science Monitor
By Andrew Downie Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
and Sara Miller Llana Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2009 edition
Men earn 30 percent more than women in Brazil, according to a new report from the Inter-American Development Bank. That gap is almost zero in Guatemala and Bolivia.
São Paulo, Brazil; and Mexico City - Mention Brazil today and adulation follows. Its fight against poverty, its growing middle class, and its emergence as an economic powerhouse are all being studied as models to be applied elsewhere. (Read our three-part "Brazil Rising" series for more.)
In one area, however, the country is far behind its peers: income equality. In a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), released Monday, Brazil sits at the bottom of a list of 18 regional countries when it comes to how much women and minorities are paid for the same job a white man does.
Men earn 30 percent more than women of the same age and education level in Brazil. In Bolivia and Guatemala, that gap is essentially zero. Compared to Mexico, the other economic engine of the region, Brazil also stands out: Men in Mexico earn just 7 percent more than their female peers. The same gaping divide appears in Brazil when comparing wages for whites and minorities – a blow to a nation where half the population considers itself black or mixed race and prizes itself on being "color blind."
"Brazil is regarded in gender and ethnic terms as a very equalizing country. Everywhere there is inclusion. This is what Brazilians like to think about themselves," says Hugo Ñopo , an IADB economist and lead author of the study. "What the statistics show is that there are important gaps.... We think of it as an invisible wall."
Women: majority of workers in Latin America
With trade liberalization, economic growth, and urbanization, women throughout Latin America have joined the workforce in droves in recent decades, today comprising about 52 percent of all workers. But fair income distribution has not caught up. In the 18 nations studied, men earn on average 17 percent more than women, when accounting for age and educational attainment levels. In most countries, the gap is biggest among those with the least education. Women's participation in the informal sector, such as domestic work that typically is underpaid and without benefits, drives down their earning power.
But in Brazil, the gap is so high, Mr. Ñopo says, because women are absent from the highest levels of corporate hierarchies. According to Leila Linhares Barsted, executive coordinator of Cepia, a Rio woman's rights group, gender gaps have closed over the decades and women now comprise 40 percent of the nation´s workforce – an all-time high, she says. Brazil has good social policies in place, giving women 120 days of maternity leave. That's more than in the US.
But wage inequality looms large. "In spite of government campaigns for equality, there is a still a sector that discriminates, salary wise, against women," Ms. Barsted says.
While old-fashioned discrimination is to blame in part for unequal wage distribution, there are other forces at play, says Ñopo. The study revealed the same gender income gaps for those who are self-employed – data that surprised the researchers and goes against long-held views that the employer is always to blame. "It's the other way around. Self-employment is very attractive for females who have to take care of household responsibilities," Ñopo says. "Having flexibility is invaluable for them. But the result is this flexibility that they look for in the labor market comes at a price."
Brazil also at bottom for racial disparity
After Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua are the worst for wage inequality between genders. In Uruguay men earn 26 percent more than women and in Nicaragua, 20 percent more.
For minorities, Brazil is also is ranked at the bottom of the list at 30 percent disparity (followed by Guatemala at 24 percent and Paraguay at 22 percent).
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1013/p06s07-woam.html
By Andrew Downie Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
and Sara Miller Llana Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the October 13, 2009 edition
Men earn 30 percent more than women in Brazil, according to a new report from the Inter-American Development Bank. That gap is almost zero in Guatemala and Bolivia.
São Paulo, Brazil; and Mexico City - Mention Brazil today and adulation follows. Its fight against poverty, its growing middle class, and its emergence as an economic powerhouse are all being studied as models to be applied elsewhere. (Read our three-part "Brazil Rising" series for more.)
In one area, however, the country is far behind its peers: income equality. In a new study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), released Monday, Brazil sits at the bottom of a list of 18 regional countries when it comes to how much women and minorities are paid for the same job a white man does.
Men earn 30 percent more than women of the same age and education level in Brazil. In Bolivia and Guatemala, that gap is essentially zero. Compared to Mexico, the other economic engine of the region, Brazil also stands out: Men in Mexico earn just 7 percent more than their female peers. The same gaping divide appears in Brazil when comparing wages for whites and minorities – a blow to a nation where half the population considers itself black or mixed race and prizes itself on being "color blind."
"Brazil is regarded in gender and ethnic terms as a very equalizing country. Everywhere there is inclusion. This is what Brazilians like to think about themselves," says Hugo Ñopo , an IADB economist and lead author of the study. "What the statistics show is that there are important gaps.... We think of it as an invisible wall."
Women: majority of workers in Latin America
With trade liberalization, economic growth, and urbanization, women throughout Latin America have joined the workforce in droves in recent decades, today comprising about 52 percent of all workers. But fair income distribution has not caught up. In the 18 nations studied, men earn on average 17 percent more than women, when accounting for age and educational attainment levels. In most countries, the gap is biggest among those with the least education. Women's participation in the informal sector, such as domestic work that typically is underpaid and without benefits, drives down their earning power.
But in Brazil, the gap is so high, Mr. Ñopo says, because women are absent from the highest levels of corporate hierarchies. According to Leila Linhares Barsted, executive coordinator of Cepia, a Rio woman's rights group, gender gaps have closed over the decades and women now comprise 40 percent of the nation´s workforce – an all-time high, she says. Brazil has good social policies in place, giving women 120 days of maternity leave. That's more than in the US.
But wage inequality looms large. "In spite of government campaigns for equality, there is a still a sector that discriminates, salary wise, against women," Ms. Barsted says.
While old-fashioned discrimination is to blame in part for unequal wage distribution, there are other forces at play, says Ñopo. The study revealed the same gender income gaps for those who are self-employed – data that surprised the researchers and goes against long-held views that the employer is always to blame. "It's the other way around. Self-employment is very attractive for females who have to take care of household responsibilities," Ñopo says. "Having flexibility is invaluable for them. But the result is this flexibility that they look for in the labor market comes at a price."
Brazil also at bottom for racial disparity
After Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua are the worst for wage inequality between genders. In Uruguay men earn 26 percent more than women and in Nicaragua, 20 percent more.
For minorities, Brazil is also is ranked at the bottom of the list at 30 percent disparity (followed by Guatemala at 24 percent and Paraguay at 22 percent).
Full Story: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1013/p06s07-woam.html
Controversial Obama Labor Nominee Withdrawn
[From the "Right Side"....]
The American Spectator
By Philip Klein on 10.14.09 @ 2:20PM
Lorelei Boylan, Presidential Obama's controversial nominee to serve as the administrator of the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, has been withdrawn, according to the White House website.
During her time in the New York Labor Department, Boylan ran an initiative, devised by Patricia Smith -- another Obama appointee -- which tasked union members with policing the behavior of businesses. As Americans for Limited Government wrote in a report earlier this year (pdf):
The enforcement initiative essentially deputizes private entities, such as ACORN, to do enforcement work through "formal partnerships" with the state. Groups participating in this initiative are given a specific geographic zone to patrol, are provided with training and literature, and are assigned a designated contact person to which they provide "referrals" when they find what they decide are violations of wage and hour laws....
