Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2015

Opposition to Safe Campus Act Continues

Insider Higher Ed

UPDATE: The North-American Interfraternity Conference and the National Panhellenic Conference withdrew their support of the Safe Campus Act on Friday. Both groups said in statements that they will continue to support the Fair Campus Act, which includes many of the same provisions, but would not require students to report an assault to police before allowing a campus investigation.

Read the story here.

Related content:

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

California's racial profiling law is 'terrible' legislation, police officials say

By Kim Christensen and Matt Hamilton, Los Angeles Times

California is about to tackle head on the charged issue of racial bias in law enforcement.

Gov. Jerry Brown this weekend signed legislation mandating that California law enforcement agencies collect — and make public — data on the racial makeup of all those encountered by police.

For civil rights activists, Brown's action was a big step toward protecting minorities from racial profiling.

For many in law enforcement, the measure creates a massive new bureaucratic headache that will do little to illuminate the question of whether police treat minority groups fairly.

Read the story here.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Senators propose amendments to ADEA

Lexology
Stoel Rives LLP
Todd A. Hanchett
USA
April 3 2012

On March 12, several senators introduced Senate Bill 2189, known as the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which would overturn a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc, that had made it more difficult for older workers to prove claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Under the new bill, it would be much easier for employees to prove age discrimination in many cases.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2414122f-8773-46b2-a438-1831c2e180fb&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-04-10&utm_term=

Monday, April 2, 2012

Employers requesting Facebook access may face federal consequences

Lexology
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Peter N. Hall
USA
March 26 2012

Add the United States Senate to the growing list of legislative bodies considering new laws that would ban employers from requiring job applicants to turn over their Facebook usernames and passwords as part of the background investigation process. As the number of stories of applicants rejected or employees being “Facebook-fired” has grown, savvy social media users have adapted by increasing their privacy settings to the point where approximately 3 out of 4 Facebook pages hide information from public view.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=78fc5614-3a47-4683-8195-5343e46acce9&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-03-30&utm_term=

Monday, January 9, 2012

House and Senate overrule OFCCP on TRICARE subcontractors

Lexology.com
Littler Mendelson PC
Robert Wolff
USA

December 21 2011

TRICARE is the federal government’s healthcare program for active duty and retired military members and their families. For many years, healthcare systems reasonably assumed that their subcontracts to provide services or benefits to federal employees under TRICARE would not invoke the jurisdiction of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and thus would not mandate federal equal employment and affirmative action obligations. This assumption seemed particularly rational where the subcontract expressly provided that the healthcare system was not a federal contractor. In addition, the OFCCP's own March 2003 directive stated that healthcare providers that have a relationship with participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) are not covered under OFCCP's programs based solely on that relationship and thus are not subject to OFCCP’s federal contractor requirements.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c873e34b-449f-4219-8863-e06f80c2e722&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-01-05&utm_term=

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

NH law bans preferential treatment

boston.com
December 31, 2011

Preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, promotion or admission by New Hampshire agencies, colleges or universities is prohibited under a new law taking effect Sunday.

Supporters argued that affirmative action policies hurt the people they try to help by putting less-qualified people in jobs they cannot do, thus setting them up to fail.

Full Story: http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-31/news/30577261_1_preferential-treatment-new-law-affirmative-action-policies

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Monday, November 7, 2011

Affirmative action legislation sees halt

The Badger Herald (Wisconsin)
By Pam SelmanThursday, November 3, 2011 12:12 a.m.
Updated Thursday, November 3, 2011 2:28:31 a.m.

Democrats in the state Assembly managed to temporarily stall a vote on a controversial surprise amendment on affirmative action brought into Tuesday night’s floor meeting, which flowed into the early hours of Wednesday morning.
The original bill provides grants to students who are in poverty and are non-traditional. For a student to qualify as non-traditional, he or she must either be in prison, a first generation college attendee or black, Indian, Hispanic or Hmong.
The amendment, introduced by Rep. Peggy Krusick, D-Milwaukee, proposes eliminating race as a factor in college grant applications that consider minority status as a qualification.

