Inside Higher Ed
May 18, 2010
Another fight over extra time on exams has been temporarily resolved, leaving unanswered the questions of to what extent colleges should grant accommodations to students with learning disabilities -- and who decides what adjustments are appropriate.
This time the battleground was Princeton University, where first-year student Diane E. Metcalf-Leggette sued the university last fall, charging that it stood in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act by declining to give her twice as much time as most other students to complete exams -- Metcalf-Leggette has been diagnosed with dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Metcalf-Leggette later registered a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education in February alleging that “the university retaliated by seeking additional information about [her] disability, questioning whether the student was qualified to attend the university and pursuing certain disciplinary action against the student,” according to department records.
Full Story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/18/princeton
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
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
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
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Historic Victory: Court Rules FDNY Hiring Practices Intentionally Discriminated on the Basis of Race for Decades
Center for Constitutional Rights
Contact: press@ccrjustice.org
January 13, 2010, New York, NY – Today, United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit charging the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) with intentionally racially discriminatory hiring practices. The case, which proved the FDNY examination was in violation of civil rights laws, was filed on behalf of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel from Levy Ratner, P.C. and Scott + Scott, LLP. An earlier win in the case on July 22, 2009, ruled that the impact of the test was racially discriminatory, but today’s summary ruling of intentional discrimination is far more rare.In today’s ruling, Judge Garaufis found the City of New York had excluded Blacks and Hispanics from the Fire Department for decades, since the 1960’s, and called it “a persistent stain on the Fire Department’s record.” Said Richard Levy of Levy Ratner, P.C., CCR cooperating attorney and lead counsel in the case, “This decision represents a major victory for all minority citizens of New York City who have been denied employment because of their race, color or national origin. But it is a particular vindication for the Vulcan Society, the Black organization of firefighters that has been waging this struggle for equality for more than forty years. The City has kept blinders tightly in place to avoid recognizing and dealing with a problem of discrimination that has been shockingly clear to all citizens of New York. The Fire Department has been a virtually all White club since its inception many decades ago and no one in City government has seen fit to address the issue. Now it must.” Said CCR Attorney Anjana Samant, “This is an historic victory that will force the City to be accountable for decades of unchecked intentional discrimination in the FDNY. While people have been clamoring for firehouses to be more representative of their communities for years, this ruling demands that the City clean up its mess and fashion programs and remedies to correct the past effects of its discriminatory hiring process.” Said Paul Washington, past president of the Vulcan Society, “We’re glad to see the justice system verify what we’ve known for the longest time, that the Fire Department is hostile to hiring blacks. We hope this means 145 years of racism in the New York City Fire Dept will now come to an end.” As of October 2007, black and Hispanic firefighters comprised only 3.4 and 6.7 percent of the FDNY, respectively. The combined black and Hispanic population of New York City comprises over half its total population. New York City has the least diverse fire department of any major city in America; 57 percent of Los Angeles, 51 percent of Philadelphia and 40 percent of Boston firefighters are people of color. At the same time, the New York City Police Department has recruited a force that is roughly fifty percent (50%) minority and fully represents the demographics of the City. In April 2009, plaintiffs asked Judge Garaufis to grant summary judgment in favor of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY, and three individual candidates in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting their claims, thus eliminating the need for a trial. CCR, Levy Ratner, and Scott + Scott formally filed to intervene on behalf of the Vulcan Society in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the City of New York for discriminatory hiring practices in July 2007. The lawsuit grew out of two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filings by CCR on behalf of the Vulcan Society in 2002 and 2005. The intervention allowed the Vulcan Society to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. To read the ruling or for more information on the case, see CCR's Vulcan Society case page. Levy Ratner, P.C. has advocated for unions and workers for more than 35 years in the areas of union-side labor law, employee benefits, bankruptcy, campaign finance, election law and plaintiffs’ employment law.
