OFCCP rescinds TRICARE directive

HR.BLR.Com
July 23, 2012

On April 25, 2012, OFCCP rescinded its Directive 293, Coverage of Health Care Providers and Insurers.Directive 293 restated existing OFCCP policy for determining whether healthcare providers and insurers are covered contractors or subcontractors based on their relationship with federal healthcare programs such as TRICARE.

Full Story: http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Discrimination/Government-Contractors/OFCCP-rescinds-TRICARE-directive/

The Large Persisting Gender Gap in Faculty Posts in Higher Education

Women in Academia
Posted on Jul 11, 2012

                                          Women in Academia

In 2009, the latest year complete data is available, there were 728,977 full-time instructional faculty at degree-granting institutions in the United States. Of these, 313,156, or just under 43 percent, were women.

Full Story: http://www.wiareport.com/2012/07/the-large-persisting-gender-gap-in-faculty-posts-in-higher-education/?utm_source=Women+In+Academia+Report&utm_campaign=e2b82a72a3-Women_in_Academia_Report_6_14_116_13_2011&utm_medium=email

Young Women Have Made Tremendous Strides in Degree Attainments

Women in Academia
Posted on Jul 11, 2012

Young women have achieved tremendous progress in educational attainments over the past generation. In 1980, 41.9 percent of all women, ages 25 to 29, had some college experience. Today, more than two thirds of all women in that age group have attended college.

Full Story: http://www.wiareport.com/2012/07/young-women-have-made-tremendous-strides-in-degree-attainments/?utm_source=Women+In+Academia+Report&utm_campaign=e2b82a72a3-Women_in_Academia_Report_6_14_116_13_2011&utm_medium=email

Program Helps Long-Term Disabled Workers Return to Work by Crossing Finish Line

Workforce
Insurance giant Cigna Corp. partners with a New York health organization to put long-term disabled workers on the track to good health and re-entry into the workforce.

By Rebecca Vesely

July 17, 2012

As the population ages, the number of workers with disability claims is skyrocketing, and employers and insurers are trying to figure out how best to serve these patients while also reducing their costs.
Social Security disability claims grew 21 percent between 2008 and 2011, and employer disability costs can comprise up to 35 percent of payroll, according to a Mercer/Kronos 2010 study.
What's more, employees who go on disability and don't re-enter the workforce within one year have a 90 percent chance of never going back to work, according to consultancy Towers Watson & Co.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/article/20120717/NEWS02/120719952/program-helps-long-term-disabled-workers-return-to-work-by-crossing

Disability Services Provider Sued for, What Else, Disability Discrimination

Workforce
Apparently, 'you should know better' carries over to the world of employment law. The EEOC has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Pace Solano, a California disability services provider.

Published: July 18, 2012
By: John Hyman

I'm four years older than my brother. For this reason, growing up I would sometimes get punished for things for which my brother was let off the hook.
The reasoning? You should know better. And, I'm sad to say that now that I have two kids of my own, I have found myself repeating this refrain to my older child. The sins of the father, I guess.
Apparently, "you should know better" carries over to the world of employment law. The EEOC has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Pace Solano, a California disability services provider.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/article/20120718/BLOGS07/120719948/disability-services-provider-sued-for-what-else-disability#

EEOC alleges bias against Philadelphia woman

Philly.com

July 19, 2012|By Jane M. Von Bergen, Inquirer staff writer

Tahira B. El, a practicing Muslim, faced religious discrimination when she was fired by her employer, a security company providing guards to the Pennsylvania Convention Center, because she refused to remove a head scarf she wore for religious reasons, according to a federal lawsuit filed in Philadelphia on her behalf Wednesday by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The suit said that El, of Philadelphia, was hired by ABM Security Services, of California, to work at the center on Feb. 21, 2011. She was fired the next day, the suit said, when she showed up in uniform, wearing the khimar, which covers her hair and ears, but not her face.

Full Story: http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-19/business/32747938_1_eeoc-religious-discrimination-ahmeenah-young

A Year After Dukes, the Impact on Employment Law Still Shaking Out

In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the class action suit filed by 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. But there's still no clear long-term impact on labor and employment law.

Meghin Delaney
Corporate Counsel
July 24, 2012
Just over a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the expansive Title VII class action suit filed on behalf of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in its 5-4 Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision. The Court ruled that the employees failed to prove a common, company-wide practice of discrimination to maintain their class claim. But as the decision reverberates across the country, there’s still not a clear long-term impact of Dukes on U.S. labor and employment law.

One immediate result, says Steven Suflas of Ballard Spahr, was that a lot of employers with other pending class-action suits filed reconsideration motions and, overall, were pretty successful.

In the first three months following the June 2011 decision, more than 90 district courts and a handful of circuit court decisions cited the case, often decertifying previously certified classes in wide range of areas, including product liability, environmental and mass tort cases, according to Snell & Wilmer attorneys M.C. Sungaila, Greg Marshall and Lindsey E. Martínez, writing in The Recorder (a sibling publication of Corporate Counsel).

Suflas, who is a labor and employment partner at Ballard and is the managing partner of the firm’s Cherry Hill, New Jersey office, says that even though employers were successful with reconsideration motions in the immediate aftermath, the Dukes ruling hasn’t eased worries for employers in the long run. “I don’t think that we have seen a tremendous drop off in the volume of class actions,” he says, “but the nature of what’s being filed has changed.”

