Benzinga.com
Posted on 12/03/10 at 3:52pm by Benzinga Staff
MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Nash Finch Company (NASDAQ: NAFC), has been notified that the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) filed an administrative complaint against the Company challenging the hiring of order selectors at the Lumberton, NC Distribution Center between April and December 2006. OFCCP's claims arise not from any complaint of discrimination from anyone seeking a job with Nash Finch but as the result of OFCCP's investigation into hiring practices at the Lumberton Distribution Center during a routine compliance review.
“We were disappointed to see that OFCCP issued a press release which in our view inaccurately portrays the hiring practices of Nash Finch Company.
Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/press-releases/10/12/b667391/nash-finch-denies-gender-bias-in-hiring-and-remains-committed-to-equal-#ixzz17L6OUWkx
Monday, December 6, 2010
Scrub, Inc. To Pay $3 Million To Settle EEOC Racial Discrimination Suit
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
11-9-10
Chicago Janitorial Services Company Failed to Recruit and Hire African Americans, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this morning that a federal magistrate judge in Chicago has today entered a $3 million consent decree ending litigation by the EEOC against a janitorial services company, Scrub, Inc. of Chicago.
The EEOC’s lawsuit, which was filed June 19, 2009, charged that Scrub had failed to recruit African-American applicants and failed to hire black applicants for entry-level janitorial positions. Scrub is a privately held company which holds contracts to provide janitorial services at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.
The EEOC brought its lawsuit after its administrative investigation revealed that substantial numbers of African-Americans were applying to Scrub, but being denied the opportunity to work because of racial discrimination. The investigation revealed that Scrub relied on a subjective decision-making process without clear objective criteria for hiring employees.
In addition to providing for the distribution of $3 million in monetary relief to victims of discrimination, the consent decree requires significant injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating in the future and mandates the hiring of certain claimants who still want jobs at Scrub. The EEOC said that approximately 550 African-American applicants may receive relief under the decree.
“Stopping race discrimination in hiring is one of the basic objectives the EEOC was created to address 45 years ago,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Unfortunately, there is a continuing need for law enforcement work in this area. The consent decree in Scrub makes a very important contribution to that work, by providing job opportunities to qualified applicants who were denied them in the past, and requiring that the company take steps to reform its hiring practices in the future.”
John Rowe, director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, said, “We are pleased that this case was able to be resolved with Scrub. The consent decree will ensure that the federal laws against discrimination are followed and that all future applicants, regardless of their race or national origin, will be given the consideration that they deserve.”
The decree has additional measures to prevent discrimination including that Scrub revise its hiring policy, use its best efforts to reach certain hiring goals of African-Americans, train its human resource staff on the law prohibiting race discrimination, and hire an outside monitor to review its compliance with the decree. Scrub is also required to increase its recruitment efforts in the African-American community.
John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the Chicago District Office, said, “The EEOC continues to vigorously protect the rights of the American worker to be free from discrimination. These rights extend to applicants for open positions. Especially in these tough economic times, companies must ensure that applicants are considered based on their merit and not their race or national origin.”
The consent decree was entered this morning by Magistrate Judge Susan Cox of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., N.D. Illinois No 09-Cv-4228, was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the agency exhausted its efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matter with the company.
In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC is represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and Trial Attorneys Laurie Elkin, Ann Henry and Brandi Davis. 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/11-9-10c.cfm
PRESS RELEASE
11-9-10
Chicago Janitorial Services Company Failed to Recruit and Hire African Americans, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this morning that a federal magistrate judge in Chicago has today entered a $3 million consent decree ending litigation by the EEOC against a janitorial services company, Scrub, Inc. of Chicago.
The EEOC’s lawsuit, which was filed June 19, 2009, charged that Scrub had failed to recruit African-American applicants and failed to hire black applicants for entry-level janitorial positions. Scrub is a privately held company which holds contracts to provide janitorial services at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.
The EEOC brought its lawsuit after its administrative investigation revealed that substantial numbers of African-Americans were applying to Scrub, but being denied the opportunity to work because of racial discrimination. The investigation revealed that Scrub relied on a subjective decision-making process without clear objective criteria for hiring employees.
In addition to providing for the distribution of $3 million in monetary relief to victims of discrimination, the consent decree requires significant injunctive relief. The decree prohibits the company from discriminating in the future and mandates the hiring of certain claimants who still want jobs at Scrub. The EEOC said that approximately 550 African-American applicants may receive relief under the decree.
“Stopping race discrimination in hiring is one of the basic objectives the EEOC was created to address 45 years ago,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Unfortunately, there is a continuing need for law enforcement work in this area. The consent decree in Scrub makes a very important contribution to that work, by providing job opportunities to qualified applicants who were denied them in the past, and requiring that the company take steps to reform its hiring practices in the future.”
John Rowe, director of the EEOC Chicago District Office, said, “We are pleased that this case was able to be resolved with Scrub. The consent decree will ensure that the federal laws against discrimination are followed and that all future applicants, regardless of their race or national origin, will be given the consideration that they deserve.”
