Washington Post Sports
By Associated Press, Published: April 13
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — The former mistress of Bobby Petrino was hired over 158 other applicants after a fast-tracked interview process that athletic director Jeff Long requested at the behest of the now-fired coach, according to a review of university personnel documents by The Associated Press.
Jessica Dorrell submitted a single-page resume expressing her interest in becoming the football program’s student-athlete development coordinator job. She was among three finalists interviewed and was hired by Petrino in late March at a salary of nearly $56,000.
Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/arkansas-hired-petrinos-mistress-under-fast-track-requested-by-athletic-director-petrino/2012/04/13/gIQAFhg2FT_story.html
Showing posts with label waiver. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waiver. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
EEOC Retaliation Case Against Cognis to Proceed, Federal Judge Orders
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
12-16-11
Chemical Company Unlawfully Forced Hires to Waive Charge Rights, Federal Agency Charged
URBANA, Ill. – Chief U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey of the Central District of Illinois issued an opinion on Dec. 12, denying the motion by chemical company Cognis Corporation for summary judgment in a retaliation case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC v. Cognis Corp., 10-CV-2182, C.D. Ill.).
In its lawsuit filed Aug. 18, 2010, the EEOC charged that Germany-based Cognis retaliated against a longtime employee, Steven Whitlow, at its Kankakee, Ill., facility, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a condition of his continued employment, Cognis required Whitlow to sign a “last-chance agreement” (LCA) that prohibited Whitlow from filing a charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC – even based on conduct that had yet to occur. Thus, Cognis essentially conditioned Whitlow’s employment on Whitlow’s agreement to give up his right to make any federal complaint of employment discrimination. When Whitlow refused to be bound by that agreement, the company fired him, the EEOC said.
The EEOC’s lawsuit also alleges that a class of employees who signed similar last-chance agreements was retaliated against because Cognis forced those employees to make a choice between termination and signing LCAs that stripped employees of their right to file charges and seek relief for future discriminatory conduct -- or at least deterred them from doing so.
On Aug. 29, Cognis filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it was entitled to immediate judgment in its favor without trial because, it contended, there were no disputed issues of fact, and that Whitlow and the class of employees for whom EEOC sought relief were not entitled to damages. But according to the court’s opinion, “there is no question” that EEOC presented sufficient direct evidence that Cognis terminated Whitlow because he revoked the LCA, which precluded the court from granting summary judgment in Cognis’s favor as to Whitlow. (Opinion, No. 10-CV-2182, C.D. Ill., J. McCuskey, entered 12/12/2011.) As for the EEOC class members, the court held that “there is sufficient legal support for this court to reach the conclusion that Cognis’s threat of retaliation contained in the LCAs constitutes a retaliatory policy under Title VII.” (Id.)
In addition to denying Cognis’s motion for summary judgment, the court invited the EEOC to move for summary judgment on the issue of whether Cognis retaliated against Whitlow and the class members who signed LCAs. The court granted the EEOC leave to file such a motion until January 6, 2012.
“All employees have the right to file charges with the EEOC,” said EEOC’s Chicago District Director John Rowe. “Employers cannot attempt to create two unequal classes of employees, with one group covered by civil rights laws and the other left without the protections those rights provide.”
The EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, added, “Mr. Whitlow was a savvy employee who came forward to protect himself. It’s not just any employee who will quit his job in order to protect himself – and that’s what employers like Cognis are banking on. But employers doing business in the United States should take heed. Duping your employees into believing their rights are waived is a risky and illegal proposition, and the EEOC is on the lookout for cases like this where employees are most vulnerable to employer excess.”
The EEOC’s litigation team is led by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory M. Gochanour and trial attorneys Deborah Hamilton and Brad Fiorito of the Chicago District Office.
Cognis was acquired by BASF, a multinational chemical company, in December 2010. According to company information, BASF Corporation, headquartered in Florham Park, N.J., is the North American affiliate of BASF SE, based in Ludwigshafen, Germany. BASF has approximately 16,400 employees in North America, and had sales of $17.7 billion in 2010. Cognis maintains facilities in at least 30 countries worldwide, employing approximately 5,500 people. Cognis has its U.S. headquarters in Cincinnati.
EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, 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. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-16-11a.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
12-16-11
Chemical Company Unlawfully Forced Hires to Waive Charge Rights, Federal Agency Charged
URBANA, Ill. – Chief U.S. District Judge Michael P. McCuskey of the Central District of Illinois issued an opinion on Dec. 12, denying the motion by chemical company Cognis Corporation for summary judgment in a retaliation case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC v. Cognis Corp., 10-CV-2182, C.D. Ill.).