The nomination of Boylan's partner in the New York scheme, Patricia Smith, still remains intact. Smith was nominated to be Solicitor of Labor, the third highest official in the department, and the one who is in charge of offering legal advice. Sen. Mike Enzi has put a hold on the nomination, meaning 60 votes will be required to block a filibuster and get her confirmed.
Full Story: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/14/controversial-obama-labor-nomi
The American Spectator
By Philip Klein on 10.14.09 @ 2:20PM
Lorelei Boylan, Presidential Obama's controversial nominee to serve as the administrator of the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, has been withdrawn, according to the White House website.
During her time in the New York Labor Department, Boylan ran an initiative, devised by Patricia Smith -- another Obama appointee -- which tasked union members with policing the behavior of businesses. As Americans for Limited Government wrote in a report earlier this year (pdf):
The enforcement initiative essentially deputizes private entities, such as ACORN, to do enforcement work through "formal partnerships" with the state. Groups participating in this initiative are given a specific geographic zone to patrol, are provided with training and literature, and are assigned a designated contact person to which they provide "referrals" when they find what they decide are violations of wage and hour laws....
The nomination of Boylan's partner in the New York scheme, Patricia Smith, still remains intact. Smith was nominated to be Solicitor of Labor, the third highest official in the department, and the one who is in charge of offering legal advice. Sen. Mike Enzi has put a hold on the nomination, meaning 60 votes will be required to block a filibuster and get her confirmed.
Full Story: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/14/controversial-obama-labor-nomi
DOL's OFCCP Posts List of Local Compliance Assistance Events
The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has posted a list of local compliance assistance events for federal contractors. To find a local event, go to: http://www.dol.gov/dol/calendar/results.asp?location_lst=&agency_lst=23&event_title=&date=--&date_range or http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/arra_web.html and click on "Find a local event."
OFCCP is also hosting a webinar for federal contracting and procurement officers on October 28, 2009. See the announcement at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/arra_data/ofccp_arra_webinar.htm.
OFCCP is also hosting a webinar for federal contracting and procurement officers on October 28, 2009. See the announcement at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/arra_data/ofccp_arra_webinar.htm.
Friday, October 16, 2009
PRIVATE PRISON PAYS $1.3 MILLION TO SETTLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION CLAIMS FOR CLASS OF WOMEN
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
10-13-09
EEOC Says Male Managers Demanded Sexual Favors From Female Subordinates
DENVER – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a pattern or practice discrimination lawsuit against Dominion Correctional Services, LLC and Corrections Corporation of America, both doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility, for $1.3 million and significant remedial relief on behalf of 21 female former workers who were allegedly subjected to a sex-based hostile work environment and retaliation at an all-male, privately run medium security prison in Olney Springs, Colo.
In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Dominion Correctional Services, LLC and Corrections Corporation Of America, Civ. No. 1:06-cv-01956-KVH), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the EEOC charged that female employees at the prison were subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that included male managers forcing them to perform sex acts in order to keep their jobs. Two chiefs of security, who reported directly to the warden and to whom all security personnel at the prison reported, were allowed to resign after numerous complaints of sexual harassment and rape, according to the EEOC. In the settlement, the defendants did not admit liability.
“We at the EEOC see an unfortunately high number of sexual harassment cases, but what allegedly happened here was shocking,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “No working woman should ever have to endure harassment and requests for sexual favors by managers in order to earn a paycheck – or suffer retaliation for complaining about the illegal harassment.”
Among the allegations in the court record are the following: A female officer made a complaint of sexual harassment against a male coworker, and was then placed in an isolated location, where she was raped by the man about whom she had complained. The Chief of Security forced a female corrections officer to have intercourse with him, which she did in order to keep her job. After that Chief of Security resigned, his replacement was the subject of numerous written complaints of sexual harassment, including complaints that he regularly commented on female employee’s bodies, and touched female officers inappropriately.
Other male managers similarly expected their female subordinates to provide sexual favors, the EEOC says in the suit. For example, a female corrections officer was coerced first into performing oral sex, and later intercourse, with a male captain, for fear of losing her job. Another female officer testified that a male lieutenant regularly made comments to her about how she looked and commented that he could do a lot better than her husband. He then allegedly told her that if she wanted to keep her job she needed to sleep with him. She resigned.
In addition to these allegations, the female employees testified that the male employees openly viewed pornography in the workplace on a regular basis, made demeaning sexual comments about the female employees, and regularly told sexual jokes.
The lawsuit further alleges that female employees who complained about the sexually hostile workplace were retaliated against. The retaliation included ostracizing the women after their complaints were publicized, scrutinizing their work, accusing them of misconduct, and assigning them to the worst and most dangerous work assignments at the prison.
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes Colorado, said, “The conduct alleged here is reprehensible. In a profession already fraught with the danger of dealing with prison inmates, it is inexcusable that another layer of fear was imposed by the men to whom these women reported and with whom they worked. The EEOC treats this type of violation with the utmost urgency and will act vigorously to uphold the laws prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation.”
EEOC Acting District Director Rayford Irvin of the Phoenix District Office, added, “This case illustrates the continuing struggle women face in jobs traditionally held by men. The misuse of management power is especially troubling and will not be tolerated by the EEOC.”
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
10-13-09
EEOC Says Male Managers Demanded Sexual Favors From Female Subordinates
DENVER – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a pattern or practice discrimination lawsuit against Dominion Correctional Services, LLC and Corrections Corporation of America, both doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility, for $1.3 million and significant remedial relief on behalf of 21 female former workers who were allegedly subjected to a sex-based hostile work environment and retaliation at an all-male, privately run medium security prison in Olney Springs, Colo.
In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Dominion Correctional Services, LLC and Corrections Corporation Of America, Civ. No. 1:06-cv-01956-KVH), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the EEOC charged that female employees at the prison were subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that included male managers forcing them to perform sex acts in order to keep their jobs. Two chiefs of security, who reported directly to the warden and to whom all security personnel at the prison reported, were allowed to resign after numerous complaints of sexual harassment and rape, according to the EEOC. In the settlement, the defendants did not admit liability.
“We at the EEOC see an unfortunately high number of sexual harassment cases, but what allegedly happened here was shocking,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “No working woman should ever have to endure harassment and requests for sexual favors by managers in order to earn a paycheck – or suffer retaliation for complaining about the illegal harassment.”
Among the allegations in the court record are the following: A female officer made a complaint of sexual harassment against a male coworker, and was then placed in an isolated location, where she was raped by the man about whom she had complained. The Chief of Security forced a female corrections officer to have intercourse with him, which she did in order to keep her job. After that Chief of Security resigned, his replacement was the subject of numerous written complaints of sexual harassment, including complaints that he regularly commented on female employee’s bodies, and touched female officers inappropriately.