Michael Burkhardt, a labor and employment partner in Morgan Lewis & Bockius’s Philadelphia office, agrees with Suflas about the number of claims being filed. “Some plaintiff counsel have filed the same types of claims, just dressed up a little bit differently, and there’s been a split of decision around the country about it,” he says.

Full Story: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202564085920&A_Year_After_Dukes_the_Impact_on_Employment_Law_Still_Shaking_Out

Lawmakers Urged to Pass Bill Protecting Women From Campus Violence

The Chronicle of Higher Education
July 20, 2012

By Julia Love

Washington

With Congress heading for recess and elections looming, advocates are imploring lawmakers to set aside politics and pass legislation to step up protections for women as well as expand campus reporting of crimes against them.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women sent an open letter to Congress on Friday signed by more than 200 survivors of campus violence at 176 colleges and universities. The letter calls for both chambers of Congress to reauthorize a comprehensive Violence Against Women Act by the end of September.

Full Story:
http://chronicle.com/article/Lawmakers-Urged-to-Pass-Bill/133091/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

VETS Reports: Batch Functionality Issues

The US Department of Labor's Office of Veterans Employment and Training Services has announced that employers may file their VETS 100 and other forms but the "batch upload functionality"  is being updated.  See the following notice on the VETS website:

Note: The batch upload functionality is currently being updated. It will be available mid-August 2012.

You may now file your VETS100 and/or your VETS100A reports via the links below for 2010, 2011 and 2012:

• VETS 100
• VETS 100A
• Hiring Location Uploads

If you have any questions about which report your company needs to file please use the Reporting Wizard
You may also submit your reports via EMAIL: VETS100-customersupport@dol.gov
OR POSTAL MAIL: VETS-100 Service Center
C/O Department of Labor National Contact Center (DOL-NCC)
14120 Newbrook Dr, Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151

Please check with the VETS information above for more information. http://www.dol.gov/vets/vets100filing.htm

The Rise of Asian Americans

Pew Research Center

Released: June 19, 2012  

Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success, according to a comprehensive new nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center.

Full Story and Report: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/

US Labor Department settles charges of hiring discrimination with federal contractor Leprino Foods

U.S. Department of Labor

News Release

OFCCP News Release: [07/19/2012]
Contact Name: Michael Trupo or Josh Lamont
Phone Number: (202) 693-6588 or x4661
Release Number: 12-1443-SAN

US Labor Department settles charges of hiring discrimination with federal contractor Leprino Foods

Agreement includes $550,000 in compensation for more than 250 job applicants who are African-American, of Asian or Hispanic descent

LEMOORE, Calif. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has entered into a consent decree with Leprino Foods Inc. to resolve charges of systemic hiring discrimination at the company's Lemoore West facility. The consent decree, signed today by an administrative law judge with the Labor Department, settles OFCCP's allegations that Leprino Foods' use of a pre-employment test called WorkKeys to select hires for on-call laborer positions resulted in discrimination against African-American job applicants and applicants of Asian and Hispanic descent.
"I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair settlement in this matter," said OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu. "While employers can and should hire the most qualified workers for the job, they cannot create artificial barriers to employment that unfairly block any individual from competing for good jobs."
OFCCP determined that Leprino Foods violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the bases of race, color, religion, sex and national origin in their employment practices. The agency made its findings after a scheduled compliance review in which OFCCP investigators conducted interviews, analyzed company data and reviewed documents provided by the company. Through this review, OFCCP discovered that the administration of the WorkKeys exam had an adverse impact on minority job applicants for these specific positions. The agency further determined that the exam was not job-related, as it tested applicants' skills in mathematics, locating information and observation — skills that are not critical to the entry-level tasks performed by on-call laborers, such as inspecting products, monitoring equipment and maintaining sanitation at the facility.
Under the terms of the consent decree, Leprino will pay $550,000 in back wages, interest and benefits to 253 minority workers who were rejected for on-call laborer positions between January 2005 and October 2006 because they failed the WorkKeys exam. Additionally, the company has agreed to discontinue use of the test for this purpose, hire at least 13 of the original class members, undertake extensive self-monitoring measures and immediately correct any discriminatory practices.
Leprino Foods is one of the largest producers of mozzarella cheese in the world and is based in Denver, Colo. Since 2005, the company has received contracts totaling nearly $50 million from U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Services Agency to provide mozzarella and other dairy products to the federal government.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251. Additional information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20121443.htm

What You Should Know About the EEOC and Arrest and Conviction Records

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued some questions and answers on criminal background checks and its recent policy.  The following constitutes an excerpt of the guidance.  The information may be found on the EEOC's website: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/arrest_conviction_records.cfm