In its lawsuit filed Aug. 18, 2010, the EEOC charged that Germany-based Cognis retaliated against a longtime employee, Steven Whitlow, at its Kankakee, Ill., facility, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a condition of his continued employment, Cognis required Whitlow to sign a “last-chance agreement” (LCA) that prohibited Whitlow from filing a charge of employment discrimination with the EEOC – even based on conduct that had yet to occur. Thus, Cognis essentially conditioned Whitlow’s employment on Whitlow’s agreement to give up his right to make any federal complaint of employment discrimination. When Whitlow refused to be bound by that agreement, the company fired him, the EEOC said.
The EEOC’s lawsuit also alleges that a class of employees who signed similar last-chance agreements was retaliated against because Cognis forced those employees to make a choice between termination and signing LCAs that stripped employees of their right to file charges and seek relief for future discriminatory conduct -- or at least deterred them from doing so.
On Aug. 29, Cognis filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it was entitled to immediate judgment in its favor without trial because, it contended, there were no disputed issues of fact, and that Whitlow and the class of employees for whom EEOC sought relief were not entitled to damages. But according to the court’s opinion, “there is no question” that EEOC presented sufficient direct evidence that Cognis terminated Whitlow because he revoked the LCA, which precluded the court from granting summary judgment in Cognis’s favor as to Whitlow. (Opinion, No. 10-CV-2182, C.D. Ill., J. McCuskey, entered 12/12/2011.) As for the EEOC class members, the court held that “there is sufficient legal support for this court to reach the conclusion that Cognis’s threat of retaliation contained in the LCAs constitutes a retaliatory policy under Title VII.” (Id.)
In addition to denying Cognis’s motion for summary judgment, the court invited the EEOC to move for summary judgment on the issue of whether Cognis retaliated against Whitlow and the class members who signed LCAs. The court granted the EEOC leave to file such a motion until January 6, 2012.
“All employees have the right to file charges with the EEOC,” said EEOC’s Chicago District Director John Rowe. “Employers cannot attempt to create two unequal classes of employees, with one group covered by civil rights laws and the other left without the protections those rights provide.”
The EEOC’s regional attorney in Chicago, John Hendrickson, added, “Mr. Whitlow was a savvy employee who came forward to protect himself. It’s not just any employee who will quit his job in order to protect himself – and that’s what employers like Cognis are banking on. But employers doing business in the United States should take heed. Duping your employees into believing their rights are waived is a risky and illegal proposition, and the EEOC is on the lookout for cases like this where employees are most vulnerable to employer excess.”
The EEOC’s litigation team is led by Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory M. Gochanour and trial attorneys Deborah Hamilton and Brad Fiorito of the Chicago District Office.
Cognis was acquired by BASF, a multinational chemical company, in December 2010. According to company information, BASF Corporation, headquartered in Florham Park, N.J., is the North American affiliate of BASF SE, based in Ludwigshafen, Germany. BASF has approximately 16,400 employees in North America, and had sales of $17.7 billion in 2010. Cognis maintains facilities in at least 30 countries worldwide, employing approximately 5,500 people. Cognis has its U.S. headquarters in Cincinnati.
EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, 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. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-16-11a.cfm
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
What You Need to Know About Lawful Waivers of Age Discrimination Claims
Workforce Week
By Bradley T. Adler
March 2009
To have a valid release of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employers must comply with several technical requirements. Courts consistently have stated that these requirements are ‘strict and unqualified,’ and if an employer fails to meet any of the statutory requirements, the waiver is ‘ineffective as a matter of law.’ Here is an outline of what companies must do to comply.
In today’s difficult economic times, many employers are carefully assessing their operational structures, particularly the efficiency and expense of their workforce. When revenues are down and expenses remain the same or go up, something has to change. That something has typically has been a dramatic reduction in the workforce.
However, many employers are surprised to learn that layoffs can result in significant legal claims by affected employees. A reduction in force is a situation that often serves as the basis for discrimination claims—particularly involving age discrimination—even though the cause of the reductions may be a loss of business, a merger or a consolidation of business operations.
When terminating an employee because of a reduction in force, many employers offer severance packages to employees to obtain a waiver of claims. In short, as a part of the layoff, the employer offers an employee some benefit—typically compensation—that the employee otherwise is not entitled to receive. In exchange, the employee is asked to sign a release agreement that waives any claims against the company arising out of his or her employment.