Other male managers similarly expected their female subordinates to provide sexual favors, the EEOC says in the suit. For example, a female corrections officer was coerced first into performing oral sex, and later intercourse, with a male captain, for fear of losing her job. Another female officer testified that a male lieutenant regularly made comments to her about how she looked and commented that he could do a lot better than her husband. He then allegedly told her that if she wanted to keep her job she needed to sleep with him. She resigned.
In addition to these allegations, the female employees testified that the male employees openly viewed pornography in the workplace on a regular basis, made demeaning sexual comments about the female employees, and regularly told sexual jokes.
The lawsuit further alleges that female employees who complained about the sexually hostile workplace were retaliated against. The retaliation included ostracizing the women after their complaints were publicized, scrutinizing their work, accusing them of misconduct, and assigning them to the worst and most dangerous work assignments at the prison.
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District, which includes Colorado, said, “The conduct alleged here is reprehensible. In a profession already fraught with the danger of dealing with prison inmates, it is inexcusable that another layer of fear was imposed by the men to whom these women reported and with whom they worked. The EEOC treats this type of violation with the utmost urgency and will act vigorously to uphold the laws prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation.”
EEOC Acting District Director Rayford Irvin of the Phoenix District Office, added, “This case illustrates the continuing struggle women face in jobs traditionally held by men. The misuse of management power is especially troubling and will not be tolerated by the EEOC.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Science and the female brain: Take that, Larry Summers
The Seattle Times
Thursday, October 15, 2009 - Page updated at 03:01 PM
Froma Harrop / Syndicated columnist
The recent award of Nobel Prizes in biology and chemistry to three women dredges up Larry Summers' suggestion in 2005 that differences in the female brain may account for the dearth of top women scientists. Now President Obama's economic adviser, Summers was then speechifying as president of Harvard.
Carol Greider, who just won a Nobel for biology, recalls being astounded by the remark. "I thought he couldn't possibly say that," the Johns Hopkins biologist told me. "I looked up the transcript, and he really said that."
Summers' defenders attacked Nancy Hopkins, the MIT biologist who walked out in protest when he made the controversial statement. Writing in The Harvard Crimson, professor of government Harvey Mansfield accused Hopkins of committing a "scandalous act of obscurantist intolerance."
Whatever. Hopkins now feels a certain vindication. And she traces the Nobel Prizes for Greider and Elizabeth Blackburn, a biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, to a 1971 law that required universities to hire women onto their faculties or risk losing federal dollars.
Shortly after the regulations went into effect, Hopkins received calls from MIT and Harvard asking her to apply for a job.
"I was a true affirmative-action hire," she told me. In the late '60s, places like Harvard, Cal Tech and MIT had virtually no women teaching the sciences. Today, women account for just under 15 percent of MIT's science faculty.
Full Story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010072517_harrop16.html
Thursday, October 15, 2009 - Page updated at 03:01 PM
Froma Harrop / Syndicated columnist
The recent award of Nobel Prizes in biology and chemistry to three women dredges up Larry Summers' suggestion in 2005 that differences in the female brain may account for the dearth of top women scientists. Now President Obama's economic adviser, Summers was then speechifying as president of Harvard.
Carol Greider, who just won a Nobel for biology, recalls being astounded by the remark. "I thought he couldn't possibly say that," the Johns Hopkins biologist told me. "I looked up the transcript, and he really said that."
Summers' defenders attacked Nancy Hopkins, the MIT biologist who walked out in protest when he made the controversial statement. Writing in The Harvard Crimson, professor of government Harvey Mansfield accused Hopkins of committing a "scandalous act of obscurantist intolerance."
Whatever. Hopkins now feels a certain vindication. And she traces the Nobel Prizes for Greider and Elizabeth Blackburn, a biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, to a 1971 law that required universities to hire women onto their faculties or risk losing federal dollars.
Shortly after the regulations went into effect, Hopkins received calls from MIT and Harvard asking her to apply for a job.
"I was a true affirmative-action hire," she told me. In the late '60s, places like Harvard, Cal Tech and MIT had virtually no women teaching the sciences. Today, women account for just under 15 percent of MIT's science faculty.
Full Story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010072517_harrop16.html
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
U-M reports record enrollment, but minorities decline
Detroit News
October 13, 2009
MARISA SCHULTZThe Detroit News
Ann Arbor -- University of Michigan had a record-breaking year for freshman applications and overall enrollment, which topped 41,674 students for this fall, the university announced today.
Though the number of applications and admissions offers for underrepresented minority students topped last year, the freshman enrollment of African-American, Hispanic and Native-American students actually declined by 11.4 percent, or 69 students, to 535. Now underrepresented minorities -- the population the university has been trying to cultivate with ramped up outreach efforts since voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006 than bans consideration of race in admissions -- comprise 9.1 percent of the freshman class (excluding international students) compared to 10.4 percent last year.
"We work hard every day to build the best possible freshman class each year, and this year is no exception," said Ted Spencer, U-M associate vice provost and executive director of undergraduate admissions. "Our incoming class is exceptional in all ways, although we have experienced a notable loss in some key elements of diversity.
"We are competing nationally with other top schools that are not constrained in their ability to confer recruitment scholarships and other forms of financial aid with consideration to racial, ethnic and gender diversity, among other factors. This is a tough environment, but not impossible. We have learned a lot in the past two years, and are sharpening our skills and adding to our toolkit."
Underrepresented minorities comprised 12.6 percent of the class in fall 2006, the last class fully admitted before the passage of Proposal 2. The proportion of Hispanic, African-American and Native-American students has dropped each year since. This year's admissions cycle marks the second full year without consideration of race, gender or ethnicity since voters passed the ballot initiative.
Full Story: http://www.detnews.com/article/20091013/SCHOOLS/910130385/1026/U-M-reports-record-enrollment--but-minorities-decline
October 13, 2009
MARISA SCHULTZThe Detroit News
Ann Arbor -- University of Michigan had a record-breaking year for freshman applications and overall enrollment, which topped 41,674 students for this fall, the university announced today.
Though the number of applications and admissions offers for underrepresented minority students topped last year, the freshman enrollment of African-American, Hispanic and Native-American students actually declined by 11.4 percent, or 69 students, to 535. Now underrepresented minorities -- the population the university has been trying to cultivate with ramped up outreach efforts since voters passed Proposal 2 in 2006 than bans consideration of race in admissions -- comprise 9.1 percent of the freshman class (excluding international students) compared to 10.4 percent last year.
"We work hard every day to build the best possible freshman class each year, and this year is no exception," said Ted Spencer, U-M associate vice provost and executive director of undergraduate admissions. "Our incoming class is exceptional in all ways, although we have experienced a notable loss in some key elements of diversity.
"We are competing nationally with other top schools that are not constrained in their ability to confer recruitment scholarships and other forms of financial aid with consideration to racial, ethnic and gender diversity, among other factors. This is a tough environment, but not impossible. We have learned a lot in the past two years, and are sharpening our skills and adding to our toolkit."