Full Story: http://badgerherald.com/news/2011/11/03/affirmative_action_l.php

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Following the lead of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate proposes to prohibit discrimination based on unemployment status

Lexology.com
Proskauer Rose llp
Lawrence R Sandak, Marvin M Goldstein, John P Barry, Steven Yarusinsky and Daniel L. Saperstein
USA
August 9 2011

On August 2, 2011, the U.S. Senate proposed S. 1471 to complement the recently proposed bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2501 (collectively, “the proposed Acts”). Otherwise known as the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011, the proposed Acts are nearly identical in providing expansive rights and broad protections to the unemployed, including whistleblower/retaliation provisions and generous remedies. To understand the full scope of these expansive rights and protections, this alert discusses who is subject to and affected by the proposed Acts, as well as the unlawful practices, enforcement mechanisms and remedial schemes detailed therein.
Coverage
The coverage of the proposed Acts is quite expansive, as covered employers are defined as anyone engaging in commerce (or any industry or activity affecting commerce) with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8db5415c-e012-41fe-8330-a69f7199222e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-08-15&utm_term=

Monday, July 25, 2011

Bill introduced in congress to forbid discrimination in hiring the unemployed

Lexology.com
Fox Rothschild LLP Richard B. Cohen USA
July 14 2011

In our blog entry of February 22, 2011, we noted that under the anti-discrimination laws there is no protected class known as “the unemployed,” and if you are not hired because of your unemployment status, you have no actionable claim of discrimination.

In our blog entry of June 8, 2011, we gave this warning:

“No laws or regulations yet exist which forbid the use of employment status as a hiring criteria, but given the increase in the jobless rate, an employer who is hiring is certain to encounter applicants who are unemployed or who have unexplained gaps in their resumes. Don’t automatically disqualify these applicants, or advertise that only the employed need apply – there is no point in looking for increased scrutiny in these uncertain economic times.”

A law directly on this point may now be in the offing. With the unemployment rate currently hovering at around 9.2 per cent, with long term unemployment an increasing problem, and with an increasing number of employers advertising that the unemployed “need not apply,” two Democratic members of Congress have this week introduced a bill, the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011, H.R. 2501,which would prohibit employers from refusing employment to persons on the basis of their being unemployed, and also prohibit employers from advertising that the unemployed “need not apply.”

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f04276e5-7108-44c1-955d-cc7b472ca376&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-07-21&utm_term=

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

GOP lawmakers push to abolish affirmative action

NECN.Com Apr 5, 2011 4:33pm OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Republican-backed plan to wipe out any affirmative action programs in Oklahoma appears headed for approval by the Legislature, prompting a bitter response from some minority lawmakers that it is merely a political ploy to play on racial fears and draw conservative voters to the polls. If approved, the measure would go on the 2012 state ballot. The affirmative action proposal by state Sen. Rob Johnson, R-Kingfisher, and Rep. Leslie Osborn, R-Tuttle, would prohibit special treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education or contracts. The bill, which already passed the Senate on a party-line vote, is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday in a House committee. Full Story: http://www.necn.com/04/05/11/GOP-lawmakers-push-to-abolish-affirmativ/landing_politics.html?&blockID=3&apID=ea836d24dc904596abeb679115451ff4

Friday, August 20, 2010

Panel to look at potential ban on affirmative action

Utah News
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated 2 hours ago

A panel of judges, attorneys and legislators will scrutinize the legal impact of a potential amendment to Utah’s Constitution banning affirmative action policies.
“Stated very simply, the impact of [a ban] is enormous,” said retired Judge Jon Memmott, the chairman of the state Constitutional Review Commission. “And the implementation of that is fairly enormous given the almost 50-year history of affirmative action and all the programs … that this would impact at the state and both higher education and regular education programs.”
In the last legislative session, Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, proposed an amendment — a similar one had been adopted in other states — that would prohibit any level of government from engaging in any affirmative action programs.

Full Story: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50139823-76/action-affirmative-amendment-commission.html.csp

Monday, August 16, 2010

New rules may help women-owned firms get federal contracts

latimes.com
The guidelines aimed at getting women-owned businesses the minimum 5% of government contracts initially mandated in 1994 will focus on 83 industries, including residential construction.

By Cyndia Zwahlen
August 16, 2010

In 1994, Congress passed a law requiring that a minimum of 5% of the money spent on government contracts go to the nation's businesses that are majority-owned by women.That was great news for women who believed they had never received a fair share of those contracts.But the government didn't reach that mandated goal, and six years later Congress passed the Equity in Contracting for Women Act to give women-owned businesses more traction getting federal contracts.That program was never implemented. Disagreements, including a lawsuit, held it up, and advocates for the businesses accused federal officials of foot-dragging. The closest the government ever came to meeting the goal was 3.4% in fiscal 2008. Recently, however, there was new hope that the full 5% could finally become a reality. New rules for a Small Business Administration program to get contracts to women-owned businesses are going through final review by the agency.Karen Mills, head of the SBA, told a congressional committee last month that it's almost ready to go live.