The decree has additional measures to prevent discrimination including that Scrub revise its hiring policy, use its best efforts to reach certain hiring goals of African-Americans, train its human resource staff on the law prohibiting race discrimination, and hire an outside monitor to review its compliance with the decree. Scrub is also required to increase its recruitment efforts in the African-American community.
John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the Chicago District Office, said, “The EEOC continues to vigorously protect the rights of the American worker to be free from discrimination. These rights extend to applicants for open positions. Especially in these tough economic times, companies must ensure that applicants are considered based on their merit and not their race or national origin.”
The consent decree was entered this morning by Magistrate Judge Susan Cox of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. The EEOC’s lawsuit, EEOC v. Scrub, Inc., N.D. Illinois No 09-Cv-4228, was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the agency exhausted its efforts to voluntarily conciliate the matter with the company.
In addition to Hendrickson, EEOC is represented by Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and Trial Attorneys Laurie Elkin, Ann Henry and Brandi Davis. 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/11-9-10c.cfm
Akal Security Pays $1.62 Million To Settle EEOC Class Pregnancy Discrimination Claims
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 12-1-10
Federal Security Contractor Forced Pregnant Women From Their Jobs, Agency Charged
KANSAS CITY – Akal Security, Inc., the largest provider of contract security services to the federal government, will pay $1.62 million to a class of 26 female security guards, settling a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC, in 2004 New Mexico-based Akal began a nationwide pattern and practice of forcing its pregnant employees, working as contract security guards on U.S. Army bases, to take leave and discharging them because of pregnancy. The women worked at Fort Riley, Hood, Stewart, Campbell, Lewis, Anniston, Sunny Point and Blue Grass Army Depot. Akal also subjected the women to less favorable terms and conditions of employment because of pregnancy, including preventing them from completing their annual physical agility and firearms tests or forcing them to take such tests before their certifications had expired. Akal also retaliated against an employee who complained about the discrimination by filing baseless criminal charges against her, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC filed suit against Akal in 2008 in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ( U.S. EEOC v. Akal Security, Inc., Case No. 08-1274-JTM-KMH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Eleven of the class members were also individually represented by Forrest Rhodes and Don Berner of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, Wichita, Kan. According to its website, www.akalsecurity.com, Akal is one of the largest contract security companies in the United States and operates in 40 states and 20 countries.
“This is a very important settlement that will help protect an entire class of women from discrimination on account of pregnancy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This agreement reinforces the EEOC’s commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place.”
In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires Akal to:
Report to the EEOC about any employees who are required to take a leave of absence while pregnant, are terminated while pregnant, or make a complaint of pregnancy discrimination;
Report to the EEOC about any physical agility test it intends to implement to screen or requalify employees and whether pregnant employees are permitted to take the test;
Issue a message from its CEO to all employees along with a well-defined, comprehensive anti-discrimination policy; and
Provide annual compliance training to managers and supervisors on the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
“Akal operated its business without regard to federal law,” said Barbara Seely, regional
attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Kansas. “Employees who become pregnant and can continue to perform their jobs should not be pushed out of traditionally male jobs just because they don’t fit the employer’s image. We are confident Akal now understands the price of allowing this type of illegal stereotyping to drive employment decisions, and that it will ensure pregnant employees are treated fairly going forward.”
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/12-1-10.cfm
PRESS RELEASE 12-1-10
Federal Security Contractor Forced Pregnant Women From Their Jobs, Agency Charged
KANSAS CITY – Akal Security, Inc., the largest provider of contract security services to the federal government, will pay $1.62 million to a class of 26 female security guards, settling a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC, in 2004 New Mexico-based Akal began a nationwide pattern and practice of forcing its pregnant employees, working as contract security guards on U.S. Army bases, to take leave and discharging them because of pregnancy. The women worked at Fort Riley, Hood, Stewart, Campbell, Lewis, Anniston, Sunny Point and Blue Grass Army Depot. Akal also subjected the women to less favorable terms and conditions of employment because of pregnancy, including preventing them from completing their annual physical agility and firearms tests or forcing them to take such tests before their certifications had expired. Akal also retaliated against an employee who complained about the discrimination by filing baseless criminal charges against her, the EEOC said.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC filed suit against Akal in 2008 in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ( U.S. EEOC v. Akal Security, Inc., Case No. 08-1274-JTM-KMH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Eleven of the class members were also individually represented by Forrest Rhodes and Don Berner of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, Wichita, Kan. According to its website, www.akalsecurity.com, Akal is one of the largest contract security companies in the United States and operates in 40 states and 20 countries.
“This is a very important settlement that will help protect an entire class of women from discrimination on account of pregnancy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This agreement reinforces the EEOC’s commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place.”