Underrepresented minorities comprised 12.6 percent of the class in fall 2006, the last class fully admitted before the passage of Proposal 2. The proportion of Hispanic, African-American and Native-American students has dropped each year since. This year's admissions cycle marks the second full year without consideration of race, gender or ethnicity since voters passed the ballot initiative.
Full Story: http://www.detnews.com/article/20091013/SCHOOLS/910130385/1026/U-M-reports-record-enrollment--but-minorities-decline
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Congress Takes Aim at Age Bias, Arbitration in Workplace
Workforce Management
October 8, 2009
Congressional Democrats at a Senate hearing Wednesday, October 7, underscored their intent to bolster age discrimination protections and trial rights that they say the Supreme Court has limited.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took aim at two court rulings—one from the 2008-09 term that shifted the burden of proof in age discrimination cases from the employer to the employee and another from early in the decade that strengthened employment contract arbitration.
“The Supreme Court’s recent decisions make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to seek relief in court, and more difficult for those victims who get their day in court to vindicate their rights,” Leahy said at a committee hearing. “These decisions will encourage corporations to mistreat American workers in a still-recovering economy.”
The hearing occurred one day after Leahy introduced legislation would overturn the age discrimination decision that the Supreme Court handed down in June in Gross v. FBL. The court held that the plaintiff, Jack Gross, had to prove that age was the only reason he was demoted from his job as a vice president at the insurance company Farm Bureau in Iowa.
Leahy asserts that the Supreme Court rewrote the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by ruling that age must be a deciding factor, not just one of many factors, in an employment decision in order to invoke age protections.
Leahy also assailed the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the Federal Arbitration Act in the case Circuit City Inc. v. Adams.
“Now, after the Circuit City decision, employers are able to unilaterally strip employees of their civil rights by including arbitration clauses in every employment contract they draft,” Leahy said.
A bill introduced this year, the Arbitration Fairness Act, would make an arbitration agreement invalid if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, franchise or civil rights dispute.
Prospects for both bills are good, considering that Congress successfully overturned a Supreme Court ruling on pay discrimination earlier this year. Democrats have a filibuster-proof 60-person Senate caucus and control the White House.
The Gross case focuses on trial procedure, such as jury instructions about whether age is a “motivating factor” or the sole cause of an employment decision.
The Supreme Court ruling made it easier for companies to win age discrimination cases, said Neal Mollen, a partner at Paul Hastings in Washington. They likely will now prevail more often in summary judgment. But they still face danger if the case goes to trial.
“The value of the Gross decision for employers is at the motion stage,” Mollen said. “If the jury really thinks that age discrimination is involved, the employer will have a very hard time prevailing.”
The arbitration portion of the hearing, however, produced the fireworks—or at least smoldering senatorial embers.
Mark de Bernardo, a partner at Jackson Lewis in Reston, Virginia, said that arbitration provides an alternative to court appearances and results in better outcomes for employers and employees.
The Senate arbitration bill would “effectively end arbitration in America in both employment and in other contexts,” de Bernardo said in prepared testimony.
But another witness told a wrenching story about being drugged, assaulted and raped while working for Halliburton in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones said that her contract forced her to submit the case to mandatory binding arbitration rather than going to court.
“Corporations are able to have more power than individuals, and I don’t think it’s right,” Jones said.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/72/02.php
October 8, 2009
Congressional Democrats at a Senate hearing Wednesday, October 7, underscored their intent to bolster age discrimination protections and trial rights that they say the Supreme Court has limited.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, took aim at two court rulings—one from the 2008-09 term that shifted the burden of proof in age discrimination cases from the employer to the employee and another from early in the decade that strengthened employment contract arbitration.
“The Supreme Court’s recent decisions make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to seek relief in court, and more difficult for those victims who get their day in court to vindicate their rights,” Leahy said at a committee hearing. “These decisions will encourage corporations to mistreat American workers in a still-recovering economy.”
The hearing occurred one day after Leahy introduced legislation would overturn the age discrimination decision that the Supreme Court handed down in June in Gross v. FBL. The court held that the plaintiff, Jack Gross, had to prove that age was the only reason he was demoted from his job as a vice president at the insurance company Farm Bureau in Iowa.
Leahy asserts that the Supreme Court rewrote the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by ruling that age must be a deciding factor, not just one of many factors, in an employment decision in order to invoke age protections.
Leahy also assailed the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the Federal Arbitration Act in the case Circuit City Inc. v. Adams.
“Now, after the Circuit City decision, employers are able to unilaterally strip employees of their civil rights by including arbitration clauses in every employment contract they draft,” Leahy said.
A bill introduced this year, the Arbitration Fairness Act, would make an arbitration agreement invalid if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, franchise or civil rights dispute.
Prospects for both bills are good, considering that Congress successfully overturned a Supreme Court ruling on pay discrimination earlier this year. Democrats have a filibuster-proof 60-person Senate caucus and control the White House.
The Gross case focuses on trial procedure, such as jury instructions about whether age is a “motivating factor” or the sole cause of an employment decision.
The Supreme Court ruling made it easier for companies to win age discrimination cases, said Neal Mollen, a partner at Paul Hastings in Washington. They likely will now prevail more often in summary judgment. But they still face danger if the case goes to trial.
“The value of the Gross decision for employers is at the motion stage,” Mollen said. “If the jury really thinks that age discrimination is involved, the employer will have a very hard time prevailing.”
The arbitration portion of the hearing, however, produced the fireworks—or at least smoldering senatorial embers.
Mark de Bernardo, a partner at Jackson Lewis in Reston, Virginia, said that arbitration provides an alternative to court appearances and results in better outcomes for employers and employees.
The Senate arbitration bill would “effectively end arbitration in America in both employment and in other contexts,” de Bernardo said in prepared testimony.
But another witness told a wrenching story about being drugged, assaulted and raped while working for Halliburton in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones said that her contract forced her to submit the case to mandatory binding arbitration rather than going to court.
“Corporations are able to have more power than individuals, and I don’t think it’s right,” Jones said.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/72/02.php
House, Senate Bills Would Overturn Supreme Court Age Discrimination Ruling
Workforce Management
October 7, 2009
For the second time this year, Congress will try to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on workplace law.
Senate and House bills introduced on Tuesday, October 6, would reverse a June court decision that made it more difficult for employees to sue for age discrimination.
The court held in Gross v. FBL that the plaintiff, Jack Gross, had to prove that age was the only reason that he was demoted from his job as a vice president at FBL Financial Group Inc. in Iowa when the insurance company Farm Bureau merged its Iowa and Kansas operations in 2002.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that age couldn’t simply be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision; it had to be the decisive cause in order for age discrimination protections to take effect.
But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, said that the Supreme Court was in effect “rewriting” the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The court “invented a new standard that makes it prohibitively difficult for a victim to prove age discrimination,” Harkin said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “This extraordinarily high burden radically undermines older workers’ ability to hold employers accountable.”
A bill written by Harkin and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clarifies that when a victim shows age to be among the reasons for an adverse job decision, an employer must prove that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee’s age.