Background: On April 25, 2012, the Commission, in a 4-1 bi-partisan vote, issued its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The Guidance updates, consolidates, and supersedes the Commission’s 1987 and 1990 policy statements on this issue, as well as the relevant discussion in the EEOC’s Race and Color Discrimination Compliance Manual Chapter. The Guidance is designed to be a resource for employers, employment agencies, and unions covered by Title VII; for applicants and employees; and for EEOC enforcement staff.
1) Does this Guidance prohibit employers from obtaining and using criminal background reports about job applicants or employees?
No. The EEOC does not have the authority to prohibit employers from obtaining or using arrest or conviction records. The EEOC simply seeks to ensure that such information is not used in a discriminatory way.
2) How could an employer use this information in a discriminatory way?
There are two ways in which an employer’s use of criminal history information may be discriminatory. First, the relevant law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from treating job applicants or employees with the same criminal records differently because of their race, national origin, or another protected characteristic (disparate treatment discrimination).
Second, the law also prohibits disparate impact discrimination. This means that, if criminal record exclusions operate to disproportionately exclude people of a particular race or national origin, the employer has to show that the exclusions are “job related and consistent with business necessity” under Title VII to avoid liability.
3) How would an employer prove “job related and consistent with business necessity”? Is it burdensome?
Proving that an exclusion is “job related and consistent with business necessity” is not burdensome. The employer can make this showing if, in screening applicants for criminal conduct, it (1) considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the criminal conduct occurred, and the nature of the specific job in question, and (2) gives an applicant who is excluded by the screen the opportunity to show why he should not be excluded.
4) Is the Guidance a new Commission policy?
No. The Guidance follows the text of the law about disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination. Since at least 1969, the Commission has received, investigated, and resolved discrimination charges involving criminal records exclusions, and federal courts have analyzed the civil rights law as applied to criminal record exclusions since the 1970s. In addition, in 1987 and 1990, the EEOC issued three policy statements on this issue, and it also referenced the topic in its 2006 Race and Color Discrimination Compliance Manual Chapter. Finally, in 2008, the EEOC’s E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) Initiative identified criminal record exclusions as one of the employment barriers that are linked to race and color discrimination in the workplace. Thus, applying Title VII to the use of criminal history information in employment decisions is well-established.

See more information at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/arrest_conviction_records.cfm

Owner of 25 McDonald's Restaurants to Pay $1 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 7-18-12

Multiple Women, Including Teens, Were Abused at Reedsburg Restaurant, and Some Were Fired for Complaining, Federal Agency Charges

MADISON, Wis. – Missoula Mac, Inc., the owner and franchisee of 25 McDonald’s restaurants, has agreed to pay $1,000,000 and provide substantial injunctive relief to resolve a class sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Missoula Mac violated federal civil rights laws at its Reedsburg, Wis., McDonald’s by permitting male employees to create a hostile work environment of sexual harassment against female co-workers, some of whom were teenagers, and by retaliating against those who complained about sexual harassment.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, since at least 2006, several male employees subjected female co-workers to sexual harassment, including sexual comments, kissing, touching of their private areas, and forcing their hands onto the men’s private parts. Despite being notified of the situation, Missoula Mac failed and refused to take prompt and appropriate action to correct the harassment and the resulting hostile environment, forcing at least one of the harassed employees to quit. Further, the company fired other harassed employees after they complained repeatedly about their co-workers’ behavior. Three women previously employed at the Reedsburg McDonald’s filed discrimination charges with the EEOC that led to the lawsuit.
Sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed its suit (EEOC and Dunse, Brown, and Gay v. Missoula Mac, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurants, .No. 3:11-cv-00267-bbc) in April 2011 after first attempting to reach an out-of-court settlement through its conciliation process.
U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb entered a four-year consent decree today resolving the suit. Under its terms, Missoula Mac will pay out $1 million in compensatory damages to 10 former employees who experienced sexual harassment and retaliation during their employment at the Reedsburg McDonald’s. The company will also (1) create an ombudsperson position responsible for monitoring, soliciting and resolving complaints of sexual harassment or retaliation; (2) establish telephone and e-mail hotlines for employees to report sexual harassment or retaliation; (3) evaluate its managers’ and supervisors’ performance based in part on whether their restaurants comply with anti-harassment and anti-retaliation laws and policies; (4) track and maintain records of all sexual harassment and retaliation complaints; (5) implement a comprehensive training program to enable its employees to identify sexual harassment and properly investigate internal complaints; (6) post notices at all its restaurants informing employees that it has settled a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit with the EEOC and publicizing some settlement terms; and (7) provide periodic reports to the EEOC showing it is complying with the terms of the decree.
“This is a sad case, demonstrating again that sexual harassment is still a challenge for women at some of our most successful, best known brands,” said John P. Rowe, district director of the Chicago District Office of the EEOC, which conducted the investigation which led to the lawsuit.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, added, “The ongoing sexual harassment in Reedsburg, and the company’s refusal to stop it, devolved into a culture of oppression, retaliation and fear. Women who work in restaurants have it tough enough without having to put up with sexual harassment.”
EEOC General Counsel P. David López commented that “sexual harassment in the restaurant industry remains a problem nationwide.” López added that “harassment no longer can be accepted as simply ‘part of the culture’ of the restaurant industry.” “As seen in this case,” he stated, “many younger workers’ first experience with the workplace is in this industry and it is important that harassment of these workers not be tolerated.”
Poynette, Wis.-based Missoula Mac owns and operates 25 McDonald’s restaurants in Wisconsin. John Orr is its owner and president.
The EEOC’s litigation efforts were led by trial attorney César J. del Peral out of its Milwaukee Area Office and were supervised by Associate Regional Attorney Jean Kamp out of its Chicago District Office. The EEOC’s Chicago District office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-18-12a.cfm

