Showing posts with label employment discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment discrimination. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2016

EEOC and ADP Enter into Settlement in Mutual Effort to Improve Employment Opportunities for Minorities in Illinois

CHICAGO - ADP, LLC, a leading payroll processing and human resource management outsourcing provider, has agreed to voluntarily resolve employment discrimination charges filed in Illinois with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today. As the result of successful conciliation efforts between the parties, ADP has agreed to pay nearly $1.4 million and to further enhance its recruitment, hiring and promotion of minorities at its Illinois-based operations. ADP has also agreed to periodically inform EEOC on its future efforts to expand employment opportunities for minority applicants and employees.

This agreement resolves charges filed with EEOC alleging that black and Hispanic individuals were discriminated against by ADP. The matter has now been resolved without any admission by ADP that it engaged in any violation.

Read more here.

Monday, February 29, 2016

EEOC To Give Employees Access to Employer Position Statements Upon Request

Squire Patton Boggs, Lexology

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced a change that will now provide discrimination claimants with their employers’ position statements.

Read the story here.

Related content:

Black Workers Really Do Need to Be Twice as Good

African American employees tend to receive more scrutiny from their bosses than their white colleagues, meaning that small mistakes are more likely to be caught, which over time leads to worse performance reviews and lower wages.

By Gillian B. White, The Atlantic

For decades, black parents have told their children that in order to succeed despite racial discrimination, they need to be “twice as good”: twice as smart, twice as dependable, twice as talented. This advice can be found in everything from literature to television shows, to day-to-day conversation. Now, a new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that when it comes to getting and keeping jobs, that notion might be more than just a platitude.

Read the story here.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Chicago Police to Pay $3.1 Million to Settle Hiring Bias Claim Brought by Department of Justice Based on Applicant Background Check Requirements

SmithAmundsen LLC, Lexology

Unless you’ve been avoiding the national news the last several months, you already know the Chicago Police Department (CPD) has been in the cross hairs of the Department of Justice for alleged civil rights violations. Just this past Friday, February 5, 2016, the Department made a new civil rights claim against the CPD based on employment discrimination. The court complaint filed on Friday in the Northern District of Illinois, entitled United States v. City of Chicago, No. 1:16-cv-01969 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 5, 2016), alleges discrimination based on national origin. It claims the CPD discriminated againstapplicants not born in the United States through its residency requirement. Specifically, the Complaint alleged that a total of 47 applicants, who were otherwise qualified, were denied employment by CPD because they hadn’t lived in the United States for the required residency period. It claims that all 47 applicants were entitled to back pay, interest on lost wages and compensatory damages and requested that the city change its hiring policies removing the residency requirement as a “pass/fail” screening device.

Read the story here.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Five Tips If You’re Planning To Fire A Pregnant Employee, Especially One With A Disability

FisherBroyles, Lexology

The EEOC has long declared in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) that issues “involving the intersection between the ADA and pregnancy-related limitations is one of [its] six national priorities.”

Read the story here.

Related content:

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Wal-Mart: Too Big to Discriminate?

the Root
The Supreme Court's decision struck a blow against class actions by rejecting the concept of modern workplace bias.
By: Sherrilyn A. Ifill Posted: June 22, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (pdf) -- the largest employment-discrimination suit ever filed in the United States -- reflects precisely the kind of overreach that makes so many of the decisions by the court's five-member conservative majority sweeping and regressive.
It's not as though experts expected that a majority of the justices would allow the case to proceed as a class action of 1.5 million women, challenging what they contend are the retail giant's discriminatory employment practices.