Watch CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren and Vulcan Society's Paul Washington on NY1's segment on this landmark ruling (this link will end your session at http://www.ccrjustice.org/)
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/victory-black-firefighters%2C-fdny-hiring-practices-ruled-racially-discriminat
Contact: press@ccrjustice.org
January 13, 2010, New York, NY – Today, United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit charging the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) with intentionally racially discriminatory hiring practices. The case, which proved the FDNY examination was in violation of civil rights laws, was filed on behalf of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel from Levy Ratner, P.C. and Scott + Scott, LLP. An earlier win in the case on July 22, 2009, ruled that the impact of the test was racially discriminatory, but today’s summary ruling of intentional discrimination is far more rare.In today’s ruling, Judge Garaufis found the City of New York had excluded Blacks and Hispanics from the Fire Department for decades, since the 1960’s, and called it “a persistent stain on the Fire Department’s record.” Said Richard Levy of Levy Ratner, P.C., CCR cooperating attorney and lead counsel in the case, “This decision represents a major victory for all minority citizens of New York City who have been denied employment because of their race, color or national origin. But it is a particular vindication for the Vulcan Society, the Black organization of firefighters that has been waging this struggle for equality for more than forty years. The City has kept blinders tightly in place to avoid recognizing and dealing with a problem of discrimination that has been shockingly clear to all citizens of New York. The Fire Department has been a virtually all White club since its inception many decades ago and no one in City government has seen fit to address the issue. Now it must.” Said CCR Attorney Anjana Samant, “This is an historic victory that will force the City to be accountable for decades of unchecked intentional discrimination in the FDNY. While people have been clamoring for firehouses to be more representative of their communities for years, this ruling demands that the City clean up its mess and fashion programs and remedies to correct the past effects of its discriminatory hiring process.” Said Paul Washington, past president of the Vulcan Society, “We’re glad to see the justice system verify what we’ve known for the longest time, that the Fire Department is hostile to hiring blacks. We hope this means 145 years of racism in the New York City Fire Dept will now come to an end.” As of October 2007, black and Hispanic firefighters comprised only 3.4 and 6.7 percent of the FDNY, respectively. The combined black and Hispanic population of New York City comprises over half its total population. New York City has the least diverse fire department of any major city in America; 57 percent of Los Angeles, 51 percent of Philadelphia and 40 percent of Boston firefighters are people of color. At the same time, the New York City Police Department has recruited a force that is roughly fifty percent (50%) minority and fully represents the demographics of the City. In April 2009, plaintiffs asked Judge Garaufis to grant summary judgment in favor of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the FDNY, and three individual candidates in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting their claims, thus eliminating the need for a trial. CCR, Levy Ratner, and Scott + Scott formally filed to intervene on behalf of the Vulcan Society in the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the City of New York for discriminatory hiring practices in July 2007. The lawsuit grew out of two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filings by CCR on behalf of the Vulcan Society in 2002 and 2005. The intervention allowed the Vulcan Society to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. To read the ruling or for more information on the case, see CCR's Vulcan Society case page. Levy Ratner, P.C. has advocated for unions and workers for more than 35 years in the areas of union-side labor law, employee benefits, bankruptcy, campaign finance, election law and plaintiffs’ employment law.
Watch CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren and Vulcan Society's Paul Washington on NY1's segment on this landmark ruling (this link will end your session at http://www.ccrjustice.org/)
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/victory-black-firefighters%2C-fdny-hiring-practices-ruled-racially-discriminat
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Lawsuits Target Testing for Legal Drugs
Workforce Management
October 2009
An automotive parts distributor is the target of lawsuits over its drug-testing policy, including one filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that workers’ rights were violated when they were tested for legally prescribed drugs. By Jeff Casale
An automotive parts distributor is the target of lawsuits over its drug-testing policy, including one filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that workers’ rights were violated when they were tested for legally prescribed drugs.
The EEOC filed a complaint last month in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Rochester Hills, Michigan-based Dura Automotive Systems, which tested all of its production employees for certain legally prescribed drugs in addition to illegal, controlled substances in 2007.
The EEOC contends that Dura violated “various provisions” of the Americans with Disabilities Act by testing for legally prescribed drugs without having just cause. According to the complaint on behalf of employees of Dura’s Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant, the employer “tested without reasonable suspicion that such medications were affecting the employees in performance of their jobs.”
Further, the lawsuit states that Dura practiced “unlawful” employment practices, including suspending employees in excess of 30 days if they tested positive for certain legally prescribed medications. Dura also required that employees disclose medical conditions for which they had to take the drugs and required workers to forgo taking their medications as a condition of returning to work, according to the suit.
If workers failed at their job duties without the benefit of their prescribed medications, they were fired, the suit alleges.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/70/67/index.php
October 2009
An automotive parts distributor is the target of lawsuits over its drug-testing policy, including one filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that workers’ rights were violated when they were tested for legally prescribed drugs. By Jeff Casale
An automotive parts distributor is the target of lawsuits over its drug-testing policy, including one filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that workers’ rights were violated when they were tested for legally prescribed drugs.
