To contact us Click HERE
The Mercury
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:46 am
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision of Fisher v. University of Texas, when implemented, will not affect UTD.The case involves the legality of affirmative action, an option that encourages employers and admission committees to increase the representation of minority groups in companies and schools. Plaintiff Abigail Fisher filed her lawsuit against UT Austin in 2008 because she believed the university did not admit her because she is white. Because Fisher did not fall under the top 10 percent of her graduating class, admission factors were based on leadership roles, extracurricular activities, volunteering, SAT scores and, according to Fisher, race. Full Story: http://www.utdmercury.com/news/article_6ad34cf4-37f1-11e2-9d4e-001a4bcf6878.html
30 Kasım 2012 Cuma
Affirmative Action's Push-Pull on Diversity in Higher Education
To contact us Click HERE
Huff Post College the Blog
Posted: 11/13/2012 6:55 pm
Jackie Jenkins-Scott
President, Wheelock College
Last Tuesday's election showed us how the face of our country is changing. We saw the most diverse electorate in the history of the country with increases in the Latino and Asian American vote, and the African American vote at 13 percent -- the same high level as in the 2008 election. Notably, whites made up their lowest voting population ever at 72 percent of the electorate.
How do these shifting demographics impact higher education and affirmative action? The affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas currently before the United States Supreme Court is a hot topic in higher education.
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackie-jenkinsscott/college-affirmative-action_b_2121560.html
Posted: 11/13/2012 6:55 pm
Jackie Jenkins-Scott
President, Wheelock College
Last Tuesday's election showed us how the face of our country is changing. We saw the most diverse electorate in the history of the country with increases in the Latino and Asian American vote, and the African American vote at 13 percent -- the same high level as in the 2008 election. Notably, whites made up their lowest voting population ever at 72 percent of the electorate.
How do these shifting demographics impact higher education and affirmative action? The affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas currently before the United States Supreme Court is a hot topic in higher education.
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackie-jenkinsscott/college-affirmative-action_b_2121560.html
AAAA President's Corner
To contact us Click HERE
AAAA President’s Corner
November 2012
The American Association forAffirmative Action congratulates President Barack Obama on his re-election tohis second term as the 44th President of the United States ofAmerica. During our 2012 NationalConference (“The Fierce Urgency of Now: The Economic Case for EEO, AffirmativeAction and Diversity”), in Washington, DC this past June, we focused on thedemographic trends in America. We did sobecause the work that we do regarding access, equity and diversity, has made itvery clear to us for some time that business, education and government cannotafford to side step this predictability. Recent demographic changes inAmerica represent the people that made it possible for Mr. Obama to succeed bygarnering the majority electoral as well as the majority popular vote onNovember 6, 2012.
The United States of Americais rapidly becoming a minority-majority, and women, the GBLT community, and thegreat diversity in the Generation X must be included in the governance of thiscountry for us to maintain global leadership status with respect to economics,education, science, medicine, technology, and employment.
America has to make criticalinvestments and pay attention to our future leaders and decision makers toimprove the quality of life for everyone. That is why equal opportunity, affirmative action, and diversity areimperative tools that go beyond being morally correct. They are necessary toour nation’s social, economic, and political survival.
Please spread the word toyour friends, colleagues, community organizations and anyone who will listen,that we will partner with groups and organizations to champion this nation’sneed to authentically address demographic challenges. We salute the University of Texas at Austinfor understanding the demographic reality and its bold admissions policy toaccommodate demographic changes. Forthis reason we submitted an Amicus Curie Brief in the Fisher v. University of TexasCase.
May 6 – 10, 2013, we will hostour 39th Annual Conference (“Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Casefor Affirmative Action in Education and the Workplace.”), in San Antonio,Texas. Make certain you join us to learn and to makeyour voice heard in concert with the AAAA national movement. Gregory T. Chambers
AAAA President’s Corner
November 2012
The United States of Americais rapidly becoming a minority-majority, and women, the GBLT community, and thegreat diversity in the Generation X must be included in the governance of thiscountry for us to maintain global leadership status with respect to economics,education, science, medicine, technology, and employment.
America has to make criticalinvestments and pay attention to our future leaders and decision makers toimprove the quality of life for everyone. That is why equal opportunity, affirmative action, and diversity areimperative tools that go beyond being morally correct. They are necessary toour nation’s social, economic, and political survival.
