11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
"Split Happens:" 3rd Circuit Finds Supervisors at Public Agencies Can Be Personally Liable for FMLA Violations
To contact us Click HERE
Yesterday, in the case of Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined, for the first time in this Circuit, that supervisors who work at public agencies can be held personally liable for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The facts of this case and the analysis employed by the Court in reaching its decision are not overly exciting. In short, Debra Haybarger worked as an office manager for Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, and suffered from Type II diabetes, heart disease and kidney problems. Her health problems forced her to miss work often for medical appointments, and the Director of the Adult Probation and Parole, William Mancino, expressed dissatisfaction with Haybarger's frequent illness-related absences. Mancino informed Haybarger that she needed to "cut down" on the days she was taking off and began to ask her why she needed to visit the doctor so much. Haybarger was then formally disciplined by Mancino for her frequent medical absences and eventually terminated by the Adult Probation Office on Marcino's recommendation. Haybarger then sued Lawrence County, Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole and Marcino for various employment law violations, including the FMLA.
After a complex procedural history, which saw many of Haybarger's claims dismissed, Marcino sought to have Haybarger's FMLA claims against him dismissed as well, arguing that the statutory language of the FMLA did not allow for personal liability. After engaging in a thorough (and none-too-thrilling) parsing of the operative statutory language that defines who is an "employer" under the FMLA, the Third Circuit concluded that this definition includes an individual employed by a public agency who (1) exercises supervisory authority over a complaining employee and (2) was responsible, either in whole or in part, for the alleged FMLA violation. The Third Circuit then examined the specific facts in this case and concluded that enough evidence existed to allow a jury to conclude that Marcino fit this definition as it related to Haybarger.
What really makes this case interesting and important (aside from the fact that this issue had never been decided by the Third Circuit before), is that it widens a Circuit-split that previously existed on this question. In its decision, the Haybarger Court noted that the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits had already arrived at the opposite conclusion - that the FMLA does not permit individual liability for supervisors at public agencies. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has similarly held that there is no individual liability for public officials under the FMLA because "an individual officer lacks sufficient control over an employee's employment." The Haybarger Court, however, rejected these rationales and instead chose to follow the lead of the Fifth Circuit, which had previously concluded that individual liability under the FMLA can attach to supervisors at public agencies.
So, we now have at least three Circuits finding no grounds for individual public supervisor liability, and at least two that have taken the opposite tack. With that schism, it seems likely (if not inevitable) that the U.S. Supreme Court will now have to take up this question and determine it once and for all. As they say in show business, "stay tuned folks... there's more after this."
You can read the full Third Circuit opinion in Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/103916p.pdf
The facts of this case and the analysis employed by the Court in reaching its decision are not overly exciting. In short, Debra Haybarger worked as an office manager for Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole, and suffered from Type II diabetes, heart disease and kidney problems. Her health problems forced her to miss work often for medical appointments, and the Director of the Adult Probation and Parole, William Mancino, expressed dissatisfaction with Haybarger's frequent illness-related absences. Mancino informed Haybarger that she needed to "cut down" on the days she was taking off and began to ask her why she needed to visit the doctor so much. Haybarger was then formally disciplined by Mancino for her frequent medical absences and eventually terminated by the Adult Probation Office on Marcino's recommendation. Haybarger then sued Lawrence County, Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole and Marcino for various employment law violations, including the FMLA.
After a complex procedural history, which saw many of Haybarger's claims dismissed, Marcino sought to have Haybarger's FMLA claims against him dismissed as well, arguing that the statutory language of the FMLA did not allow for personal liability. After engaging in a thorough (and none-too-thrilling) parsing of the operative statutory language that defines who is an "employer" under the FMLA, the Third Circuit concluded that this definition includes an individual employed by a public agency who (1) exercises supervisory authority over a complaining employee and (2) was responsible, either in whole or in part, for the alleged FMLA violation. The Third Circuit then examined the specific facts in this case and concluded that enough evidence existed to allow a jury to conclude that Marcino fit this definition as it related to Haybarger.
What really makes this case interesting and important (aside from the fact that this issue had never been decided by the Third Circuit before), is that it widens a Circuit-split that previously existed on this question. In its decision, the Haybarger Court noted that the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits had already arrived at the opposite conclusion - that the FMLA does not permit individual liability for supervisors at public agencies. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has similarly held that there is no individual liability for public officials under the FMLA because "an individual officer lacks sufficient control over an employee's employment." The Haybarger Court, however, rejected these rationales and instead chose to follow the lead of the Fifth Circuit, which had previously concluded that individual liability under the FMLA can attach to supervisors at public agencies.