The EEOC filed a complaint last month in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Rochester Hills, Michigan-based Dura Automotive Systems, which tested all of its production employees for certain legally prescribed drugs in addition to illegal, controlled substances in 2007.
The EEOC contends that Dura violated “various provisions” of the Americans with Disabilities Act by testing for legally prescribed drugs without having just cause. According to the complaint on behalf of employees of Dura’s Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, plant, the employer “tested without reasonable suspicion that such medications were affecting the employees in performance of their jobs.”
Further, the lawsuit states that Dura practiced “unlawful” employment practices, including suspending employees in excess of 30 days if they tested positive for certain legally prescribed medications. Dura also required that employees disclose medical conditions for which they had to take the drugs and required workers to forgo taking their medications as a condition of returning to work, according to the suit.
If workers failed at their job duties without the benefit of their prescribed medications, they were fired, the suit alleges.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/70/67/index.php
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Judge Finds Racial Bias in Fire Dept. Recruiting
The New York Times
By DIANE CARDWELL
Published: July 22, 2009
New York City used tests that discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to the Fire Department and had little relation to firefighting, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Wednesday, dealing a blow to the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
“These examinations unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color from the opportunity to serve as New York City firefighters,” wrote Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, referring to two tests administered in 1999 and 2002.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department in 2007 after a federal complaint by the Vulcan Society, an association of black firefighters, led to an investigation into the Fire Department’s hiring practices.
The judge said he would determine later what remedies to require of the city. They could include payment of lost wages, retroactive seniority for some minority employees and affirmative action hiring. Noting that the court had ruled against the city in past decades in lawsuits brought over its hiring practices, Judge Garaufis wrote that even as the city’s black and Hispanic population had increased, “the overwhelmingly monochromatic composition of the F.D.N.Y. has stubbornly persisted.”
Like firefighting forces in several other big cities, New York’s has remained disproportionately white, despite pressures and efforts to diversify. According to the city’s Law Department, at the end of May, roughly 3 percent of the 11,529 firefighters were black, and about 6 percent were Hispanic. Federal census estimates put each group at roughly 27 percent of the city’s population.
“If there was any doubt that the city did have problems with its hiring process, it’s now been decided that in fact they do,” said Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. “Now it’s hard for them to argue that they in fact are not discriminating.”
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/nyregion/23firefighters.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
By DIANE CARDWELL
Published: July 22, 2009
New York City used tests that discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to the Fire Department and had little relation to firefighting, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Wednesday, dealing a blow to the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
“These examinations unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color from the opportunity to serve as New York City firefighters,” wrote Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, referring to two tests administered in 1999 and 2002.
The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department in 2007 after a federal complaint by the Vulcan Society, an association of black firefighters, led to an investigation into the Fire Department’s hiring practices.
The judge said he would determine later what remedies to require of the city. They could include payment of lost wages, retroactive seniority for some minority employees and affirmative action hiring. Noting that the court had ruled against the city in past decades in lawsuits brought over its hiring practices, Judge Garaufis wrote that even as the city’s black and Hispanic population had increased, “the overwhelmingly monochromatic composition of the F.D.N.Y. has stubbornly persisted.”
Like firefighting forces in several other big cities, New York’s has remained disproportionately white, despite pressures and efforts to diversify. According to the city’s Law Department, at the end of May, roughly 3 percent of the 11,529 firefighters were black, and about 6 percent were Hispanic. Federal census estimates put each group at roughly 27 percent of the city’s population.
“If there was any doubt that the city did have problems with its hiring process, it’s now been decided that in fact they do,” said Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs. “Now it’s hard for them to argue that they in fact are not discriminating.”
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/nyregion/23firefighters.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Monday, June 29, 2009
Ruling Offers Little Guidance on Fair Hiring
The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2009
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
In ruling for a group of white firefighters in New Haven on Monday, the Supreme Court tried to address a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t quandary for many cities and other employers: what they should do when an employment test yields results that overwhelmingly favor whites.
But many legal experts said that instead of setting forth clear new rules, the court’s decision left things as muddled as ever for the nation’s employers — and seemed to ensure much more litigation over the explosive issue of employment discrimination.
“We don’t see clear, bright-line guidance here,” said Lars Etzkorn, a program director with the National League of Cities. “This is going to be good for employment lawyers.”