Titled the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, the bill has a House companion introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
It’s too early to tell how the measure might affect employers, according to Leslie Silverman, a partner at Proskauer Rose in Washington and a former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Much will depend on the legislative details.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/71/78.php
October 7, 2009
For the second time this year, Congress will try to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on workplace law.
Senate and House bills introduced on Tuesday, October 6, would reverse a June court decision that made it more difficult for employees to sue for age discrimination.
The court held in Gross v. FBL that the plaintiff, Jack Gross, had to prove that age was the only reason that he was demoted from his job as a vice president at FBL Financial Group Inc. in Iowa when the insurance company Farm Bureau merged its Iowa and Kansas operations in 2002.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that age couldn’t simply be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision; it had to be the decisive cause in order for age discrimination protections to take effect.
But Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, said that the Supreme Court was in effect “rewriting” the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The court “invented a new standard that makes it prohibitively difficult for a victim to prove age discrimination,” Harkin said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “This extraordinarily high burden radically undermines older workers’ ability to hold employers accountable.”
A bill written by Harkin and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, clarifies that when a victim shows age to be among the reasons for an adverse job decision, an employer must prove that it would have taken the action regardless of the employee’s age.
Titled the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, the bill has a House companion introduced by Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
It’s too early to tell how the measure might affect employers, according to Leslie Silverman, a partner at Proskauer Rose in Washington and a former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Much will depend on the legislative details.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/71/78.php
Diversity With a British Accent
Chronicle of Higher Education
October 11, 2009
By Aisha Labi
Shamillah Najjuma is just 21, but even from her youthful perspective, she can pinpoint a crucial turning point in her life: When she was 14, she took part in a weeklong summer program at the University of Oxford, run by an education charity called ACDiversity. Visiting the elite institution was eye-opening for the Ugandan-born woman, who attended an inner-city high school in London where most of the students were nonwhite and from low-income families.
"It basically said to me, You can do whatever you want," recalls Ms. Najjuma, who has just begun her second year at the University of Warwick, in England, where she is majoring in sociology.
Although she was a good student, her early aspirations never included attending a university. Instead she thought of working as a hairdresser or landing a role on EastEnders, a soap opera set in working-class London. "I would not have come forth without that push," she says.
As in the United States, raising university attendance rates among underrepresented social and minority groups in Britain is a continuing challenge. The ethnic-minority population in Britain is around 10 percent and growing quickly, but much of the discussion of diversity issues in higher education is couched in terms of social class or family income.
In the years immediately following World War II, only about 5 percent of the British population attended a university. The expansion of the higher-education system in the 1960s and the conversion of former polytechnic institutions into universities by the 1990s made the experience more broadly democratic. Now some 40 percent of high-school graduates attend a university.
Early this decade, former Prime Minister Tony Blair set a target of 50-percent participation in higher education among the college-age population. Although the current government concedes that it will not reach that goal by 2010 as planned, widening participation has remained at the center of the government's higher-education agenda. Controversial legislation was enacted in 2004 that allowed universities to nearly triple their annual undergraduate tuition, to nearly $5,000 at the current exchange rate. That prompted the creation of a government office whose responsibility was to ensure that the higher rates did not deter low-income students.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Diversity-With-a-British/48727/
October 11, 2009
By Aisha Labi
Shamillah Najjuma is just 21, but even from her youthful perspective, she can pinpoint a crucial turning point in her life: When she was 14, she took part in a weeklong summer program at the University of Oxford, run by an education charity called ACDiversity. Visiting the elite institution was eye-opening for the Ugandan-born woman, who attended an inner-city high school in London where most of the students were nonwhite and from low-income families.
"It basically said to me, You can do whatever you want," recalls Ms. Najjuma, who has just begun her second year at the University of Warwick, in England, where she is majoring in sociology.
Although she was a good student, her early aspirations never included attending a university. Instead she thought of working as a hairdresser or landing a role on EastEnders, a soap opera set in working-class London. "I would not have come forth without that push," she says.
As in the United States, raising university attendance rates among underrepresented social and minority groups in Britain is a continuing challenge. The ethnic-minority population in Britain is around 10 percent and growing quickly, but much of the discussion of diversity issues in higher education is couched in terms of social class or family income.
In the years immediately following World War II, only about 5 percent of the British population attended a university. The expansion of the higher-education system in the 1960s and the conversion of former polytechnic institutions into universities by the 1990s made the experience more broadly democratic. Now some 40 percent of high-school graduates attend a university.
Early this decade, former Prime Minister Tony Blair set a target of 50-percent participation in higher education among the college-age population. Although the current government concedes that it will not reach that goal by 2010 as planned, widening participation has remained at the center of the government's higher-education agenda. Controversial legislation was enacted in 2004 that allowed universities to nearly triple their annual undergraduate tuition, to nearly $5,000 at the current exchange rate. That prompted the creation of a government office whose responsibility was to ensure that the higher rates did not deter low-income students.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Diversity-With-a-British/48727/
Race issues may define Roberts court
projo.com
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. wants to outlaw affirmative action, and his tenure will end up linked with the issue of race, CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin predicted at Brown University.
Roberts is not identified with any one issue the way the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was identified with states’ rights, Toobin said. “But I think he will be, and I think that issue is race. I think he is determined to put his mark on the court, which is the so-called colorblind Constitution. I think he wants to outlaw all affirmative action — in admissions, in employment.”
Toobin noted the Roberts court struck down school-integration plans in Louisville and Seattle, and ruled for white firefighters who said New Haven, Conn., violated their rights by throwing out the results of a promotional test on which few minorities scored well. (The New Haven ruling struck down a decision by a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that included Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on the Supreme Court).
Roberts is pushing the court to the right ideologically, Toobin said. “He is not a caretaker chief justice. He is a very conservative person judicially, politically, personally.”
Toobin — a lawyer who is also a New Yorker staff writer and the author of books such as The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court — spoke at Brown on Thursday to mark the 25th anniversary of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions.
In response to a question from the audience, Toobin said the country’s first black president has been outspoken on many issues. “But when was the last time you heard him say anything about affirmative action?” he asked. “Like, never.”
Full Story: http://www.projo.com/news/efitzpatrick/edward_fitzpatrick_13_10-13-09_8KG222F_v26.345f9e0.html#
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. wants to outlaw affirmative action, and his tenure will end up linked with the issue of race, CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin predicted at Brown University.
Roberts is not identified with any one issue the way the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was identified with states’ rights, Toobin said. “But I think he will be, and I think that issue is race. I think he is determined to put his mark on the court, which is the so-called colorblind Constitution. I think he wants to outlaw all affirmative action — in admissions, in employment.”
Toobin noted the Roberts court struck down school-integration plans in Louisville and Seattle, and ruled for white firefighters who said New Haven, Conn., violated their rights by throwing out the results of a promotional test on which few minorities scored well. (The New Haven ruling struck down a decision by a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that included Sonia Sotomayor, who is now on the Supreme Court).