So, we now have at least three Circuits finding no grounds for individual public supervisor liability, and at least two that have taken the opposite tack. With that schism, it seems likely (if not inevitable) that the U.S. Supreme Court will now have to take up this question and determine it once and for all. As they say in show business, "stay tuned folks... there's more after this."
You can read the full Third Circuit opinion in Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/103916p.pdf
Virginia motorized chairs right on wheels
To contact us Click HERE
Motorized wheelchairs and assist users with disabilities and seniors to move safely. However, that some users a car can work safely, you can at the intersection of the streets or even run their wheelchair of powered streets are forced where sidewalks are not available. Virginia Division of motor vehicles (DMV) DefinitionAccording, a motorized wheelchair as a "Electromobility personal assistive device is defined". Motorized wheelchairs can only transport a person at a time and a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour or wheelchairs less.RegulationsMotorized must with a brake system that allows the user to produce a controlled shutdown, when the vehicle in motion is equipped. Motorized wheelchairs may be hazards on the roads, which have a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour or less with a sidewalk is not available.UsersAnyone 14 years old and powered by Virginia electric wheelchair can be used as a vehicle. When a user under the age of 14, you must be that under the supervision of a person aged 18 or more.
5Th wheel trailer in Texas
To contact us Click HERE
A fifth wheel is an RV travel, the couplings of the truck a Coupler in the bed of the truck. Spotlight on Texas may not more than 400 square meters. Texas has the fifth wheel tractor laws. SignificanceThe laws include the study in Texas a ban from driving in the spotlight while it is thrown by the truck. Passengers were mounted in the cabin of the towing vehicle trailer truck. Trailers with more than 4,500 pounds have inhibition total switches.ConsiderationsThe vehicle length may only 65 foot fire at trial in Texas. Texas law allows you to drag up to two vehicles with a truck or trailer. Because the triple towing in Texas is permitted, people can use the spotlight and trailer bicycles tow or vehicles ACT recreational equipment.BenefitsTexas ban passengers into the harness container injuries prevented because these trailers have no seat belts - in contrast to the vehicles in general have the driver and front passenger seat belts. Passengers prevents, the risk of hot or cold conditions in the spotlight, sit in the truck cab heated or cooled.
Texas law on tracking devices
To contact us Click HERE
Device tracking is an electronic device that is used to discover or to monitor the position or the status of a person or an object. According to the code Texas criminal 16.06 is install a tracking device knowingly illegally. Federal laws FactsNo specifically affect the use of individual monitoring devices. However, Texas Penal Code section 16.06 says the knowingly device tracking in a motor vehicle owned or by someone else Setup leased a criminal offence is and misdemeanor.ConsequencesA is classified as a category Texas A tort is punishable with a fine or $4,000 or imprisonment up to one year time. Two of these rates may, if within the certain circumstances.ConsiderationsLaw enforcement officers are applied from this code free. It is considered a defense, if yes, classified whether can be demonstrated that the person, device the owner of the car or supporting one adjustment peace officer in a criminal investigation has been approved.
Right of succession in Texas
To contact us Click HERE
When someone intestate in Texas dies, laws of property determine in intestate succession matters and the amount you inherit inherits. This decision is based on the relationship that you have the dead person. If a spouse who survived the right DecedentAccording Texas, a spouse who survived the deceased where the deceased was not survive children inherit properties as a whole. If spouse and children is spouses inherit one-third of the estate of the deceased left mourning and living in the country of the deceased with the rest of the child survived common No. the deceased.When DecedentThe sequence of the children of the deceased is shared if there no surviving spouse. If no children at the time of death of the late life that property of the grandchildren and other descendants passed. The property will be, if there are no descendants to parents decedent.Inheritance ChildrenTexas adoption law concerned themselves with rights children adopted, as the heirs of which is natural-born decedent.WarningThis were not legal advice or representation. Request your rights resulted discussed support by a lawyer in Texas.