The 5-to-4 ruling applies largely to public-sector hiring and to civil service exams, but could also affect private employers that use tests or other screening methods. The court said that if an employer used a hiring or promotion test, it generally had to accept the test’s results — unless the employer had strong evidence the test was flawed and improperly favored a particular group.
With the court’s ruling making it harder for cities and other employers to throw out tests they conclude are unfair, employers are expected to work harder to make sure their written tests — indeed their entire selection process — are fair.
“The ruling gives employers less flexibility to change the selection process once it’s established,” said Katharine Parker, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose who is chairwoman of the Labor and Employment Committee of the New York City Bar Association. “As a result, employers will want to try to establish bulletproof selection criteria.”
Some may abandon written tests altogether.
To avoid charges of discrimination, many cities have already been moving away from such tests in favor of other methods of hiring and promoting employees in places like fire and police departments. They say written tests are often not the best way to determine who can perform best.
In New Haven, city officials, having concluded that their written test was flawed, said there was another, trusted method to select firefighting lieutenants and captains that posed less of a disadvantage to blacks and Hispanics. That method relies largely on assessment centers where applicants are evaluated in simulated real-life situations to see how they would handle them.
Supporters of the idea say assessment centers do far better than written exams in measuring leadership and communications skills and an applicant’s ability to handle emergencies.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30impact.html?_r=1&hp
Published: June 29, 2009
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
In ruling for a group of white firefighters in New Haven on Monday, the Supreme Court tried to address a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t quandary for many cities and other employers: what they should do when an employment test yields results that overwhelmingly favor whites.
But many legal experts said that instead of setting forth clear new rules, the court’s decision left things as muddled as ever for the nation’s employers — and seemed to ensure much more litigation over the explosive issue of employment discrimination.
“We don’t see clear, bright-line guidance here,” said Lars Etzkorn, a program director with the National League of Cities. “This is going to be good for employment lawyers.”
The 5-to-4 ruling applies largely to public-sector hiring and to civil service exams, but could also affect private employers that use tests or other screening methods. The court said that if an employer used a hiring or promotion test, it generally had to accept the test’s results — unless the employer had strong evidence the test was flawed and improperly favored a particular group.
With the court’s ruling making it harder for cities and other employers to throw out tests they conclude are unfair, employers are expected to work harder to make sure their written tests — indeed their entire selection process — are fair.
“The ruling gives employers less flexibility to change the selection process once it’s established,” said Katharine Parker, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose who is chairwoman of the Labor and Employment Committee of the New York City Bar Association. “As a result, employers will want to try to establish bulletproof selection criteria.”
Some may abandon written tests altogether.
To avoid charges of discrimination, many cities have already been moving away from such tests in favor of other methods of hiring and promoting employees in places like fire and police departments. They say written tests are often not the best way to determine who can perform best.
In New Haven, city officials, having concluded that their written test was flawed, said there was another, trusted method to select firefighting lieutenants and captains that posed less of a disadvantage to blacks and Hispanics. That method relies largely on assessment centers where applicants are evaluated in simulated real-life situations to see how they would handle them.
Supporters of the idea say assessment centers do far better than written exams in measuring leadership and communications skills and an applicant’s ability to handle emergencies.
Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30impact.html?_r=1&hp
Monday, December 3, 2007
EEOC ISSUES FACT SHEET ON EMPLOYMENT TESTS AND SELECTION PROCEDURES TO SCREEN APPLICANTS, WORKERS
Agency Highlights ‘Best Practices’ for Employers to Prevent Job Discrimination
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued an extensive fact sheet on the application of federal anti-discrimination laws to employer tests and other selection procedures to screen applicants for hire and employees for promotion. The new technical assistance document is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
The fact sheet describes common types of employer administered tests and selection procedures used in the 21st century workplace, including cognitive tests, personality tests, medical examinations, credit checks, and criminal background checks. The document also focuses on “best practices” for employers to follow when using employment tests and other screening devices, and cites recent EEOC enforcement actions. Discriminatory employment tests and selection procedures are prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- which are all enforced by the EEOC.
“This fact sheet will help employers voluntarily comply with EEOC-enforced statutes, as companies seek lawful and efficient ways to screen large numbers of applicants,” said Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp. “Tests and other selection tools can be an effective means of making employment decisions, as long as they are not used to screen out individuals in a discriminatory way.”