Howard University Failed to Hire an Applicant Due to his Disbility, EEOC Says

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 7-19-12

Qualified Applicant Denied Job Because Of His Diabetes, Federal Agency Charges

WASHINGTON – Howard University in the District of Columbia violated federal law when it refused to hire an applicant for a security position at its hospital because of his disability, diabetes, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. Howard University, founded in 1862, is a private, historically black university. Howard University Hospital is a division of the University at large and is subject to its employment policies and procedures.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, Clarence Muse has Type 2 diabetes that resulted in kidney failure. Around August 16, 2009, Muse applied for two security guard positions with the university. The EEOC said that Muse was interviewed for both positions by Howard’s associate hospital director for support services and its director of protective services. In discussing his shift preference during his interview, Muse disclosed that he needed to work a shift that would allow him to continue to take dialysis treatments three mornings each week. The EEOC charged that despite being fully qualified for the security officer positions, Muse was denied hire for both positions. Muse’s qualifications included over 40 years of experience as a police officer and private security guard, including being a veteran of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department. According to the complaint, Howard University continued to solicit applications for the security officer positions after denying Muse hire, and ultimately hired more than 40 security officers.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Howard University, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01186), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for Muse, as well as injunctive and other non-monetary relief.
“It is unfortunate that many employers still deny work opportunities to qualified people who are ready and able to perform the job simply because of myths and fears about their medical impairments or disabilities,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Lynette A. Barnes, of the agency’s Charlotte District, which oversees litigation filed by the agency in Washington, D.C. “This suit should remind employers that the EEOC will continue to prosecute cases where job applicants’ basic rights are alleged to have been violated.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-19-12a.cfm

The EEOC suffers another blow - the Tenth Circuit affirms grant of summary judgment to employer against the commission

Lexology.com
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Christopher J. DeGroff and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

 USA     July 11 2012

Yesterday, the EEOC’s aggressive attempt to litigate issues under the Americans With Disabilities Act faced a resounding defeat in EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc., No. 11-CV-1306 (10th Cir. 2012). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, the Picture People (“TPP”), and dismissed the EEOC’s lawsuit, which asserted that TPP harassed, discharged, and retaliated against a deaf employee in violation of the ADA. We previously blogged on EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc. (here), and why the EEOC's claims were rejected. EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc. stems from the grant of summary judgment on the basis that Jessica Chrysler, a disabled employee at TPP, could not establish that “she was qualified – with or without accommodation – to perform an essential function of her job[.]” Id. at 2.

The 10th Circuit's ruling is an important development addressing what, if any, accommodations are reasonably required of employers under the ADA’s new amendments, and another defeat for the EEOC's strategic enforcement program.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b2eac86-383f-441e-a0c1-a5e09ebad4e8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-18&utm_term=

Package of gender pay parity laws reaches New Jersey governor’s desk

Lexology.com
Ogletree Deakins

Evan J. Shenkman and Shira L. Krieger

USA   July 16 2012

In late June 2012, three significant employment bills (A2647, A2648, and A2650) reached Governor Chris Christie’s desk, having cleared both houses. Whether the governor will sign or veto the bills is unknown. Although described as a “Gender Pay Parity” package, if enacted, these bills would go significantly beyond that stated purpose.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e48eae5d-f443-464e-bb73-a8c78783054e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-23&utm_term=

Sixth Circuit expands on "cat's paw" discrimination

Lexology.com
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

William A. Nolan

  USA

July 16 2012

Readers may remember the Staub v Proctor Hospital decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2011, essentially holding under the “cat's paw” theory that employers may be liable for discrimination if the decision maker relies on input from subordinates with discriminatory intent, even if the decision maker did not have discriminatory motives. In addition to the question, “why is it called ‘cat's paw’ anyway” (more on that below), employers as with most Supreme Court decisions are waiting to see how the rule evolves as it is interpreted by the lower federal courts.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=edb36f6b-d2d5-4a4f-8c48-5a937cdc8024&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-23&utm_term=

Supreme Court to consider definition of supervisor under Title VII

Lexology.com Roetzel & Andress Jonathan R. Secrest USA July 16 2012 On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Vance v. Ball State Univ., No. 11-556, a case in which the issue is whether the definition of “supervisor” under Title VII includes an employee who has no authority to hire and fire an employee but who oversees and directs the worker’s daily tasks. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f8d823f1-cb98-4613-93b3-225eb5d623d0&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-23&utm_term=

Bans on Affirmative Action Shown to Reduce Enrollment of Graduate Students of Color at Universities in CA, FL, TX, WA

Los Angeles--A new study published today by the Civil Rights Project at UCLA examines the impact of affirmative action bans, across a number of years in several states, on the enrollment of underrepresented students of color. These latest data show that the bans have led to marked declines in key areas of graduate studies. The report’s findings are particularly timely as the U.S. Supreme Court, during its upcoming fall term, will consider in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin whether race-conscious admissions policies are necessary to produce the student body diversity the University believes is essential for its educational success.