Please spread the word toyour friends, colleagues, community organizations and anyone who will listen,that we will partner with groups and organizations to champion this nation’sneed to authentically address demographic challenges. We salute the University of Texas at Austinfor understanding the demographic reality and its bold admissions policy toaccommodate demographic changes. Forthis reason we submitted an Amicus Curie Brief in the Fisher v. University of TexasCase.
May 6 – 10, 2013, we will hostour 39th Annual Conference (“Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Casefor Affirmative Action in Education and the Workplace.”), in San Antonio,Texas. Make certain you join us to learn and to makeyour voice heard in concert with the AAAA national movement. Gregory T. Chambers
Michigan will 'wait and see' how affirmative action fares in federal courts before changing policy
To contact us Click HERE
By KellieWoodhouse, Higher education reporter
University officials are hesitant to reinstate formerly used affirmative action policies due to the possibility the ruling could be further appealed and because of an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case that is examining the lawfulness of affirmative action.
Full Story:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/mary-sue-coleman-michigan-will-wait-and-see-how-affirmative-action-fares-in-federal-courts-before-ch/
University officials are hesitant to reinstate formerly used affirmative action policies due to the possibility the ruling could be further appealed and because of an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case that is examining the lawfulness of affirmative action.
Full Story:
http://www.annarbor.com/news/mary-sue-coleman-michigan-will-wait-and-see-how-affirmative-action-fares-in-federal-courts-before-ch/
29 Kasım 2012 Perşembe
Appeals Court Bars Michigan Ban on College Affirmative Action
To contact us Click HERE
Law.com
By Sheri Qualters
The National Law JournalNovember 20, 2012
A Michigan law banning race-conscious admissions policies at the state's universities is unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled.
Judge Guy Cole Jr. wrote the majority opinion for a split en banc court in the November 15 ruling in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.
The decision reversed a March 2008 ruling by Judge David Lawson of the Eastern District of Michigan District that found constitutional a ballot initiative that amended the Michigan constitution to prohibit affirmative action. In November 2006, Michigan voters passed the ballot initiative, known as Proposal 2, by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent.
Full Story: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202578845752&Appeals_Court_Bars_Michigan_Ban_on_College_Affirmative_Action&slreturn=20121027130048
By Sheri Qualters
The National Law JournalNovember 20, 2012
A Michigan law banning race-conscious admissions policies at the state's universities is unconstitutional, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled.
Judge Guy Cole Jr. wrote the majority opinion for a split en banc court in the November 15 ruling in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.
The decision reversed a March 2008 ruling by Judge David Lawson of the Eastern District of Michigan District that found constitutional a ballot initiative that amended the Michigan constitution to prohibit affirmative action. In November 2006, Michigan voters passed the ballot initiative, known as Proposal 2, by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent.
Full Story: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202578845752&Appeals_Court_Bars_Michigan_Ban_on_College_Affirmative_Action&slreturn=20121027130048
EEOC Releases Performance and Accountability Report Under New Strategic Plan
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 11-19-12
Performance Now Measured Against Three Strategic Objectives; Past Fiscal Year Saw Record Reduction in Charge Inventory and Monetary Recovery in Administrative Process
WASHINGTON-The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finished fiscal year 2012 with record high monetary recoveries for victims of discrimination, as well as a significant decrease in its inventory of pending cases, the agency announced in its Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) released Nov. 16. This is the first performance report compiled under the standards of the EEOC's new Strategic Plan adopted on February 22, 2012, after comprehensive review and significant public input. The new plan took effect in March, 2012.
The Strategic Plan has three objectives: strategic law enforcement, education and outreach, and efficiently serving the public.
Under the first objective of strategic law enforcement, the EEOC secured a historic monetary recovery through is private sector administrative enforcement--$365.4 million-the highest level of monetary relief ever. Administrative enforcement includes mediation, settlements, withdrawals with benefits and conciliation. Approximately 10 percent of this amount--$36 million-- came from investigations and conciliations of systemic charges of discrimination, four times the amount received in the previous fiscal year.
Additionally, the Commission recovered $44.2 million through its litigation program, as well as securing injunctive relief against discriminatory practices affecting a large number of employees. Fully 20 percent of the cases on the agency's litigation docket were systemic cases. Overall, there were a total of 122 lawsuits on the merits filed by Commission offices nationwide.