The EEOC has observed an increase in employment testing due in part to post 9-11 security concerns and issues related to workplace violence, safety, and liability. In addition, the large-scale adoption of online job applications has motivated employers to seek efficient ways to screen big applicant pools in a non-subjective way.
Charges of job discrimination filed with the EEOC raising issues of employment testing and exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports, and other screening tools have trended upward from 26 in Fiscal Year 2003 to 141 in FY 2006. On May 16, 2007, the Commission held a public meeting at agency Headquarters in which expert panelists addressed legal issues related to the use of employment tests and other screening devices.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued an extensive fact sheet on the application of federal anti-discrimination laws to employer tests and other selection procedures to screen applicants for hire and employees for promotion. The new technical assistance document is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
The fact sheet describes common types of employer administered tests and selection procedures used in the 21st century workplace, including cognitive tests, personality tests, medical examinations, credit checks, and criminal background checks. The document also focuses on “best practices” for employers to follow when using employment tests and other screening devices, and cites recent EEOC enforcement actions. Discriminatory employment tests and selection procedures are prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- which are all enforced by the EEOC.
“This fact sheet will help employers voluntarily comply with EEOC-enforced statutes, as companies seek lawful and efficient ways to screen large numbers of applicants,” said Commission Chair Naomi C. Earp. “Tests and other selection tools can be an effective means of making employment decisions, as long as they are not used to screen out individuals in a discriminatory way.”
The EEOC has observed an increase in employment testing due in part to post 9-11 security concerns and issues related to workplace violence, safety, and liability. In addition, the large-scale adoption of online job applications has motivated employers to seek efficient ways to screen big applicant pools in a non-subjective way.
Charges of job discrimination filed with the EEOC raising issues of employment testing and exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports, and other screening tools have trended upward from 26 in Fiscal Year 2003 to 141 in FY 2006. On May 16, 2007, the Commission held a public meeting at agency Headquarters in which expert panelists addressed legal issues related to the use of employment tests and other screening devices.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Additional information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/.
Monday, August 13, 2007
OFCCP: Two Federal Contractors Agree to Pay $978,000
Daily Labor Report, August 13, 2007
HOUSTON--Two federal contractors in Louisiana and Texas have agreed to pay more than $978,000 to 1,000 rejected job applicants to settle allegations of hiring discrimination by the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the agency announced Aug. 8. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP will pay $749,000 in back pay and interest to 399 black applicants who were rejected for the position of utility worker at its Port Hudson Facility in Zachary, La. OFCCP investigators found that a literacy test used by Georgia-Pacific as part of its job-screening process there in 2002 and 2003 adversely affected black applicants.
The company agreed to correct any discriminatory practices and hire 24 utility workers from the class members who were discriminated against, OFCCP said.
Modular building manufacturer Comark Building Systems in DeSoto, Texas, will pay $229,534 in back pay and interest to 740 rejected job applicants for the position of plant laborer. The company allegedly rejected 122 female applicants based on sex and as many as 620 male and female applicants based on ethnicity from May 2003 to April 2005, OFCCP said.
Under terms of the conciliation agreement, Comark will provide 24 positions and immediately correct any discriminatory practices.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/dlr.nsf/eh/a0b4z7e7h7 (Requires subscription)]
HOUSTON--Two federal contractors in Louisiana and Texas have agreed to pay more than $978,000 to 1,000 rejected job applicants to settle allegations of hiring discrimination by the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the agency announced Aug. 8. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP will pay $749,000 in back pay and interest to 399 black applicants who were rejected for the position of utility worker at its Port Hudson Facility in Zachary, La. OFCCP investigators found that a literacy test used by Georgia-Pacific as part of its job-screening process there in 2002 and 2003 adversely affected black applicants.
The company agreed to correct any discriminatory practices and hire 24 utility workers from the class members who were discriminated against, OFCCP said.
Modular building manufacturer Comark Building Systems in DeSoto, Texas, will pay $229,534 in back pay and interest to 740 rejected job applicants for the position of plant laborer. The company allegedly rejected 122 female applicants based on sex and as many as 620 male and female applicants based on ethnicity from May 2003 to April 2005, OFCCP said.
Under terms of the conciliation agreement, Comark will provide 24 positions and immediately correct any discriminatory practices.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/dlr.nsf/eh/a0b4z7e7h7 (Requires subscription)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)