Full story: http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/press-releases/crp-press-releases-2012/bans-on-affirmative-action-shown-to-reduce-enrollment-of-graduate-students-of-color-at-institutions-of-higher-education

'Still in the Trenches'

Inside Higher Ed

June 14, 2012 - 3:00am

By

Elise Young

WASHINGTON -- Members of the American Association for Affirmative Action are arriving here this week for the group's annual meeting -- taking place as the Supreme Court prepares to revisit the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions.
Some leaders of the association met Wednesday with Inside Higher Ed to discuss their concerns about the case, even though their respective institutions don't have admissions policies similar to those being reviewed by the Supreme Court. And one of their themes was that new limits on affirmative action may have a much broader reach than the admissions policies at the heart of the case.

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/14/affirmative-action-administrators-discuss-future-policy#ixzz20pC6ON8O
Inside Higher Ed

Q&A: Affirmative Action in the Workplace Must Stay on Track

Bloomberg BNA
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
by Lydell C. Bridgeford

Gregory T. Chambers, president of the American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), explains why corporate America and the federal government need to stay committed to affirmative action programs.AAAA, founded in 1974, represents professionals who manage affirmative action, equal opportunity, diversity inclusion and human resource programs in the private and public sectors.
Bloomberg BNA: The terms "equal employment opportunity," "affirmative action", and "diversity initiatives" are sometimes used interchangeably, but, in general, how are they different?
Chambers: There are similarities between diversity and affirmative action. Specifically, both efforts seek to promote inclusion and lessen discriminatory practices. However, the differences lie in concept and approach. These differences and their outcomes impact organizations differently.
Diversity programs mostly focus on organizational culture, shaping behavior, and leveraging differences to ultimately impact the bottom line. Affirmative action is numbers oriented, aimed at creating an environment where equal opportunity can prevail.

Full Story: http://www.bna.com/qa-affirmative-action-b12884909744/

A Red Carpet Premiere From OFCCP

U.S. Department of Labor
OFCCP
by admin on June 28, 2012 ·

Working at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs isn’t typically glamorous. Red carpets and paparazzi don’t usually factor into my life – I’m more of a Little League and spa-day kind of mom.
However, at OFCCP, we do have stars that captivate us and command our full attention. They are ordinary people who want nothing more complicated than the right to find, secure and succeed in good jobs. And it’s my privilege to try and empower them by educating all Americans about how OFCCP protects workers, promotes diversity and enforces the laws which require equal employment opportunity for all – no exceptions, no excuses (as I tell my kids).

So today, I’m excited to invite you to the world premiere of Opening Doors, a short film that tells the story of OFCCP through the eyes of three individuals: Leroy, a construction worker who was denied a job because of his race; Janice, a store clerk with a disability who needed a reasonable accommodation for her work station; and George, an Air Force vet who faced retaliation from an employer simply for inquiring about his rights under the law. In this mini-documentary, you will learn about each of these people and how OFCCP successfully defended their rights in the workplace.
I am proud to work for an agency like OFCCP, one which enforces the civil rights of the nearly one-quarter of American workers who are employed by or seek jobs with federal contractors and subcontractors. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, we’ve taken important steps to strengthen our enforcement and update our regulations. We’ve also made worker education and community engagement a priority. I hope this film will be a useful tool in that effort. So, please take a few minutes to watch and share this with your friends and family.

After more than two years at OFCCP, I’ve learned a plain truth: when workers know their rights and when employers know their responsibilities, America’s workplaces become fairer. And that makes my job pretty glamorous after all.
Editor’s Note: The author, Renee Tajudeen directs outreach at the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

To view the OFCCP video, click here: http://social.dol.gov/blog/a-red-carpet-premiere-from-ofccp/

Giumarra Vineyards Agrees to Sweeping Changes to Settle EEOC Suit Filed on Behalf of Indigenous Farmworkers

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 7-2-12

Company Agrees to Train Thousands of Migrant Laborers on Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

FRESNO – Giumarra Vineyards, one of the largest growers of table grapes in the United States, will settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. The company agreed to comprehensive and sweeping changes of company procedures in dealing with discrimination and retaliation, affecting up to 3,000 employees and to expend a total of $350,000 to resolve EEOC’s case.
The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit filed by the EEOC against Giumarra Vineyards in 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (EEOC v. Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-02255). The EEOC alleged that a 17-year-old female migrant worker was sexually harassed and others were subjected to retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The claimants in the case are Tarascan (otherwise known as P'urhépecha) and Zapotec which are indigenous groups in Mexico, a minority among the farmworker community who worked at Giumarra’s facility in Edison, Calif.
As part of the widespread preventive measures, Giumarra agreed to devote part of the settlement to train its work force, including hiring a third-party trainer to conduct training on sexual harassment and retaliation for thousands of its migrant farmworkers, other employees and incoming new staff regarding sexual harassment and retaliation in languages that the employees understand. Management and human resources officials will also be trained annually and receive additional training on how to appropriately handle such complaints.
Among the other comprehensive changes, Giumarra agreed to implement changes to revamp its anti-discrimination policies and complaint procedures dealing with sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The policies and procedures will also be available in languages that the employees understand. Giumarra also agreed to develop a centralized tracking system and to hire a human resources professional to effectively handle complaints of discrimination. A notice will also be posted throughout the company regarding the resolution. The EEOC will monitor compliance of the consent decree over the three-year period.
“We commend Giumarra Vineyards for setting a new standard in the way sexual harassment and retaliation complaints from migrant farmworkers are handled by growers,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes the central valley of California in its jurisdiction. “The tremendous undertaking of training a vast number of migrant farmworkers by a prominent grower like Giumarra Vineyards is a groundbreaking endeavor. We hope that with this sweeping resolution, the agricultural industry begins to self-regulate in rooting out the pervasive problems we continue to see in that industry.”
Melissa Barrios, director for the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, which services Kern County, added, “We encourage all workers to report sexual harassment and retaliation with the EEOC. We truly hope that other growers take Giumarra’s lead in taking seriously the pervasive problem of sexual harassment and retaliation that migrant farmworkers continue to face.”
Suguet Lopez, executive director for Líderes Campesinas, a non-profit organization in California devoted to servicing farmworker women, stated, “Too many young women suffer in silence due to rampant sexual harassment in the fields. For real change to happen, we need the growers to take a stand against sexual harassment in the workplace and offer education to workers on their rights to offset further abuses. We are encouraged by the news that such a major company will conduct the necessary training on such a large scale. We also commend the EEOC for championing these efforts in the migrant farmworker community.”
According to its website, Calif.-based Giumarra is a family-run company that employs up to 3,000 people. Aside from cultivating 25 varieties of table grapes, Giumarra is an international network of fresh produce growers, distributors and marketers, sourcing produce from apples to zucchini internationally.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-2-12a.cfm