Roberts is pushing the court to the right ideologically, Toobin said. “He is not a caretaker chief justice. He is a very conservative person judicially, politically, personally.”
Toobin — a lawyer who is also a New Yorker staff writer and the author of books such as The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court — spoke at Brown on Thursday to mark the 25th anniversary of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions.
In response to a question from the audience, Toobin said the country’s first black president has been outspoken on many issues. “But when was the last time you heard him say anything about affirmative action?” he asked. “Like, never.”
Full Story: http://www.projo.com/news/efitzpatrick/edward_fitzpatrick_13_10-13-09_8KG222F_v26.345f9e0.html#
Affirmative Action, Brazilian-Style
The Chronicle of Higher Education
October 11, 2009
By Marion Lloyd
Six years after Brazilian universities began embracing affirmative action, higher education in Brazil is no longer the domain of a mostly white elite.
Since 2003 more than 1,300 institutions of higher education have adopted quotas for Afro-Brazilians and graduates of public high schools. The government has also created 10 public universities and dozens of new campuses in poor areas in an effort to expand access to higher education for the underprivileged.
But the debate over the quota system—racial quotas in particular—continues to inflame passions in a country that has long considered itself a racial democracy.
Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, in 1888. Today the descendants of slaves officially make up nearly half of the country's 190 million people, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the government census bureau. Proponents of quotas for Afro-Brazilians argue that only Nigeria has a larger black population. But centuries of racial intermixing, which was initially encouraged by Portuguese colonizers seeking to whiten the population, have made it famously hard to classify Brazilians by race.
Take the case of Alan and Alex Texeira, identical male twins who applied for admission to the federal University of Brasilia in 2007 under the racial quotas. After analyzing photos of the brothers—a required step for accessing the university's quota system—separate "race boards" determined that one was black and one was white.
Opponents of the racial quotas argue that poverty, not race, is the main obstacle to getting a university education in Brazil. The country's more than 130 public universities are free, and competition at most of them, particularly the 55 federal universities, is brutal. Private universities enroll about 80 percent of the 4.5 million students in the higher-education system. But in a nation where per capita income is just $7,350 a year, and the distribution of wealth is among the world's most unequal, most families cannot afford to send their children to private universities.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Affirmative-Action/48734/
October 11, 2009
By Marion Lloyd
Six years after Brazilian universities began embracing affirmative action, higher education in Brazil is no longer the domain of a mostly white elite.
Since 2003 more than 1,300 institutions of higher education have adopted quotas for Afro-Brazilians and graduates of public high schools. The government has also created 10 public universities and dozens of new campuses in poor areas in an effort to expand access to higher education for the underprivileged.
But the debate over the quota system—racial quotas in particular—continues to inflame passions in a country that has long considered itself a racial democracy.
Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, in 1888. Today the descendants of slaves officially make up nearly half of the country's 190 million people, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the government census bureau. Proponents of quotas for Afro-Brazilians argue that only Nigeria has a larger black population. But centuries of racial intermixing, which was initially encouraged by Portuguese colonizers seeking to whiten the population, have made it famously hard to classify Brazilians by race.
Take the case of Alan and Alex Texeira, identical male twins who applied for admission to the federal University of Brasilia in 2007 under the racial quotas. After analyzing photos of the brothers—a required step for accessing the university's quota system—separate "race boards" determined that one was black and one was white.
Opponents of the racial quotas argue that poverty, not race, is the main obstacle to getting a university education in Brazil. The country's more than 130 public universities are free, and competition at most of them, particularly the 55 federal universities, is brutal. Private universities enroll about 80 percent of the 4.5 million students in the higher-education system. But in a nation where per capita income is just $7,350 a year, and the distribution of wealth is among the world's most unequal, most families cannot afford to send their children to private universities.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Affirmative-Action/48734/
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obama drops rule aimed at immigrants' bosses
SFGate.com
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 9, 2009
(10-08) 13:50 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration has repealed a rule that would have threatened employers with prosecution unless they fired workers whose Social Security numbers did not match entries in a government database, ending a two-year battle in a San Francisco federal court.
Although the Department of Homeland Security formally withdrew the "no-match" rule Wednesday, the administration is supporting another program enabling employers to check workers' names against electronic records that are supposed to screen out illegal immigrants.
That program, E-Verify, is voluntary for most employers but mandatory for the 170,000 companies holding federal contracts and for their subcontractors. This week, a House-Senate conference committee voted to extend E-Verify for three years.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging the scope of the program in a Maryland federal court.
"E-Verify has many of the same problems as no-match," said Chris Calabrese, legislative attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which took part in the San Francisco lawsuit. Although employers are not threatened with prosecution under the program, he said, thousands of workers are in danger of losing their jobs based on "databases that are not terribly accurate."
But the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports restrictions on immigration, said the government has found that E-Verify is accurate in 99.6 percent of cases. The group criticized the House-Senate conference committee for refusing to make the program permanent.
The three-year extension is "further evidence of the Obama administration's and the congressional leadership's effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration," the organization said.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/BAON1A3110.DTL&tsp=1
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 9, 2009
(10-08) 13:50 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration has repealed a rule that would have threatened employers with prosecution unless they fired workers whose Social Security numbers did not match entries in a government database, ending a two-year battle in a San Francisco federal court.
Although the Department of Homeland Security formally withdrew the "no-match" rule Wednesday, the administration is supporting another program enabling employers to check workers' names against electronic records that are supposed to screen out illegal immigrants.
That program, E-Verify, is voluntary for most employers but mandatory for the 170,000 companies holding federal contracts and for their subcontractors. This week, a House-Senate conference committee voted to extend E-Verify for three years.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is challenging the scope of the program in a Maryland federal court.
"E-Verify has many of the same problems as no-match," said Chris Calabrese, legislative attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which took part in the San Francisco lawsuit. Although employers are not threatened with prosecution under the program, he said, thousands of workers are in danger of losing their jobs based on "databases that are not terribly accurate."
But the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports restrictions on immigration, said the government has found that E-Verify is accurate in 99.6 percent of cases. The group criticized the House-Senate conference committee for refusing to make the program permanent.
The three-year extension is "further evidence of the Obama administration's and the congressional leadership's effort to raise a smokescreen while it dismantles all effective controls against illegal immigration," the organization said.
Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/08/BAON1A3110.DTL&tsp=1
Thursday, October 8, 2009
EEOC TO HOLD TOWN-HALL MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS TO ADVANCE HIRING OF WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
10-7-09
Agency Initiatives Part of Administration-Wide Effort
WASHINGTON – Playing a key part in an Obama Administration-wide effort to advance opportunities for workers with disabilities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold town hall meetings throughout the nation and offer workshops on new federal regulations and hiring procedures.
"The EEOC is pleased to join the President in pressing to enfranchise individuals with disabilities to participate to the fullest extent possible in the American workplace," said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. "We're proud to play a lead role in the Administration's initiative, and to have the weight of the White House behind this vital effort."