Under the rubric of efficiently serving the public, for the second consecutive year, the pending inventory was reduced significantly. During fiscal year 2012, the Commission resolved a total of 111,139 charges, and by year end, the total number of unresolved private sector charges totaled 70,312. From the beginning of fiscal year 2011 to the end of fiscal year 2012, the total number of unresolved charges has declined by nearly 20 percent. This reduction is notable because it occurred at a time of record charge receipts.
For the third consecutive year, the EEOC received nearly 100,000 charges of discrimination (99,412 charges in fiscal year 2012). A more detailed breakdown of the fiscal year 2012 charge receipts and litigation will be released at a later date.
The EEOC also made strides in its federal sector programs where it provides administrative judges to hear employee complaints of discrimination upon request, and also adjudicates appeals from final agency decisions. In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC secured more than $61.9 million in relief for parties who requested hearings in the federal sector. There were a total of 7,728 requests for hearings received and the Commission's hearings program resolved a total of 7,538 complaints. During the last fiscal year, the EEOC received 4,350 appeals of final agency actions in the federal sector, a 16 percent decrease from the 5,176 such appeals received in FY 2011. This offsets the 13.8 percent increase that occurred between fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
With respect to the objective of education and outreach, EEOC offices participated in 3,992 no-cost educational, training, and outreach events, reaching 318,838 persons in the past fiscal year. These efforts targeted small businesses, vulnerable workers, underserved geographic areas and communities, and emphasized new statutory responsibilities, issues related to migrant workers, human trafficking and youth, and equal pay in the workplace.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-19-12.cfm
PRESS RELEASE 11-19-12
Performance Now Measured Against Three Strategic Objectives; Past Fiscal Year Saw Record Reduction in Charge Inventory and Monetary Recovery in Administrative Process
WASHINGTON-The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finished fiscal year 2012 with record high monetary recoveries for victims of discrimination, as well as a significant decrease in its inventory of pending cases, the agency announced in its Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) released Nov. 16. This is the first performance report compiled under the standards of the EEOC's new Strategic Plan adopted on February 22, 2012, after comprehensive review and significant public input. The new plan took effect in March, 2012.
The Strategic Plan has three objectives: strategic law enforcement, education and outreach, and efficiently serving the public.
Under the first objective of strategic law enforcement, the EEOC secured a historic monetary recovery through is private sector administrative enforcement--$365.4 million-the highest level of monetary relief ever. Administrative enforcement includes mediation, settlements, withdrawals with benefits and conciliation. Approximately 10 percent of this amount--$36 million-- came from investigations and conciliations of systemic charges of discrimination, four times the amount received in the previous fiscal year.
Additionally, the Commission recovered $44.2 million through its litigation program, as well as securing injunctive relief against discriminatory practices affecting a large number of employees. Fully 20 percent of the cases on the agency's litigation docket were systemic cases. Overall, there were a total of 122 lawsuits on the merits filed by Commission offices nationwide.
Under the rubric of efficiently serving the public, for the second consecutive year, the pending inventory was reduced significantly. During fiscal year 2012, the Commission resolved a total of 111,139 charges, and by year end, the total number of unresolved private sector charges totaled 70,312. From the beginning of fiscal year 2011 to the end of fiscal year 2012, the total number of unresolved charges has declined by nearly 20 percent. This reduction is notable because it occurred at a time of record charge receipts.
For the third consecutive year, the EEOC received nearly 100,000 charges of discrimination (99,412 charges in fiscal year 2012). A more detailed breakdown of the fiscal year 2012 charge receipts and litigation will be released at a later date.
The EEOC also made strides in its federal sector programs where it provides administrative judges to hear employee complaints of discrimination upon request, and also adjudicates appeals from final agency decisions. In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC secured more than $61.9 million in relief for parties who requested hearings in the federal sector. There were a total of 7,728 requests for hearings received and the Commission's hearings program resolved a total of 7,538 complaints. During the last fiscal year, the EEOC received 4,350 appeals of final agency actions in the federal sector, a 16 percent decrease from the 5,176 such appeals received in FY 2011. This offsets the 13.8 percent increase that occurred between fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
With respect to the objective of education and outreach, EEOC offices participated in 3,992 no-cost educational, training, and outreach events, reaching 318,838 persons in the past fiscal year. These efforts targeted small businesses, vulnerable workers, underserved geographic areas and communities, and emphasized new statutory responsibilities, issues related to migrant workers, human trafficking and youth, and equal pay in the workplace.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-19-12.cfm
Texas State Agencies to Pay $175,000 to Settle EEOC and DOJ Wage Discrimination Suits
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE 11-19-12
Female Program Specialists Paid Less Than Male Counterparts, Federal Lawsuits Charged
AUSTIN, Texas - Two Texas state agencies will pay $175,000 to settle sex discrimination lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, the federal entities announced today. The EEOC and DOJ had charged the state agencies with responsibility for gender-based pay discrimination at another, now-defunct, state agency.