EEOC Race Discrimination Case Against YRC/Yellow Transportation Ends with $11 Million Decree

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 6-29-12

Class of Black Employees Suffered Hangman’s Nooses, Racist Graffiti and Epithets, Harsher Discipline, and Tougher Work Assignments, Federal Agency Charged

See Also:

• Whirlpool Settles EEOC Race and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for One Million Dollars
• Selected List of Pending and Resolved EEOC Cases Involving Racial Harassment Since 2009

CHICAGO – An $11 million consent decree entered here today in federal court has ended the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) race harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a major transportation company. Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox granted preliminary approval of the decree.
In its suit, the EEOC charged that Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc. subjected African-American employees at its Chicago Ridge, Ill., facility to a racially hostile working environment and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. Yellow Transportation operated the facility until its merger with Roadway Express, when the two companies combined operations to form YRC Inc. in October 2008.
Had the case gone to trial, the EEOC was prepared to present evidence that black employees were subjected to multiple incidents of hangman’s nooses and racist graffiti, comments and cartoons. The EEOC was also would have presented evidence that Yellow and YRC subjected black employees to harsher discipline and scrutiny than their white counterparts and gave them more difficult and time-consuming work assignments. This would include expert testimony that these practices resulted in statistically significant differences in the way blacks and whites were treated. Numerous black employees, according to the EEOC, had complained about all of these conditions over the years, but the company continually failed to take effective action to correct the problems.
Under the consent decree settling the suit, signed by Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox, $11 million will be paid to the discrimination victims. The Chicago Ridge facility closed in 2009, however, many African-American employees from Chicago Ridge continue to work at YRC’s Chicago Heights facility. The Chicago Heights facility was itself the subject of a separate lawsuit by the EEOC against YRC with similar allegations, resulting in a $10 million settlement in 2010. That first consent decree (Chicago Heights) will also protect the victims of the second lawsuit at Chicago Ridge.
The Chicago Heights decree enjoins YRC from engaging in any further discrimination because of race and from retaliating against people who complain about racial bias. The decree also requires YRC to retain consultants to examine the company’s discipline and work assignment procedures and recommend changes to prevent racial disparities. Activities at Chicago Heights are being reviewed by a monitor who oversees the company’s response to complaints and who reports semi-annually to the court and to the EEOC on the company’s compliance with the decree.
Prior to filing suit in federal court, the EEOC conducted an administrative investigation and attempted to resolve the matter under its statutory conciliation procedures, both under the direction of John P. Rowe, director of the agency’s Chicago District.
The decree entered today will benefit as many as 324 African-American employees who worked at the Chicago Ridge facility on the dock and in the yard as dockworkers, hostlers, janitors, clericals and supervisors from 2004 to the closing of the facility in September 2009. Eligible claimants will be invited to participate in a claims process over the coming months.
“We are approaching the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “This case, with evidence of hangman’s nooses, vile racist graffiti, and race-based work assignments, proves that even after these many years, there is work to be done to eradicate pernicious racial hatred and discrimination. We have successfully prosecuted several racial harassment cases and will continue to do so until this toxic workplace behavior is eradicated. We have come a long way. We hope today’s decree moves us all further along the road we must travel as a nation – together.”
“This case is the second large race case the Chicago office has resolved with YRC in recent years. The company has now had to pay out $21 million to resolve egregious racial harassment and discrimination at two of its facilities,” Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said. “Employers should not believe that, because they are in an industry – like trucking – that is known for rough working conditions, they can ignore discrimination when it arises. A noose is not an acceptable symbol there or anywhere else – that’s the law.”
Hendrickson also pointed out that the EEOC is also in the midst of another large race discrimination case against the international shipping giant DHL.
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour noted, “It’s an unhappy irony that in this case, where black employees were sometimes called ‘lazy n----r,’ our statistical analysis showed that on average black employees were given more difficult and time consuming work. This is a case of injury being added to insult.”
The consent decree resolves two lawsuits that were consolidated for purposes of the settlement. A group of 14 employees initially filed a class action suit under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act in October 2008 (Brown, et al. v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. No. 08 CV 5908). The EEOC then filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination (EEOC v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, INC. No. 09 CV 7693). The plaintiffs in the Brown litigation are represented by Schmidt of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School, as well as private counsel Carol Coplan Babbitt and Catherine Caporusso.
Hendrickson noted that this case is further indication that the EEOC has the resources and determination necessary to litigate large class actions under the Commission’s systemic litigation initiative to successful resolution.
YRC, Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is now the nation’s largest less-than-truckload freight hauling company and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kan. (www.yrc.com).
The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information
about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-29-12a.cfm