Full Story: latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz-women-20100816,0,6954880.story

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Brazil: Afro-Brazilian Claims to Affirmative Action Denied

Global Voices
Posted 14 July 2010

Affirmative action, one of the most controversial issues dragging on in the Brazilian congress for most of the first decade of the 21st century, was left out of the Racial Equality Statute passed last June 16th by the senate. The policy, which would implement a mandatory temporary quota system for Afro-Brazilians in universities, jobs and political parties, was rejected together with incentive measures for private companies adopting the system [pt]. According to pro affirmative action groups, the decision to exclude the policy neglects the historical processes leading to the state of socio-racial inequality existent in Brazil today. On the other side of the coin are opponents of affirmative action who speak of reverse discrimination and incitement to racial tensions.
The day before the vote in congress, No Race blog [PT], which presents itself as both anti-racist and against race public policies, published Senator Demóstenes Torres’ justification of his opposition to affirmative action. The Senator, a member of the DEM [PT] (Democrats party) an opposition party to President Lula’s PT, explains that race does not exist and justifies why he removed from the text - but not from the title “Racial Equality Statute” - the terms “race”, “racial” and “ethno-racial”.

Full Blog Post: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/07/14/brazil-afro-brazilian-claims-to-affirmative-action-denied/

Backwards on civil rights

powerlineblog.com
(conservative)
July 14, 2010 Posted by Scott at 5:10 AM

The current Congress is working hand in glove with the Obama administration to take us ever further backwards on civil rights. This week's example is section 342 of the Dodd-Frank bill.
The bill generally grants the federal government ever greater power over the financial services industry. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth noted last week, section 342 of the bill requires all federal agencies governed by the bill establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion responsible for "all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities."
Among other things, these offices must "develop standards" for "assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency." That means the whole financial industry. Financial regulation and affirmative action all in one. It is a "major power grab."

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission is not standing idly by. Yesterday four individual commissioners -- Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot, Ashley Taylor and Todd Gaziano -- sent a letter to Senate leaders opposing the bill's affirmative action provisions.

Full blog post: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026754.php

Monday, May 10, 2010

EEOC Chair Testifies Before Senate Committee

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien testified May 6 before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions about "Ensuring Fairness for Older Workers."

Statement OfJacqueline A. Berrien, ChairU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionBefore theCommittee On Health, Education, Labor And PensionsUnited States Senate
MAY 6, 2010

Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Enzi and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at this important hearing to discuss the “Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act” (S. 1756), which would supersede the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.[1]
The Supreme Court in Gross held that “mixed-motives” claims are not cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and that older workers cannot prevail on a claim of age discrimination unless they prove that age was the “but for” cause of the employment practice at issue. In practice, this means that an ADEA plaintiff will no longer have a valid claim, and therefore will be entitled to no relief whatsoever – even if a defendant admits that it took an adverse employment action in part because of the plaintiff’s age – unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant would not have made the same decision anyway (i.e., if the employer had not actually taken the victim’s age into account).
The Gross decision was a startling departure from decades of settled precedent developed in federal district and intermediate appellate courts. It erected a new, much higher (and what will often be an insurmountable) legal hurdle for victims of age-based employment decisions. Indeed, recent case law reveals that Gross already is constricting the ability of older workers to vindicate their rights under the ADEA, as well as other anti-discrimination statutes.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) believes that legislation like S.1756 is needed to restore and bolster the basic protections that applied to ADEA claims pre­-Gross. This would more fully effectuate Congress’s original intent in passing the ADEA – to “promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age” and “to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment.”[2]

Full Testimony:http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/events/berrien_protecting_older_workers.cfm

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Berlin to consider affirmative action for immigrants

Today's Zaman (Germany)
May 6, 2010

The government of Berlin, one of the 16 states in Germany, is planning to propose a bill in the state parliament giving immigrants priority in job applications and public tenders to promote integration. The state’s executive body, the Senate of Berlin, expects to finish drafting the bill and present it to parliament before the end of the year. The government, controlled by social democrats and leftists, believes the bill will be enacted by March 2011. Berlin is known for its large immigrant population.

Full Story: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-209354-100-berlin-to-consider-affirmative-action-for-immigrants.html

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 15, 2010

Senate May Take Up Another Pay Bill Before End of Term

Workforce Management
March 12, 2010


One of the first pieces of legislation approved by the current Congress in January 2009 made it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination.

It was named after Lilly Ledbetter, a former Goodyear tire factory supervisor whose Supreme Court case ruling was overturned by the bill that bore her name.