The federal agencies sued the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office for wage discrimination suffered by former female employees of the now-defunct Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA). The EEOC, which has litigation authority against state and local governments pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), charged that TDRA paid a former program specialist lower wages than it paid to a comparable male employee in the same division, for substantially equal work, the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which was performed under similar working conditions.
The parallel lawsuit filed by DOJ, which has litigation authority with respect to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for governmental employers, alleged that three female TDRA employees were subjected to wage discrimination because of their sex and terminated in retaliation for complaining about the unfairness. Sex-based wage discrimination and retaliation violate both the EPA and Title VII.
Given the common aspects of the claims, the two lawsuits were consolidated as EEOC and United States of America v. Texas Department of Agriculture and Texas General Land Office, Case No. A-11-CA-827 LY in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Judge Lee Yeakel has signed and approved a settlement requiring the Texas departments to pay $175,000 to three female employees who were paid less than their male counterparts, representing back pay as compensation for the difference in wages.
EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "This case highlights the fact that there is still much work to be done in the area of equal pay, 49 years after the Equal Pay Act was enacted. This resolution reflects the EEOC's commitment to work collaboratively with its governmental partner to enforce laws that require equal pay for men and women performing the same jobs."
Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, added, "The Department of Justice shares with EEOC a strong commitment to the principle of equal pay for equal work. This settlement demonstrates that commitment and makes clear that women cannot be paid less than men who do substantially similar work. We look forward to our continued collaboration with the EEOC to enforce the fundamental promise of our civil rights laws."
"Equal pay for equal work is a matter of common decency and common sense," said Patrick Connor, trial attorney for the EEOC's San Antonio Field Office. "Equal pay is about fairness for everyone, not just women. The EEOC and the DOJ worked hand in hand to bring about the common goals of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and to ensure a deserved result for these women based on their qualifications, skills and contributions."
The EEOC and DOJ are both responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-19-12a.cfm
PRESS RELEASE 11-19-12
Female Program Specialists Paid Less Than Male Counterparts, Federal Lawsuits Charged
AUSTIN, Texas - Two Texas state agencies will pay $175,000 to settle sex discrimination lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, the federal entities announced today. The EEOC and DOJ had charged the state agencies with responsibility for gender-based pay discrimination at another, now-defunct, state agency.
The federal agencies sued the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas General Land Office for wage discrimination suffered by former female employees of the now-defunct Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA). The EEOC, which has litigation authority against state and local governments pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), charged that TDRA paid a former program specialist lower wages than it paid to a comparable male employee in the same division, for substantially equal work, the performance of which required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which was performed under similar working conditions.
The parallel lawsuit filed by DOJ, which has litigation authority with respect to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for governmental employers, alleged that three female TDRA employees were subjected to wage discrimination because of their sex and terminated in retaliation for complaining about the unfairness. Sex-based wage discrimination and retaliation violate both the EPA and Title VII.
Given the common aspects of the claims, the two lawsuits were consolidated as EEOC and United States of America v. Texas Department of Agriculture and Texas General Land Office, Case No. A-11-CA-827 LY in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Judge Lee Yeakel has signed and approved a settlement requiring the Texas departments to pay $175,000 to three female employees who were paid less than their male counterparts, representing back pay as compensation for the difference in wages.
EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "This case highlights the fact that there is still much work to be done in the area of equal pay, 49 years after the Equal Pay Act was enacted. This resolution reflects the EEOC's commitment to work collaboratively with its governmental partner to enforce laws that require equal pay for men and women performing the same jobs."
Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, added, "The Department of Justice shares with EEOC a strong commitment to the principle of equal pay for equal work. This settlement demonstrates that commitment and makes clear that women cannot be paid less than men who do substantially similar work. We look forward to our continued collaboration with the EEOC to enforce the fundamental promise of our civil rights laws."