8 Temmuz 2012 Pazar
Pregnancy Discrimination Claims Increase
To contact us Click HERE
It is not a surprise that the EEOC is receiving a greater volume of discrimination charges given that the U.S. unemployment rate is now over 10%. Naturally, many people who have lost their jobs have claimed a discriminatory basis for their separation. But, it is surprising that a large number of pregnancy discrimination claims have come into the EEOC. Pregnancy discrimination is covered under Title VII via the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC reported that it received 6,285 claims in FY 2008, up from 5,587 in FY 2007.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the PDA covers a "potential pregnancy" after an employee claimed she lost her job because she had taken time off for fertility treatment. This ruling certainly expanded the scope of covered claims (at least in that Circuit).
In addition, on January 1, 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 went into effect. The ADA was amended because "the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect." Pregnancy can be covered under the ADA if it effects a major life activity (such a major complications requiring bed rest).
Further, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees with serious health conditions, including conditions related to pregnancy, to take leave on a reduced work schedule if it is “medically necessary.” A reduced work schedule is “medically necessary” if an employee has a serious health condition that requires a treatment regimen which is best accommodated by this type of leave. Thus, if a health care provider certifies a pregnant employee’s need for part-time work, an employer may have to modify the employee's work schedule.
As always, employers should make sure that they are in compliance with all laws and should consult with counsel if any questions arise.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the PDA covers a "potential pregnancy" after an employee claimed she lost her job because she had taken time off for fertility treatment. This ruling certainly expanded the scope of covered claims (at least in that Circuit).
In addition, on January 1, 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 went into effect. The ADA was amended because "the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect." Pregnancy can be covered under the ADA if it effects a major life activity (such a major complications requiring bed rest).
Further, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees with serious health conditions, including conditions related to pregnancy, to take leave on a reduced work schedule if it is “medically necessary.” A reduced work schedule is “medically necessary” if an employee has a serious health condition that requires a treatment regimen which is best accommodated by this type of leave. Thus, if a health care provider certifies a pregnant employee’s need for part-time work, an employer may have to modify the employee's work schedule.
As always, employers should make sure that they are in compliance with all laws and should consult with counsel if any questions arise.
Respect Employees in the Military
To contact us Click HERE
All employers should review their policies and procedures to make sure that they are in compliance with USERRA, including having the required posted notice apprising employees of their rights under USERRA. An employee returning from military service should be reinstated as dictated under law and must not be discharged subsequent to his/her return per USERRA.
In addition, recent changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) set forth military leave rights under that law.
We have grown to better appreciate our military and the men and women who serve in the armed forces. It is not uncommon to witness uniformed servicemen getting applause in an airport or being honored and recognized at a sporting event. However, the same level of respect is not always given in the workplace. Employers need to understand that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) protects employees who are called to service. USERRA is intended to provide military service members the ability to return to their jobs with credited seniority following absence due to service. The rights provided under USERRA include:
- non-discrimination based on military status;
- reinstatement rights to the position and pay that the employee would have held had the employee remained continuously employed;
- continuation of medical benefits for service under 30 days;
- optional continuation of medical benefits;
- all seniority, rights and benefits upon return to work as if the employee had remained continuously employed; and
- protection from discharge upon return to work, except for cause, for a period of time.
All employers should review their policies and procedures to make sure that they are in compliance with USERRA, including having the required posted notice apprising employees of their rights under USERRA. An employee returning from military service should be reinstated as dictated under law and must not be discharged subsequent to his/her return per USERRA.
In addition, recent changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) set forth military leave rights under that law.
Federal Minimum Wage Increased
To contact us Click HERE
The Federal minimum wage increased on July 23rd from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour. This wage increase is proscribed by 2007 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the increase brings good news to workers making minimum wage, it also creates an added burden on business owners who must now pay higher wages in a struggling economy. Some small business asked Congress to defer the wage increase to some time after the U.S. recovers from the recession.
As a reminder, employers must update their labor law posters to reflect the new wage increase.
Interestingly, even with the increase to $7.25 per hour, a full-time employee making minimum wage only earns about $15,080 per year, hardly enough to live on.
Thirty states, including Georgia, have had to raise their minimum wage as well (states can have a higher minimum wage than the Federal, but not less). Nineteen states already have minimum wages laws that mandate a higher minimum wage than the Federal.
Some economists are predicting that the increase in minimum wage will have a negative effect on the consumer, as many businesses are expected to raise prices to offset increased labor costs.
As a reminder, employers must update their labor law posters to reflect the new wage increase.
