OMB COMPLETES REVIEW OF OFCCP'S PROPOSED VETERANS' AAP REGULATIONS UPDATE; NPRM TO BE PUBLISHED SOON

OFCCP Blog Spot DCI Consulting, Inc. by Fred Satterwhite, Senior Consultant, DCI Consulting Group Almost nine months after OFCCP submitted to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) a proposed rule updating the regulations implementing affirmative action requirements for veterans, the OIRA completed its review of the rule on March 30, 2011. Full Story: http://ofccp.blogspot.com/

University of Pennsylvania Program Seeks To Boost Enrollment of Black Men In Ph.D. Programs

Diverse Issues in Higher Education by Maria Eugenia Miranda , March 30, 2011 When Malcolm Marshall and several other Black and Latino students were sent letters excluding them from a Harvard University information session at their public high school in Georgia, Marshall’s outraged mother called the university. Recruiters assured her that it was not their policy to exclude students and that all those who had been banned from attending were allowed to join in. Marshall, now a junior at Rutgers University, remembers the vice principal of his high school telling him, “It’s so hard to get in. You probably won’t get in anyway.” Marshall credits his mother for helping him reach his educational goals, saying she never took no for an answer. He is now in the process of applying to graduate programs in education, with the goal of promoting access to higher education for students of all backgrounds. He hopes to work as a college administrator or in the U.S. Department of Education. Full Story: http://diverseeducation.com/article/14968/

Age discrimination in the workplace

Lexology.com Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP Alexander L. Maultsby USA March 8 2011 We are getting older as a nation of workers. And older employees are remaining employed longer than in years gone by. Age 65 no longer means a retirement party, cake and a commemorative clock to watch as the sunset years roll by. Just as our own aging is unavoidable, the demographic wave of the Baby Boom generation is having its own inevitable effect. Consider some statistics from the Census Bureau: In 2000, our country had around 3.4 million employees age 65 and up; in 2009 there were 6 million. The percentage of all Americans in that age range who remained employed increased from 11.5 percent in 2000 to 16.1 percent in 2009. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Americans age 55 and older increased from 59.5 to 76.5 million. Government projections say there will be 97.8 million Americans who are 55 or older by 2020. If demographics were not enough to age our workforce, the bad economy has made seniors hold on to a steady income longer than they had previously planned. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f7d39ec1-c3da-4728-9b07-429db1a1594a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-03-30&utm_term=

The top ten mistakes employers make that can lead to litigation

Lexology. com Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP Peter A. Rutledge USA March 14 2011 Sometimes getting through your workday is challenging enough in itself. Flurries of meetings, paperwork, emails and phone calls bombard us all, and amid the stress, it’s very easy to forget the essentials of the most basic HR practices. What is infinitely more stressful, however, is your company being sued by a disgruntled employee. The following list serves to remind you of the fundamental ways you can protect your company (and how you can keep “testify in court” off your to-do list). Poorly drafted or inconsistently applied personnel policies: In addition to reviewing your policies periodically, you need to ensure that they are internally consistent, and that policies are based on and accurately reflect the law (ADA, FMLA, etc.) It’s also extremely important to remember that no good deed goes unpunished. Inconsistent application of policies is the most fertile ground for plaintiffs in discrimination claims. Your good deed could be used against you. Unintentional modification of at-will employment: Oral promises like, “You’ll always have a job here,” or “Keep up the good work and you’ll be promoted,” can get you into hot water. The failure to affix appropriate at-will disclaimers in manuals or policies can also have consequences later. Breach of contract claims almost always go to a jury, so your best defense is to avoid inadvertantly creating an employment contract in the first place. Mishandling personnel documents and information: The list of things that should be included in personnel files includes applications/resumes, performance reviews, employment contracts, corrective action memos, and signed employee acknowledgments. Things that should never appear in personnel files include medical information, I-9 forms, information about employees’ protected status, or potentially libelous material. Careless treatment of employee complaints: In addition to having a clearly written complaint policy, you should respond to complaints promptly, thoroughly and effectively. Maintaining as much confidentiality as is reasonably possible, and involving only those who need to know are key. Assurance against retaliation is also essential. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=56ba0377-eca4-4154-b51d-6b3a1a2969ef&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-03-31&utm_term=

EEOC takes aggressive stance against random alcohol testing policies

Lexology.com Barnes & Thornburg LLP USA March 28 2011 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed suit against U.S. Steel Corporation alleging the Company’s random alcohol testing policy—authorized by a collective bargaining agreement—violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Unlike testing for the current use of illegal drugs, alcohol testing is considered a medical exam under the ADA. Further, the ADA permits medical exams only when “job-related” and “consistent with business necessity.” This means a medical exam—such as an alcohol test—is only permitted when employers have a reasonable belief that a particular employee will be unable to perform the job or will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition. According to the EEOC’s complaint, U.S. Steel violated the ADA when it required probationary employee Abigail DeSimone to submit to a random breathalyzer tests administered by a company nurse. When DeSimone tested positive for alcohol, she advised the nurse that she had not ingested any alcohol in the past month, and that her medical condition might have contributed to the positive test result. That same day, DeSimone’s personal physician performed a blood alcohol test and obtained a negative result. Although the results were made available to U.S. Steel, the company refused to accept them. DeSimone was ultimately terminated for violating the company’s alcohol policy. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f62fe3a9-d16f-4e92-a0ca-39bb28f53c6e&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Other+top+stories&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-04&utm_term=