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “For too long, Americans with disabilities have been pushed to the rear of the hiring line. The EEOC’s town hall meetings and workshops, in concert with other Administration measures, should position workers with disabilities for a fair chance at a federal job.”
The Office of Personnel Management and the Departments of Labor and Justice will also play major roles in the initiatives, which the President announced Monday as part of National Disability Employment Awareness Month.
The Obama Administration is taking steps to ensure fair and equal access to employment for all Americans, particularly the 54 million people in this country living with disabilities, President Obama announced. “As the nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government and its contractors can lead the way by implementing effective employment policies and practices that increase opportunities and help workers achieve their full potential. We must also rededicate ourselves to fostering an inclusive work culture that welcomes the skills and talents of all qualified employees.”
The EEOC and DOJ's Civil Rights Division will hold four town hall meetings throughout the nation to share information and gather comments about proposed regulations in the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act. Each town hall meeting will consist of two sessions, one for disability advocates and one for the employer community, offering opportunities for both the business and disability communities to comment in person. The meetings will take place by Nov. 20 in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.
In addition, as part of a Federal Government-wide job fair for people with disabilities during early Spring 2010, the EEOC and other agencies will provide workshops throughout the day on a variety of topics involving reasonable accommodations for Federal workers and applicants. At the job fair, people with disabilities should be able to register, submit materials and perhaps get hired on the spot.
The Administration initiatives follow EEOC action last month to expand opportunities for people with disabilities by returning the ADA to the broad and strong civil rights statute that Congress originally intended it to be, and smoothing the road for those seeking protection under the ADA.
On Sept. 16, the EEOC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) revising its regulations to provide that an individual seeking protection under the ADA establish that he or she has a disability consistent with the original, expansive intent of Congress when it enacted the statute in 1990. The NPRM carries a 60-day period for public comment.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities—defined as people with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of a disability, or who, while not actually disabled, are regarded as disabled.
The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2009, states that Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so.
Consistent with the ADAAA, the NPRM emphasizes that the definition of disability -- an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity -- must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis; that major life activities include “major bodily functions”; that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
PRESS RELEASE
10-7-09
Agency Initiatives Part of Administration-Wide Effort
WASHINGTON – Playing a key part in an Obama Administration-wide effort to advance opportunities for workers with disabilities, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold town hall meetings throughout the nation and offer workshops on new federal regulations and hiring procedures.
"The EEOC is pleased to join the President in pressing to enfranchise individuals with disabilities to participate to the fullest extent possible in the American workplace," said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. "We're proud to play a lead role in the Administration's initiative, and to have the weight of the White House behind this vital effort."
Acting EEOC Vice Chair Christine M. Griffin said, “For too long, Americans with disabilities have been pushed to the rear of the hiring line. The EEOC’s town hall meetings and workshops, in concert with other Administration measures, should position workers with disabilities for a fair chance at a federal job.”
The Office of Personnel Management and the Departments of Labor and Justice will also play major roles in the initiatives, which the President announced Monday as part of National Disability Employment Awareness Month.
The Obama Administration is taking steps to ensure fair and equal access to employment for all Americans, particularly the 54 million people in this country living with disabilities, President Obama announced. “As the nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government and its contractors can lead the way by implementing effective employment policies and practices that increase opportunities and help workers achieve their full potential. We must also rededicate ourselves to fostering an inclusive work culture that welcomes the skills and talents of all qualified employees.”
The EEOC and DOJ's Civil Rights Division will hold four town hall meetings throughout the nation to share information and gather comments about proposed regulations in the recently enacted Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act. Each town hall meeting will consist of two sessions, one for disability advocates and one for the employer community, offering opportunities for both the business and disability communities to comment in person. The meetings will take place by Nov. 20 in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.
In addition, as part of a Federal Government-wide job fair for people with disabilities during early Spring 2010, the EEOC and other agencies will provide workshops throughout the day on a variety of topics involving reasonable accommodations for Federal workers and applicants. At the job fair, people with disabilities should be able to register, submit materials and perhaps get hired on the spot.
The Administration initiatives follow EEOC action last month to expand opportunities for people with disabilities by returning the ADA to the broad and strong civil rights statute that Congress originally intended it to be, and smoothing the road for those seeking protection under the ADA.
On Sept. 16, the EEOC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) revising its regulations to provide that an individual seeking protection under the ADA establish that he or she has a disability consistent with the original, expansive intent of Congress when it enacted the statute in 1990. The NPRM carries a 60-day period for public comment.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The statute requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants with disabilities—defined as people with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, persons with a record of a disability, or who, while not actually disabled, are regarded as disabled.
The ADA Amendments Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2009, states that Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so.
Consistent with the ADAAA, the NPRM emphasizes that the definition of disability -- an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity -- must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis; that major life activities include “major bodily functions”; that mitigating measures, such as medications and devices that people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability; and that impairments that are episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they would “substantially limit” major life activities when active. The regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Latinos and Education: Explaining the Attainment Gap
Pew Hispanic Center
by Mark Hugo Lopez, Associate Director, Pew Hispanic Center
10.7.2009
Nearly nine-in-ten (89%) Latino young adults ages 16 to 25 say that a college education is important for success in life, yet only about half that number-48%-say that they themselves plan to get a college degree, according to a new national survey of 2,012 Latinos ages 16 and older by the Pew Hispanic Center conducted from Aug. 5 to Sept. 16, 2009.
The biggest reason for the gap between the high value Latinos place on education and their more modest aspirations to finish college appears to come from financial pressure to support a family, the survey finds.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of all 16- to 25-year-old survey respondents who cut their education short during or right after high school say they did so because they had to support their family. Other reasons include poor English skills (cited by about half of respondents who cut short their education), a dislike of school and a feeling that they don't need more education for the careers they want (each cited by about four-in-ten respondents who cut their education short).
Latino schooling in the U.S. has long been characterized by high dropout rates and low college completion rates. Both problems have moderated over time, but a persistent educational attainment gap remains between Hispanics and whites.
Full Story and Report:http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=115
by Mark Hugo Lopez, Associate Director, Pew Hispanic Center
10.7.2009
Nearly nine-in-ten (89%) Latino young adults ages 16 to 25 say that a college education is important for success in life, yet only about half that number-48%-say that they themselves plan to get a college degree, according to a new national survey of 2,012 Latinos ages 16 and older by the Pew Hispanic Center conducted from Aug. 5 to Sept. 16, 2009.
The biggest reason for the gap between the high value Latinos place on education and their more modest aspirations to finish college appears to come from financial pressure to support a family, the survey finds.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of all 16- to 25-year-old survey respondents who cut their education short during or right after high school say they did so because they had to support their family. Other reasons include poor English skills (cited by about half of respondents who cut short their education), a dislike of school and a feeling that they don't need more education for the careers they want (each cited by about four-in-ten respondents who cut their education short).
Latino schooling in the U.S. has long been characterized by high dropout rates and low college completion rates. Both problems have moderated over time, but a persistent educational attainment gap remains between Hispanics and whites.
Full Story and Report:http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=115
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Do Elite Private Colleges Discriminate Against Asian Students?