Conditioning light duty assignment for pregnant employee on dismissal of her EEOC charge was retaliation

Lexology.com
Sherman & Howard LLC

Theodore A. Olsen

USA

July 9 2012

In a case involving a scenario that was mishandled by the employer in too many ways to count, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that an employer's conversion of an unconditional light duty assignment to a pregnant employee, to an assignment conditioned on her withdrawal of her EEOC charge was a retaliatory act under Title VII^[1].

When the employer first learned of the pregnant employee's medical restrictions, she was told there were no available positions that could be accommodated for her restrictions. However, when she filed a union grievance, the general manager met with Human Resources and decided to offer her a light-duty job. (Ironically, the employer's offer of light-duty work compounded its problems in this case, as it highlighted the supervisor's earlier lie that he had found there were no such positions. The employer did not necessarily have the obligation to provide the plaintiff with light-duty work. See, "No Violation of Title VII to Deny Light-Duty Work to Pregnant Worker." However, after the employer learned of her pregnancy discrimination charge filed at the EEOC, the plaintiff was offered reemployment in a light-duty job and full back pay, conditioned on her withdrawing her EEOC charge. The Eleventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment that the employer had obtained in the district court, ruling that conditioning the reemployment offer on the plaintiff's withdrawal of her EEOC charge was, on its face, retaliatory and actionable under Title VII.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=26bb619a-fd2a-4e68-86f3-bb008ecc68a0&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-13&utm_term=

How employers can write social media policies to their advantage and avoid legal challenges

Lexology.com
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Peter G. Finch

USA

July 10 2012

Legal issues continue to arise for employers regarding their employees’ use of social media. In an article recently published by the Puget Sound Business Journal, I address how employers can navigate the sometimes confusing and contradictory world of labor law to their advantage and avoid running into problems with the NLRB regarding social media policies that restrict what employees can do.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9072a9c0-1584-474a-8fa1-846d70cce7a2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-13&utm_term=

HR director has no retaliatory discharge claim based on dismissal during her investigation of internal discrimination complaint

Lexology.com
Sherman & Howard LLC

Theodore A. Olsen

USA

July 9 2012

In our last newsletter, we observed that courts have increasingly been restricting retaliation claims, by circumscribing recognized employee "participation" in proceedings under the discrimination laws and employee "opposition" to unlawful discrimination. Another helpful illustration of this trend is Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc.^[1], where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a Human Resources Director who was fired in the middle of her investigation into an internal sexual harassment complaint, allegedly because of her investigation activity, had no claim for retaliatory discharge under Title VII or the New York Human Rights Law. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment in the defendant's favor, ruling the investigation was neither protected "participation" nor protected "opposition."

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ad9eb9d-30c1-4c90-a3e1-449beca24fd0&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-12&utm_term=

1871 Civil Rights Act extended to ban sexual orientation discrimination by public employers

Lexology.com
Sherman & Howard LLC

Theodore A. Olsen

USA

July 9 2012

The longer that Congress fails to amend Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the greater the propensity of courts to find that other existing federal and state laws ban such discrimination. For instance, in Stroder v. Comm. of Ky. Cabinet for Health & Family Srvcs^[1]., a federal court recently ruled that a law enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War^[2] provides a sufficient basis for a sexual orientation discrimination claim by a discharged public employee, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff after a trial.

Section 1983 prohibits government entities from depriving any U.S. citizen of "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." One such "right" is equal protection. In the context of government employment (Section 1983 does not apply to non-governmental employers), this means that the disparate treatment of employees may give rise to Section 1983 liability. Under the law, different levels of deference are given to employers' disparate treatment of employees, based on the specific discrimination involved. "Strict scrutiny" is the highest level of review, an extremely difficult standard for an employer to satisfy, and applies to decisions based on race, for instance. The lowest level of review used by the courts, however, is "rational basis" review - if an employer's basis for treating employees differently is merely "rational," the employer's unequal treatment of employees survives under Section 1983.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3d7aecb1-5848-4f18-8f02-75785c2403d9&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-13&utm_term=

Human resources manager held not liable for causing employer to retaliate against an employee in violation of Civil Rights Act § 1981

Lexology.com
Fenwick & West LLP

Victor Schachter and Allen Kato

USA

July 11 2012

In a case of first impression, the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering central states including Illinois) allowed an employee to pursue his claim against an individual manager for retaliation in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. In Smith v. Bray, Smith's employer was bankrupt. His only hope for recovery of damages was against individual managers.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=16f001dd-fa47-4e7a-9d3b-178fa51e0c1d&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-16&utm_term=