Interestingly, even with the increase to $7.25 per hour, a full-time employee making minimum wage only earns about $15,080 per year, hardly enough to live on.
Thirty states, including Georgia, have had to raise their minimum wage as well (states can have a higher minimum wage than the Federal, but not less). Nineteen states already have minimum wages laws that mandate a higher minimum wage than the Federal.
Some economists are predicting that the increase in minimum wage will have a negative effect on the consumer, as many businesses are expected to raise prices to offset increased labor costs.
EEOC To Get More Resources
To contact us Click HERE
Employers beware: the EEOC is getting more ammunition to process and move along backlogged cases - $23 million worth.
The 2010 version of the omnibus appropriations bill, first passed in the House on December 10th and then the Senate on December 13th, would provide $23 million in funding to help the EEOC resolve more than 70,000 backlogged employment discrimination charges. The EEOC has reported that it experienced a 35% increase in the volume of backlogged cases, from 54,970 in 2007 to 73,951 in 2008. Combined with a record number of new discrimination complaints (95,402 - a 20% increase), the EEOC, with its current financing, is ill-equipped to meet the current volume of current and backlogged charges. At the same time, EEOC staffing has fallen 25% over the past decade.
So, while the EEOC may have taken several years to address and resolve complaints, expect a more expedited process in the future.
The 2010 version of the omnibus appropriations bill, first passed in the House on December 10th and then the Senate on December 13th, would provide $23 million in funding to help the EEOC resolve more than 70,000 backlogged employment discrimination charges. The EEOC has reported that it experienced a 35% increase in the volume of backlogged cases, from 54,970 in 2007 to 73,951 in 2008. Combined with a record number of new discrimination complaints (95,402 - a 20% increase), the EEOC, with its current financing, is ill-equipped to meet the current volume of current and backlogged charges. At the same time, EEOC staffing has fallen 25% over the past decade.
So, while the EEOC may have taken several years to address and resolve complaints, expect a more expedited process in the future.
What's the Real Cost?
To contact us Click HERE
With the increase in Federal agency initiatives targeting employers, such as I-9 audits or independent contractor classification audits, employers face increased scrutiny. In addition, disgruntled current or former employees are free to lodge complaints with State and Federal agencies that may spark an investigation. In either case, an employer faces potential liability, as very few employers are capable of keeping up with the myriad of employment laws. In reality, most employers try to remain compliant with employment laws, but if the government looks hard enough, it is likely to find a violation or two.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
7 Temmuz 2012 Cumartesi
Consumer bureau appointee to promote financial industry diversity
To contact us Click HERE
The Los Angeles TimesBy Jim Puzzanghera April 30, 2012, 8:26 a.m.WASHINGTON -- The new consumer watchdog agency on Monday appointed an outgoing member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to lead a new office to promote diversity at the agency and in the financial services industry.Stuart Ishimaru, who served as acting EEOC chairman from 2009-2010, will lead the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency and other federal banking regulators were required to create such offices as part of the 2010 financial reform law.Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-financial-diversity-20120430,0,2784842.story
Updated EEOC Guidelines Make It Harder For Employers To Discriminate Against Former Criminals
To contact us Click HERE
The Huffington PostBy SAM HANANEL 04/25/12 06:21 PM ET WASHINGTON -- Is an arrest in a barroom brawl 20 years ago a job disqualifier? Not necessarily, the government said Wednesday in new guidelines on how employers can avoid running afoul of laws prohibiting job discrimination.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's updated policy on criminal background checks is part of an effort to rein in practices that can limit job opportunities for minorities that have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/updated-eeoc-guidelines_n_1456021.html?ref=business
EEOC Asks for Teen Advice to Solve the Wage Gap
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionPRESS RELEASE 4-23-12Agency’s Denver Field Office Invites Teenagers to Participate in ForumDENVER -- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is asking teenagers to weigh in on the heavy issues of equal pay and wage disparity.On April 26, 2012, the EEOC will recognize the 20th anniversary of Take Your Child to Work Day by inviting teenagers to its Denver Field Office to participate in a dialogue for solutions on how to bridge the gender wage gap in America. Suggestions from this forum will be sent to the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force in Washington, D.C. EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien is a member of that body, which is headed by Vice President Joe Biden.“The EEOC believes that teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18 represent an unbiased group that may have the ability to solve a problem that has plagued generations,” said Denver EEOC Field Director Nancy Sienko. “We want to hear what they have to say.”The forum will take place from 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm at the EEOC’s Denver Field Office, 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 410, Denver. Participants will be asked to sign their names to a registration sheet, which will be kept for historical purposes.All participants must register in advance at: http://bringyourteentoworkateeoc.eventbrite.com/?ref=enivtefor&invite=MTgwMzE2OS9wYXRyaWNpYS5tY21haG9uQGVlb2MuZ292LzA%3D&utm_source=eb_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=inviteformal&utm_term=attendThe EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Denver Field Office has jurisdiction for Colorado and Wyoming. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-23-12.cfm