Typically there are no specific requirements for such waivers of federal claims. But there is one major exception: claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. To have a valid release of claims under the act, employers must comply with several technical requirements. Courts consistently have stated that these requirements are "strict and unqualified," and if an employer fails to meet any of the statutory requirements, the waiver is "ineffective as a matter of law." The technical requirements are:
1. A written and understandable agreement: The waiver must be part of a written agreement between the individual and the employer that is written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate.
2. Reference to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: The waiver specifically refers to rights or claims arising under the act.
3. Prohibition against releasing future rights or claims: The agreement reflects that the individual is not waiving rights or claims for actions that occur after the date the waiver is executed.
4. Consideration required: The individual waives rights or claims only in exchange for consideration, in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled.
5. Attorney consultation: The individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement.
6. Consideration period: In instances of single-employee terminations, the individual must be given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement. In instances where a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the individual must be given a period of at least 45 days within which to consider the agreement. In this case, "program" is defined to include voluntary and involuntary terminations affecting two or more employees.
7. Revocation period: The agreement provides that, for a period of at least seven days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the renovation period has expired.
With respect to the specified time periods, employers should be aware that, if the waiver is sought as a part of a settlement for a claim of age discrimination that has been filed with a court or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the employee is not entitled to either the 21-day consideration or the seven-day revocation period. Also, even when such time limits are applicable, an employee may sign a release prior to the end of the 21-day (or 45-day) time period, although the seven-day revocation period cannot be shortened by the parties.
Full Article: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/21/52/index.php
By Bradley T. Adler
March 2009
To have a valid release of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employers must comply with several technical requirements. Courts consistently have stated that these requirements are ‘strict and unqualified,’ and if an employer fails to meet any of the statutory requirements, the waiver is ‘ineffective as a matter of law.’ Here is an outline of what companies must do to comply.
In today’s difficult economic times, many employers are carefully assessing their operational structures, particularly the efficiency and expense of their workforce. When revenues are down and expenses remain the same or go up, something has to change. That something has typically has been a dramatic reduction in the workforce.
However, many employers are surprised to learn that layoffs can result in significant legal claims by affected employees. A reduction in force is a situation that often serves as the basis for discrimination claims—particularly involving age discrimination—even though the cause of the reductions may be a loss of business, a merger or a consolidation of business operations.
When terminating an employee because of a reduction in force, many employers offer severance packages to employees to obtain a waiver of claims. In short, as a part of the layoff, the employer offers an employee some benefit—typically compensation—that the employee otherwise is not entitled to receive. In exchange, the employee is asked to sign a release agreement that waives any claims against the company arising out of his or her employment.
Typically there are no specific requirements for such waivers of federal claims. But there is one major exception: claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. To have a valid release of claims under the act, employers must comply with several technical requirements. Courts consistently have stated that these requirements are "strict and unqualified," and if an employer fails to meet any of the statutory requirements, the waiver is "ineffective as a matter of law." The technical requirements are:
1. A written and understandable agreement: The waiver must be part of a written agreement between the individual and the employer that is written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate.
2. Reference to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: The waiver specifically refers to rights or claims arising under the act.
3. Prohibition against releasing future rights or claims: The agreement reflects that the individual is not waiving rights or claims for actions that occur after the date the waiver is executed.
4. Consideration required: The individual waives rights or claims only in exchange for consideration, in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled.
5. Attorney consultation: The individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement.
6. Consideration period: In instances of single-employee terminations, the individual must be given a period of at least 21 days within which to consider the agreement. In instances where a waiver is requested in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program offered to a group or class of employees, the individual must be given a period of at least 45 days within which to consider the agreement. In this case, "program" is defined to include voluntary and involuntary terminations affecting two or more employees.
7. Revocation period: The agreement provides that, for a period of at least seven days following the execution of such agreement, the individual may revoke the agreement and the agreement shall not become effective or enforceable until the renovation period has expired.
With respect to the specified time periods, employers should be aware that, if the waiver is sought as a part of a settlement for a claim of age discrimination that has been filed with a court or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the employee is not entitled to either the 21-day consideration or the seven-day revocation period. Also, even when such time limits are applicable, an employee may sign a release prior to the end of the 21-day (or 45-day) time period, although the seven-day revocation period cannot be shortened by the parties.
Full Article: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/21/52/index.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)