Full Story: http://www.theroot.com/views/wal-mart-case-too-big-discriminate

Monday, April 4, 2011

Myths and Stereotypes About Mental Disabilities Greatest Barrier to Employment

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission PRESS RELEASE 3-15-11 EEOC Hears Experts and Individuals with Mental Disabilities Detail Struggles to Gain Employment at Meeting WASHINGTON - The greatest barrier to employment for people with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities are employers’ myths and fears about their condition, not the disabilities themselves, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) learned at a hearing held today. The hearing focused on a group whose rate of unemployment and underemployment far exceeds the national average.“We want job seekers, workers, and employers to understand the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and be well equipped to comply with them,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “Today’s Commission meeting provided an important opportunity to dispel myths and learn about effective ways to dismantle barriers to employment for people with disabilities.” Sharon Lewis, Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, underscored the need to dismantle barriers for people with intellectual disabilities, noting that “the proportion of the population of people with disabilities who are employed is estimated to be 17 percent, compared to 63 percent for people without disabilities.”As Ruby Moore, Executive Director of the Georgia Advocacy Office, the designated Protection and Advocacy System for People with Disabilities in Georgia, told the Commission, “one of the biggest obstacles to employment is consciously and unconsciously-held beliefs about people with psychiatric, cognitive or intellectual disabilities.” She further testified that most of the accommodations individuals with mental disabilities require can be provided in a well-managed, flexible workplace often without any out-of-pocket costs to the employer. She stated that these flexibilities have the effect of aiding all employees, not just those with disabilities. Chief among the misapprehensions surrounding the employment of people with psychiatric disabilities is that they are violent. In fact, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Bond of the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center of Dartmouth Medical School, told the Commission, “violence is exceedingly rare among people with mental illness . . . [and] being employed significantly reduces the possibility of violence even further.”The employment rate for individuals with psychiatric disabilities is not only low compared to the general population, it is also half the employment rate for people with other sorts of disabilities. The lack of employment has a particular impact on individuals with psychiatric disabilities for whom work is “a crucial element in the recovery process,” according to Dr. Bond. Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U. S. Department of Justice echoed this point: “Work commands respect, and it represents agency, responsibility, and independence. Work is the place where people with and without disabilities can come together, share common projects, and break down barriers of stereotype and prejudice.” Donna Malone, a person with a psychiatric disability, related the beneficial effect of work: “I realized that working hard was a way that I could feel good about myself and no one could take it away.” After working successfully for a number of years at Land Air Express without incident, she was discharged while hospitalized due to her disability because her supervisor had a “gut feeling” that she was a “danger” and had to “look out for the safety of his other employees.” Following a lawsuit by the EEOC alleging failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the case was settled for $360,000.Similarly, Anupa Iyer, a law student at the University of Seattle and currently interning at the EEOC, said that “work was my salvation,” after being hospitalized for a psychiatric disability. However, at her places of employment, she endured ridicule and was stigmatized, experiences which motivated her to enroll in law school.Tenesha Abbott, who has an intellectual disability as well as learning disabilities, spoke of how her job at a local grocery store helps her “stay active and learn new things.” Through her work, she has improved her reading skills and is learning responsibility which she hopes will help her to live on her own. Her manager, Jack Eaton, related how pleased he was when employees with intellectual disabilities were able to move up to more complex jobs with greater responsibilities. He said that dealing with people’s individualized needs, as he does with employees with mental disabilities, makes him a better manager for all of his employees.“Our witnesses brought home the fact that people with mental disabilities can work, and want to work, just like everyone else. And it’s a win-win situation when employers figure out how to tap that work potential,” said EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum.The EEOC enforces the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC and the Americans with Disabilities Act can be found the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov. Information about this meeting, including witness statements and a video of the event, can be found at www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/3-15-11/index.cfm. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-15-11c.cfm

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Class action discrimination claims - some recent costly experiences for private and public sector employers

Lexology.com
Bond Schoeneck & King
Robert LaBerge
USA
September 9 2010

Several news stories over the past few weeks illustrate the potential expense and embarrassment public and private sector employers can experience from a class action employment discrimination lawsuit. In the private sector, class action discrimination claims have been pursued with increased frequency over the past five years. These lawsuits have proven to be costly for both large and smaller employers. For example, theRochester Democrat and Chronicle reported on August 10, 2009, that Elmer W. Davis Company, a commercial roofing contractor in Upstate New York, entered into a consent decree under which it agreed to pay $1,000,000 to resolve a class action race discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Msnbc.msn.com reports that the million dollar payout was the largest EEOC settlement ever in the Rochester area.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ce769cca-7cc9-4b4a-a901-413ff3edcd67&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Other+states+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2010-09-21&utm_term=

Friday, August 13, 2010

“Stray Remarks” Showing Discriminatory Attitudes in the Workplace Can Be Important Evidence of Employer Discrimination

Workplace Fairness Blog
Today's Workplace
August 12th, 2010 Patrick R. Kitchin

On August 5, 2010, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision concerning the type of evidence a worker can rely upon to prove an employer discriminated against him or her. The Court’s decision concerns the so-called “stray remarks doctrine.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor coined the term in a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, writing that “stray remarks” made by “non-decisionmaking coworkers or remarks made by decisionmaking supervisors outside of the decisional process” are insufficient evidence of an employer’s discriminatory attitude. Without additional evidence of discrimination, she wrote, a gender discrimination claim can be and should be dismissed by the court before trial.
In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) 490 U.S. 228, the worker presented evidence that a partner of the firm told her to “walk more femininely,” “talk more femininely,” “dress more femininely,” “wear make-up,” “have her hair styled,” and “wear jewelry” to improve her chances for partnership. Justice O’Connor concluded that though such “stray remarks” might constitute evidence of a discriminatory attitude in the workplace, they are not sufficient evidence of discrimination on their own. When combined with more direct kinds of evidence of discrimination, however, stray remarks evidence can tend to support a discrimination claim.
Since 1989, some federal courts have expanded the stay remarks doctrine substantially.