Scotus to hear three cases of particular importance to labor & employment

Lexology.com Hunton & Williams LLP USA July 12 2012 The Supreme Court recently announced the cases for which it has granted certiorari for the 2012-2013 term. Among these, and now slated to be adjudicated in the nation’s highest court next term, are the appeals of three cases that will surely impact employment litigation. In these cases, the Court will discuss (1) what the evidentiary standard is in federal courts, post-Dukes, for class certification, (2) whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims, and (3) what constitutes a “supervisor” for a vicarious liability claim under Title VII.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5f91eebf-0f43-4c73-99a4-3e05bf35b3ec&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-16&utm_term=

What constitutes racial harassment? An appalling list of workplace comments culled from an EEOC website

The EEOC has an interesting website that provides a “selected list” of pending and resolved lawsuits brought by the EEOC in which racial harassment is alleged. A review of the following list provides a quick compendium of some of the offensive, vulgar and illegal comments and behavior which the EEOC claims that employees have been subjected to in the workplace.
Full story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=daf14cb4-c77e-4130-b05e-d95a2adbf928

Great resource: EEOC posts its appellate briefs online

The EEOC recently anounced that it was posting online its appellate and amicus briefs going back to 2000 on its external website.
Read more: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ddb3fc30-e44a-4c2d-8762-1d27fd8d0039

Social media – NLRB issues third report on social media

The NLRB Office of General Counsel issued a third report addressing employers’ use of social media policies. The report summarizes the NLRB’s review of the social media policies of seven companies and its findings with respect to whether such policies impermissibly inhibit employees’ rights to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with other employees and third parties. The social media policies reviewed by the NLRB address, among other things: (1) rules governing employees’ use of social media; (2) guidelines on privacy, legal matters, online tone and resolving concerns; and (3) protecting information, expressing opinions, and bullying.
Full story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=09c317d8-a108-4e25-99d0-eeacd967462c

Gender-Related Differences in the Pathway to and Characteristics of U.S. Medical School Deanships

White, F. Scott EdD; McDade, Sharon EdD; Yamagata, Hisashi PhD; Morahan, Page S. PhD
Women leaders of U.S. LCME-accredited medical schools have taken longer to advance through the academic ranks, serve at less research-intensive institutions, and had shorter tenures than did men deans. These results underscore the challenges women leaders face in traditionally male-dominated organizations, and they provide baseline data to inform medical schools building inclusive senior leadership teams.
http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/publishahead/Gender_Related_Differences_in_the_Pathway_to_and.99606.aspx

Has Higher Education Become an Engine of Inequality?

July 2, 2012
A Chronicle Forum
Inequality is growing in the United States, and social mobility is slowing. A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 62 percent of Americans raised in the top one-fifth of the income scale stay in the top two-fifths; 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths.
Full story: http://chronicle.com/article/Has-Higher-Education-Become-an/132619/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Is Indian Higher Education Experiencing a Quiet Female Revolution?

July 5, 2012, 12:06 pm
By Guest Writer
A quiet revolution may be underway in India’s higher-education system. Making headlines are issues such as India’s need to build thousands of new universities and colleges, faculty and skills shortages, reforms to improve the quality of education, and legislation to permit the entry of Western universities.
What is not making big news is that female students now outnumber men at some elite Indian institutions and this change may even accelerate.
Full story: http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/is-indian-higher-education-experiencing-a-quiet-female-revolution/29911?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Vienna Medical School Will Weight Exam Scores in Favor of Women

July 6, 2012, 3:13 pm
Female applicants who on Friday took the competitive entrance examination for the Medical University of Vienna will benefit from an affirmative-action policy that, reports the Associated Press, is “apparently unique in Europe.”
Full Story:http://chronicle.com/blogs/global/vienna-medical-school-will-weight-exam-scores-in-favor-of-women/33755?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Diversity still a distant dream

9 July 2012 | By Sam Chadderton
The data is stark, the conclusions are damning and the message is clear – diversity is still a problem in the law.
A comprehensive survey of almost 2,000 law professionals has given rise to what its authors describe as a “wake-up call” for the industry.
Full story: http://www.thelawyer.com/diversity-still-a-distant-dream/1013331.article

Time for a new perspective on affirmative action

Kenneth J. Cooper
WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court prepares to hear yet another challenge to the consideration of race or ethnicity in college admissions, civil rights lawyers and educators are sharpening new arguments to defend affirmative action or defuse the issue.
Within the next year, the court will decide a federal lawsuit that contests the admission of 20 percent of University of Texas applicants through individual evaluations that consider race as one factor of eligibility. The other 80 percent of the flagship system’s students are admitted because they graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class.
Full Story: http://www.baystatebanner.com/natl15-2012-06-28

Q&A: Former Head of OFCCP Sheds Light on Reforms

Bloomberg BNA
by Lydell C. Bridgeford
Bloomberg BNA recently spoke with Shirley J. Wilcher, who oversaw the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs during the Clinton Administration, about the underlying factors that drive regulatory reforms to ensure federal contractors meet their affirmative action obligations.
From 1994 to 2001, Wilcher served as the deputy assistant secretary of the OFCCP. In 2009, the Obama Administration changed the title back to director while elevating the position to report to the Secretary of Labor.
Full Story: http://www.bna.com/qa-former-head-b12884910080/