Little Rock Real Estate Company Settles EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Suit
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionPRESS RELEASE 4-18-12Bankers Asset Management Will Pay $600,000 for Excluding Blacks for Jobs and Punishing Employees for Complaining About Bias Selected List of EEOC Systemic Hiring Resolutions and Filings Since 2005 (as of 4/18/12) LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Bankers Asset Management, Inc., a real estate company in Little Rock, will pay $600,000 to former employees and a class of applicants to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), the agency announced today.The EEOC’s suit, Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-002070-SWW, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, alleged that the company excluded black applicants for jobs at the company’s Little Rock location based upon their race. The EEOC also alleged that the company retaliated against other employees and former employees for opposing or testifying about the race discrimination, by demoting and forcing one out of her job and by suing others in state court. The EEOC attempted to resolve this matter during conciliation prior to filing suit.Race discrimination and retaliation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to injunctive and monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the lawsuit requires that BAM: •provide mandatory annual three-hour training on race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII to all of its employees;•have its president or another officer appear at the training to inform staff of the company’s non-discrimination policy regarding race and retaliation; that the company will not tolerate such discrimination; and the consequences for discriminating in the workplace;•maintain records of complaints of race and retaliation discrimination;•provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding such complaints;•issue a memo to one of the hiring officials explaining that BAM does not discriminate on the basis of race and retaliation; and•post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that provides the EEOC’s contact information. “Excluding qualified individuals from job opportunities because of their race or in retaliation for exercising protected rights are fundamental violations of the laws we enforce,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “As this case demonstrates, the EEOC is prepared to vigorously pursue such cases and resolutions that help ensure that workplaces will be free from discrimination. Recent cases we have filed alleging hiring discrimination, such as our suit against Bass Pro, demonstrate this continued commitment.” “We are pleased that this company worked with us to reach a satisfactory resolution in this matter to ensure black applicants will be judged based on their qualifications,” said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “The measures in the decree will work to ensure that African-American applicants are treated in the same manner as others, and that employees who have the courage to oppose race discrimination are protected against retaliation.”BAM is an Arkansas corporation engaged in real estate, real estate-owned properties, broker management and asset management in the Little Rock area.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-18-12.cfm
The Dream, the Reality: Civil Rights in the '60s and Today
To contact us Click HERE
Workforce ManagementBy Susan G. HauserMay 7, 2012Just before noon on Aug. 28, 1963, a quarter of a million people began slowly moving toward the Lincoln Memorial. Eventually, they would completely surround the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool all the way to the shade trees that surround it. They were mostly African-American, but they represented all creeds and colors of U.S. citizens. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was the largest demonstration ever staged in the nation's capital.The last speaker of the day was a preacher from Atlanta. His words soared out above the peaceful crowd. Standing below the statue of Abraham Lincoln, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. laid emphasis on freedom, the freedom he dreamed would someday "ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city."Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/article/20120507/WORKFORCE90/120419999/1066/newsletter01#
5 Temmuz 2012 Perşembe
How can I have used books in Houston, Texas law?
To contact us Click HERE
Law books can be expensive. However, information contained in the hands of a search of legal knowledge can be valuable on the pages of a book by law. If you want the books to you qualify can do this in a way that will be useful for other users. There are in Houston, Texas, you can donate books if you want to have about you. Or you can sell books online through Web sites such as craigslist and eBay.Difficulty: EasyInstructions1Contact University, or law school libraries in Houston, Texas. Houston schools are the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, the University of St. Thomas, South Texas College of law and San Jacinto College.Provide, the representative of the library with the name of the Act books you want to have. The representative of the library will look able to see if the book within the criminal justice or right business law curriculum business is sold in the database. If books by the Bank at the bookstore you your books to your law books of donations for the Houston public library system store. 2Dispose used to donate transported. Search a library call 832-393-1300 near you. Also find the Library website. 3Contact Houston public library branches to see when the next book autumn will be drive lawyers from Houston. Donate your books book drive. The Association will be his books to shelters and literary projects. The exact dates for the Houston Bar Association know autumn book drive call 713-759-1133.