Full Story: http://www.todaysworkplace.org/2010/08/12/%E2%80%9Cstay-remarks%E2%80%9D-showing-discriminatory-attitudes-in-the-workplace-can-be-important-evidence-of-employer-discrimination/

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

House Leader Outlines Plans for Gay Rights Legislation

Congressional Quarterly
CQ POLITICS NEWS April 13, 2010 – 1:34 p.m.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer signaled Tuesday that the House is likely to consider legislation this year banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, saying the proposal is not as controversial as it once was.
Hoyer said most lawmakers already are on the record on the issue because the House passed similar legislation in 2007 to bar employment discrimination based on sexual preference. “So it’s not like this is a new issue for the members,” said Hoyer, D-Md.
He also did not rule out action this year on legislation to repeal the military’s 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — another priority for gay rights groups. But he said legislative action would await recommendation from the Pentagon, noting that both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said that they support ending the policy.

Full Story: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003639394

Monday, March 1, 2010

Court Considers Time Limits on Employment Discrimination Suits

Workforce Management
February 23, 2010

Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic to an argument that an employer can be sued for racial discrimination each time it bases hiring decisions on the results of a flawed employment test, during a Monday, February 22, oral argument.
In the case before the court, a group of 6,000 African-American applicants for entry-level firefighter positions filed a suit against the city of Chicago regarding an exam that excluded the vast majority of them from consideration.
In January 1996, the city sent a letter to everyone who participated in the evaluations, saying that only those in the “well qualified” category would be hired. Those who were deemed “qualified” or lower would not get a job offer because so many people scored higher on the exam.
Only 11.5 percent of the African Americans were in the “well qualified” category, even though they represented 37 percent of the test takers. They filed suit on March 31, 1997, or 430 days after the city announced the results.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/27/01/98.php

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

‘Tomboyish’ Hotel Clerk Can Challenge Firing Under Title VII

Workforce Management
January 26, 2010

A front desk hotel clerk fired allegedly because of her “tomboyish” appearance can pursue employment discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer, a federal appeals court has ruled.
According to the January 21 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Brenna Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, Lewis was promoted from nights to days at a hotel operated by Waterloo, Iowa-based Heartland Inns in December 2006.
The hotel’s director of operations first saw her after her promotion and said Lewis lacked the “Midwestern girl look,” according to court records.
“Lewis prefers to wear loose-fitting clothing, including men’s button-down shirts and slacks,” the appeals court said in its ruling. “She avoids makeup and wore her hair short at the time. Lewis has been mistaken for a male and referred to as ‘tomboyish.’ ”
At a January 2007 meeting, Heartland Inn director of operations Barbara Cullinan told Lewis she would need a second interview to confirm her new post. Lewis protested that other staff members were not required to have a second interview for the job and was fired three days later. She then filed suit, charging sex discrimination and retaliation.
A district court granted summary judgment in Heartland Inn’s favor, but a panel of the appeals court overturned the lower court in a 2-1 ruling.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/26/96/74.php

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Ex-Foley & Lardner associate may sue firm for alleged discrimination

The National Law Journal
Lynne Marek / Staff reporter
December 16, 2008

CHICAGO — Zafar Hasan, a former associate in Foley & Lardner's Chicago office, can proceed with an employment discrimination suit against the law firm, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling today that overturned a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Hasan, who is a Muslim of Indian descent, alleges in the 2004 lawsuit that certain partners at the law firm pushed to fire him on the basis of his race, religion, color and national origin after the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in New York. The firm first justified Hasan's dismissal by saying his performance was poor, but later, after positive work evaluations turned up, said that the firm didn't have enough work to keep him busy, according to a recap of the lawsuit in the 7th Circuit decision. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the law firm, saying that Hasan hadn't created a "convincing mosaic" of evidence of the discrimination that could permit a jury to agree that Foley had intentionally discriminated against Hasan, but the appellate court disagreed and said there was sufficient evidence. Hasan had been an associate in the business law department until he was asked in December 2002 to leave within six months because of "deficiencies in his performance." "That 'mosaic' of evidence, together with the unresolved questions of fact, is sufficient under the direct method of proof for Mr. Hasan to survive summary judgment on his discrimination claims," the Dec. 15 7th Circuit decision said.

Full Story: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202426780856