U.S. News and World Report
Students of different races have varying odds of admission to elite private colleges, a study finds
By Kim Clark
Posted October 7, 2009
Mitchell Chang, a professor of higher education at UCLA, said Asians have long complained about the "penalty" they face when applying to colleges. But Espenshade's documentation of a threefold difference for similarly qualified students at elite private universities "is stunning. Really worrisome." Chang said Asian students might be disproportionately less likely to participate in certain kinds of extracurricular activities and that many Asian parents push their children to apply to famous "brand name" elite schools. But he insisted that the Asian applicant pool is nevertheless diverse. He fears that college admissions officers might be stereotyping Asians and saying to themselves: "'We don't want another academic nerd.' "
Deborah Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Excelencia in Education, noted, however, that other recent studies have shown that many well-qualified students who come from low-income, African-American, or Hispanic families don't apply to elite schools. So the few who do apply are likely to have better odds.
Full Story: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2
Students of different races have varying odds of admission to elite private colleges, a study finds
By Kim Clark
Posted October 7, 2009
Mitchell Chang, a professor of higher education at UCLA, said Asians have long complained about the "penalty" they face when applying to colleges. But Espenshade's documentation of a threefold difference for similarly qualified students at elite private universities "is stunning. Really worrisome." Chang said Asian students might be disproportionately less likely to participate in certain kinds of extracurricular activities and that many Asian parents push their children to apply to famous "brand name" elite schools. But he insisted that the Asian applicant pool is nevertheless diverse. He fears that college admissions officers might be stereotyping Asians and saying to themselves: "'We don't want another academic nerd.' "
Deborah Santiago, vice president for policy and research at Excelencia in Education, noted, however, that other recent studies have shown that many well-qualified students who come from low-income, African-American, or Hispanic families don't apply to elite schools. So the few who do apply are likely to have better odds.
Full Story: http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/10/07/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students.html?PageNr=2
NY Post Fires Editor Critical Of Racist Obama-Stimulus Cartoon
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10- 6-09 03:29 PM Updated: 10- 7-09 08:55 AM Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/ny-post-fires-editor-crit_n_311432.html
A New York Post editor who spoke out against a controversial cartoon the paper ran comparing the author of the president's stimulus package to a dead chimpanzee has been fired from her job, the paper confirmed.
Sandra Guzman was quietly dismissed from her position as associate editor last week for reasons that are being hotly debated by personnel inside the company. An official statement from the New York Post, provided to the Huffington Post, said that her job was terminated once the paper ended the section she was editing.
"Sandra is no longer with The Post because the monthly in-paper insert, Tempo, of which she was the editor, has been discontinued."
Employees at the paper -- which is one of media mogul's Rupert Murdoch's crown jewels -- said the firing, which took place last Tuesday, seemed retributive.
Guzman was the most high-profile Post employee to publicly speak out against a cartoon that likened the author of the stimulus bill (whom nearly everyone associated with President Barack Obama) with a rabid primate. Drawn by famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, the illustration pictured two befuddled policeman -- having just shot the chimp twice in the chest -- saying: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
"I neither commissioned or approved it," Guzman wrote to a list of journalist colleagues shortly thereafter. "I saw it in the paper yesterday with the rest of the world. And, I have raised my objections to management."
The remark from Guzman was a rare instance of dissension within the halls of the paper making its way into the public domain. And sources at the Post now say it cost her a job.
"I think ever since then, she has been on their shit list and they were trying to look for a reason to get rid of her," said a Post employee who was granted anonymity in exchange for speaking freely. The problem at the Post is a revenue problem, the employee said. "My whole thing is, she is not in charge of advertising. She is an associate editor. Whoever is in accounting or advertising should have been held accountable."
First Posted: 10- 6-09 03:29 PM Updated: 10- 7-09 08:55 AM Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/ny-post-fires-editor-crit_n_311432.html
A New York Post editor who spoke out against a controversial cartoon the paper ran comparing the author of the president's stimulus package to a dead chimpanzee has been fired from her job, the paper confirmed.
Sandra Guzman was quietly dismissed from her position as associate editor last week for reasons that are being hotly debated by personnel inside the company. An official statement from the New York Post, provided to the Huffington Post, said that her job was terminated once the paper ended the section she was editing.
"Sandra is no longer with The Post because the monthly in-paper insert, Tempo, of which she was the editor, has been discontinued."
Employees at the paper -- which is one of media mogul's Rupert Murdoch's crown jewels -- said the firing, which took place last Tuesday, seemed retributive.
Guzman was the most high-profile Post employee to publicly speak out against a cartoon that likened the author of the stimulus bill (whom nearly everyone associated with President Barack Obama) with a rabid primate. Drawn by famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, the illustration pictured two befuddled policeman -- having just shot the chimp twice in the chest -- saying: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
"I neither commissioned or approved it," Guzman wrote to a list of journalist colleagues shortly thereafter. "I saw it in the paper yesterday with the rest of the world. And, I have raised my objections to management."
The remark from Guzman was a rare instance of dissension within the halls of the paper making its way into the public domain. And sources at the Post now say it cost her a job.
"I think ever since then, she has been on their shit list and they were trying to look for a reason to get rid of her," said a Post employee who was granted anonymity in exchange for speaking freely. The problem at the Post is a revenue problem, the employee said. "My whole thing is, she is not in charge of advertising. She is an associate editor. Whoever is in accounting or advertising should have been held accountable."
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Sara Manzano-Diaz, Nominee for Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 30, 2009
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key administration posts:
Sara Manzano-Diaz, Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor ...
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual[s] today:
Sara Manzano-Diaz, Nominee for Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labor Sara Manzano-Diaz has spent her career in public service advocating on behalf of working class families, women, and girls. She has more than 25 years of federal, state, and judicial experience including 16 years in senior management. Most recently, she was appointed by Governor Edward G. Rendell as Deputy Secretary for Regulatory Programs at the Pennsylvania Department of State. As Deputy Secretary, and the highest-ranking Latina in Pennsylvania state government, Ms. Manzano-Diaz is responsible for protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public by overseeing the licensure of approximately 1 million professionals. Ms. Manzano-Diaz is also a member of Gov. Rendell’s STEM Initiative Team that supports the development of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and workforce development programs. Previously, she served as Deputy General Counsel for Civil Rights and Litigation at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where she enforced fair housing, civil rights, and anti-discrimination laws. While at HUD, she implemented a compliance agreement against the largest public housing authority in the country that resulted in the creation of 9,000 disabled housing units in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also previously served as an Assistant Attorney General in New York and a Pro Se Attorney in the New York State Judiciary. She has served as Co-Chair of The Forum of Executive Women’s Mentoring Committee, which mentors young professional women as they begin their careers, and also participated in Madrinas, a program that provides mentors for at-risk Latina girls to encourage them to finish high school and attend college. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Public Relations and Communications from Boston University and a Law Degree from Rutgers University School of Law.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-More-Key-Administration-Posts-9/30/09/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)