Democrats and advocacy groups hope that before the congressional term ends this fall, a companion measure will be on President Barack Obama’s desk.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would allow employees to pursue unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in pay suits and make it more difficult for employers to defend against them.

The House has passed both bills. The Senate approved the Ledbetter legislation but put the paycheck bill on hold. The measure was revived at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday, March 11

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/27/06/86.php

EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru Testifies Before Senate in Support of Paycheck Fairness Act

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Cites Persistent Gender-Based Wage Discrimination, Highlights Obama Administration Equal Pay Task Force

STATEMENT OFSTUART J. ISHIMARU, ACTING CHAIRMAN
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
BEFORE THECOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
MARCH 11, 2010
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at this important hearing, “A Fair Share for All: Pay Equity in the New American Workplace.”
The Problem of Gender Inequality in Employment Compensation
In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to address pay inequities based on sex. At that time, Congress denounced sex-based wage discrimination as contributing to depressed wages, underutilization of the labor force, obstruction of commerce, and unfair competition. While the passage of the Equal Pay Act and subsequent year’s passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have done much to equalize pay for men and women in this country, in 2010 the pay gap continues to perpetuate the very same problems the Equal Pay Act and Title VII were intended to combat. Much work remains to close the gap, to end gender pay inequity, and to deliver on the promise of equal pay for equal work.
In 2009, Maria Shriver, working with the Center for American Progress, released a ground breaking report entitled, “A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything.” This sweeping study of the role of women in our nation’s economies and the economies of our families today provided a wealth of insights into the challenges women still face when it comes to earning equal pay for equal work. This report and other recent studies confirm what we at the EEOC have recognized for some time:
The gender wage gap persists. The wage gap is alive and well in America, with the typical full-time, year round female worker making $.77 for every dollar earned by her male counterpart.1 The gap is even wider for women of color and people with disabilities, and undocumented immigrant workers often don’t even manage to earn minimum wage. Although some of the pay gap can be explained by differentials in experience or as a result of the differences in the occupations men and women typically do, the Shriver Report estimates that about 41% of the pay gap cannot be explained by these factors.2
Caregiver discrimination results in gender pay discrepancies. Women continue to be more likely to bear significant responsibility for providing care to children, elderly family members, and family members with illnesses or disabilities.3 Discrimination against caregivers in the workplace based on gender stereotypes and presumptions about the competence and commitment of working mothers and others with significant caregiving responsibilities continues to drag down wages for women.4 This is an issue I have taken a particular interest in at the EEOC, and I am proud to have been a part of the bipartisan effort to address this kind of discrimination through the Caregiver Guidance5 the Commission issued in 2007, and the Best Practices Guide6 we issued in 2009.
Part time work leads to lower benefits and pay over both the short term and long term. Women are more than twice as likely as men to work part-time, and they often make the choice to work part time in order to provide care for their children or other family members. According to the Department of Labor Women’s Bureau, 24.6% of employed women worked part time in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, as compared to only 11.1% of men.7 Part time work is less likely to come with benefits such as health insurance or paid time off, and by its very nature, tends to pay less than full time work. Because so much of the way our earnings increase over time is based on raises calculated as a percentage of current salary, the fact that women are more likely to work part time causes the pay gap to accumulate and widen over time.
Gender-based wage discrimination is especially untenable now, as more families come to rely on the income brought in by women workers to make ends meet. Recent studies show that the current economic downturn is resulting in more women serving as the primary breadwinners for their families.8 This is because men are losing jobs at a much higher rate than women.9 You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out that where women make 77 cents on the dollar versus their male counterparts, where a father’s wages are lost, an average family can lose over 50% of its income. If there ever was a time to act to remedy the gender pay gap, it is now.
EEOC’s Role in Enforcing Equal Pay Laws
The EEOC’s role in enforcing the nation’s equal pay laws is a central one. EEOC is the primary enforcement agency for both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII’s prohibitions on compensation discrimination. We have further jurisdiction to address pay discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The EEOC has issued a Compliance Manual Chapter of Compensation Discrimination which provides detailed guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing claims of compensation discrimination under each of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which supersedes the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. Ledbetter had required a compensation discrimination charge to be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory pay-setting decision (or 300 days in jurisdictions that have a local or state law prohibiting the same form of compensation discrimination), an unrealistic expectation given the secrecy that usually surrounds pay decisions.
The Ledbetter Act restores the pre-Ledbetter position of the EEOC that each paycheck that delivers discriminatory compensation is a wrong actionable under the federal EEO statutes, regardless of when the discrimination began. As noted in the Act, it recognizes the ‘reality of wage discrimination” and restores “bedrock principles of American law.”