In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires Akal to:
Report to the EEOC about any employees who are required to take a leave of absence while pregnant, are terminated while pregnant, or make a complaint of pregnancy discrimination;
Report to the EEOC about any physical agility test it intends to implement to screen or requalify employees and whether pregnant employees are permitted to take the test;
Issue a message from its CEO to all employees along with a well-defined, comprehensive anti-discrimination policy; and
Provide annual compliance training to managers and supervisors on the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
“Akal operated its business without regard to federal law,” said Barbara Seely, regional
attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Kansas. “Employees who become pregnant and can continue to perform their jobs should not be pushed out of traditionally male jobs just because they don’t fit the employer’s image. We are confident Akal now understands the price of allowing this type of illegal stereotyping to drive employment decisions, and that it will ensure pregnant employees are treated fairly going forward.”
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/12-1-10.cfm
Disabilities Protections Expanded
Workforce Management
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Workforce Management, November 2010, p. 11
Because of the ADA Amendments Act's more expansive definition of a 'disability,' employers should be aware that workers with cancer or other diseases that are inactive or in remission may still be considered disabled, in which case reasonable accommodations must be considered.
Sam Hoffman, a service technician for Advanced Healthcare, was diagnosed with stage 3 renal cancer and had his left kidney removed.
More than a year later, Advanced Healthcare told all of its service technicians, including Hoffman, they would have to start working 65 to 70 hours a week, instead of the previous 40 hours.
Although his cancer was in remission, Hoffman gave the company a doctor’s note limiting him to a 40-hour schedule. Advanced Healthcare agreed to a 40-hour schedule but told him he would have to work out of the company’s Fort Wayne, Indiana, office rather than his Angola, Indiana, home. Hoffman, citing two to three hours of commute time that would be added to his day, refused and never returned to work.
Hoffman sued the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, claiming the company failed to accommodate his disability and fired him because he was disabled or regarded as disabled.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/disabilities-protections-expanded/index.php
By James E. Hall, Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis
Workforce Management, November 2010, p. 11
Because of the ADA Amendments Act's more expansive definition of a 'disability,' employers should be aware that workers with cancer or other diseases that are inactive or in remission may still be considered disabled, in which case reasonable accommodations must be considered.
Sam Hoffman, a service technician for Advanced Healthcare, was diagnosed with stage 3 renal cancer and had his left kidney removed.
More than a year later, Advanced Healthcare told all of its service technicians, including Hoffman, they would have to start working 65 to 70 hours a week, instead of the previous 40 hours.
Although his cancer was in remission, Hoffman gave the company a doctor’s note limiting him to a 40-hour schedule. Advanced Healthcare agreed to a 40-hour schedule but told him he would have to work out of the company’s Fort Wayne, Indiana, office rather than his Angola, Indiana, home. Hoffman, citing two to three hours of commute time that would be added to his day, refused and never returned to work.
Hoffman sued the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, claiming the company failed to accommodate his disability and fired him because he was disabled or regarded as disabled.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/disabilities-protections-expanded/index.php
Cutting the Gordian Knot: Requirements for Electronic I-9 Storage
Workforce Management
By Eileen M.G. Scofield and Kyle R. Woods
July 2010
Commentary: Public Law 108-390 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow electronic signature and electronic storage of I-9 forms, but the regulations implementing it have created a web of confusion.
In 2004, Congress passed Public Law 108-390, a short piece of legislation—less than half a page in length—amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow electronic signature and electronic storage of I-9 forms, which employers use to verify an employee’s identity and to establish that the worker is eligible to accept employment. At the time, the amendment was viewed as a progressive step toward taking advantage of modern technology and processes. Many believed it would simplify the I-9 verification process.
Unfortunately, while Congress opted for brevity and simplicity in the amendment, the regulatory agencies opted for complexity, issuing regulations to implement the statute that are lengthy, cumbersome, difficult to understand and at times contradictory. To complicate matters even further, auditors are also unfamiliar with the regulations and may demand documents that the employer is not strictly required to store or produce.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/cutting-gordian-knot-requirements-electronic-i-9/index.php
By Eileen M.G. Scofield and Kyle R. Woods
July 2010
Commentary: Public Law 108-390 amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow electronic signature and electronic storage of I-9 forms, but the regulations implementing it have created a web of confusion.
In 2004, Congress passed Public Law 108-390, a short piece of legislation—less than half a page in length—amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow electronic signature and electronic storage of I-9 forms, which employers use to verify an employee’s identity and to establish that the worker is eligible to accept employment. At the time, the amendment was viewed as a progressive step toward taking advantage of modern technology and processes. Many believed it would simplify the I-9 verification process.
Unfortunately, while Congress opted for brevity and simplicity in the amendment, the regulatory agencies opted for complexity, issuing regulations to implement the statute that are lengthy, cumbersome, difficult to understand and at times contradictory. To complicate matters even further, auditors are also unfamiliar with the regulations and may demand documents that the employer is not strictly required to store or produce.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/cutting-gordian-knot-requirements-electronic-i-9/index.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)