Texas law on the adoption without the consent of the father
To contact us Click HERE
Adoption of a child, or placement of a child for adoption in Texas can change a life event. Before each adoption can take place, all parties of the rights of the biological father should be aware. Father of NeededA consent must wait 48 hours before placing your child right Texas adoption.Under your child for adoption, the mother and the father of a child have been agreed otherwise no adoption can take place. The biological father of the child must be 48 hours from the time of the birth of your child adoption.Consent wait before it can agree to not OpenScale circumstances, the mother needed not consent.If father that father had canceled the birth parental rights, that the biological mother, the child for adoption may consent not. A Texas court can put end fathers rights if it has been due to negligence or abuse of the child. When a woman is sexually abused and is therefore pregnant does not require the consent of his attacker, the child for adoption, even if it is signed to place the document to a child for adoption LawsA revoked.If child's biological father is not known in Texas, the mother, as biological father.Other, the Agency worked with, should an attempt to find the father before the adoption can take place. If the biological father can already legal documents in Texas, to place the adoption of children registered, your decision is revoked.
The Texas Penal Code abuse
To contact us Click HERE
Texas, seniors of age 65 or satisfied code penal article 22.04 are protected against the abuse of Texas. The law who committed abuses against a person, commits a criminal offence of crimes after. Addicted DefinedA person committed abuse, injury, or severe psychological damage to another person aged 65 or more if you cause serious injury. Act includes members of the family, owners and nursing facility operators, facility staff and owners and staff of other institutions which provide long-term AbuseAccording to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott still life assistance.Types, includes abuse, intimidation, humiliation, harassment, involuntary isolation, threats of punishment, deprivation, beat slapping, pinch, kicked, any kind of corporal punishment, sexual without consent, sexual harassment, verbal abuse or any oral language written, or move contact contains terms that is offensive or derogatory, regardless of the capacity of the person to hear or individual comprehend.PenaltiesAn commits a crime of first degree if knowingly or intentionally to serious physical or mental injury to an elderly person results. The offence is a crime of second degree, if the injury is caused by negligence. A person commits a crime of third degree if you knowingly or intentionally cause injury to any older person, while physical damage caused by negligence be committing a crime of State prison.
Entitled the Texas maintenance
To contact us Click HERE
The Texas nurses practice Act a Texas Board of nursing created rules for the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the nursing and define the requirements for one to grant a license for care. Texas is the nursing MembersThe Texas nursing Act created a nurse Council of 13 members. Six members are of different types of nurses, three are members of the Faculty of nursing school and four can be obtained on nursing appointed to each way.Board ResponsibilitiesThe Texas Board of nursing nursing decides its own responsibilities and compensation. Members work together to regulate the standards of nursing career and training fields. You also decide how nurses must by passed training to obtain licenses and you must approve before nurse nurse, a nursing license.LicensesNo may be granted, one can pretend to be any unlicensed nursing nurse. If you submit an application for a license of science nursing perspectives must have determined completed the necessary training, following a review of the case-law of the Board of Directors of approved and paid a fee by the Board of Directors.
159.006 Texas medical practice Act
To contact us Click HERE
Texas medical practice Act, Chapter 159 section 006, treated patients, the information must provide from doctors in Texas. Information, what information a doctor must share and the process of sharing, according to the Texas Medical Board section of the Act. Doctor ProvisionsA receives a written request for medical records and billing a patient needs a copy in accordance with the medical practice act in Texas. The law requires that a doctor provide copies of these documents either the patient or another doctor, based on the contents of the written Framethe request.Time law requires that a physician must provide copies of medical patients and settlement within 15 working days after receipt of a written request. Your doctor may also a formal denial of the request in this 15 days period.DenialThe Texas Medical Practices Act allows a doctor make a request in writing to copies which medical patient record may refuse. If a doctor that free information on a patient's physical, mental or emotional condition adversely believes it can the request reject, but should place the patient medical and billing saves a statement written to explain the refusal.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)