"Equal pay for equal work is a matter of common decency and common sense," said Patrick Connor, trial attorney for the EEOC's San Antonio Field Office. "Equal pay is about fairness for everyone, not just women. The EEOC and the DOJ worked hand in hand to bring about the common goals of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and to ensure a deserved result for these women based on their qualifications, skills and contributions."
The EEOC and DOJ are both responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-19-12a.cfm
Big Lots Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $155,000
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 11-27-12
Male Supervisor at Fort Smith Store Abused a Class of Female Employees, Federal Agency ChargedFORT SMITH, Ark. -- Big Lots Stores, Inc., which operates the Big Lots store at 4900 Rogers Ave. in Fort Smith, will pay $155,000 to four claimants and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the male store manager of the Fort Smith store subjected a class of female employees to sexual harassment, including sexually offensive comments and requests for sexual favors. The lawsuit further charged that after a female employee reported the sexual harassment, Big Lots failed to take the appropriate remedial measures necessary to protect its employees from continued sexual harassment, as the law requires.
Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division (EEOC v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2:11-CV-02184-PKH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Besides the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit includes:
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-27-12a.cfm
Press Release 11-27-12
Male Supervisor at Fort Smith Store Abused a Class of Female Employees, Federal Agency ChargedFORT SMITH, Ark. -- Big Lots Stores, Inc., which operates the Big Lots store at 4900 Rogers Ave. in Fort Smith, will pay $155,000 to four claimants and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
The EEOC's lawsuit charged that the male store manager of the Fort Smith store subjected a class of female employees to sexual harassment, including sexually offensive comments and requests for sexual favors. The lawsuit further charged that after a female employee reported the sexual harassment, Big Lots failed to take the appropriate remedial measures necessary to protect its employees from continued sexual harassment, as the law requires.
Sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division (EEOC v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2:11-CV-02184-PKH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Besides the monetary relief, the consent decree settling the suit includes:
- provisions for redistribution of Big Lots' harassment-free environment policy;
- mandatory anti-discrimination training;
- notice of the settlement to all Big Lots employees in its Fort Smith store; and
- requirements that the company report future complaints of sexual harassment to the EEOC for one year.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-27-12a.cfm
AAAA President's Corner
To contact us Click HERE
AAAA President’s Corner
November 2012
The American Association forAffirmative Action congratulates President Barack Obama on his re-election tohis second term as the 44th President of the United States ofAmerica. During our 2012 NationalConference (“The Fierce Urgency of Now: The Economic Case for EEO, AffirmativeAction and Diversity”), in Washington, DC this past June, we focused on thedemographic trends in America. We did sobecause the work that we do regarding access, equity and diversity, has made itvery clear to us for some time that business, education and government cannotafford to side step this predictability. Recent demographic changes inAmerica represent the people that made it possible for Mr. Obama to succeed bygarnering the majority electoral as well as the majority popular vote onNovember 6, 2012.
The United States of Americais rapidly becoming a minority-majority, and women, the GBLT community, and thegreat diversity in the Generation X must be included in the governance of thiscountry for us to maintain global leadership status with respect to economics,education, science, medicine, technology, and employment.
America has to make criticalinvestments and pay attention to our future leaders and decision makers toimprove the quality of life for everyone. That is why equal opportunity, affirmative action, and diversity areimperative tools that go beyond being morally correct. They are necessary toour nation’s social, economic, and political survival.
Please spread the word toyour friends, colleagues, community organizations and anyone who will listen,that we will partner with groups and organizations to champion this nation’sneed to authentically address demographic challenges. We salute the University of Texas at Austinfor understanding the demographic reality and its bold admissions policy toaccommodate demographic changes. Forthis reason we submitted an Amicus Curie Brief in the Fisher v. University of TexasCase.
May 6 – 10, 2013, we will hostour 39th Annual Conference (“Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Casefor Affirmative Action in Education and the Workplace.”), in San Antonio,Texas. Make certain you join us to learn and to makeyour voice heard in concert with the AAAA national movement. Gregory T. Chambers
AAAA President’s Corner
November 2012
The United States of Americais rapidly becoming a minority-majority, and women, the GBLT community, and thegreat diversity in the Generation X must be included in the governance of thiscountry for us to maintain global leadership status with respect to economics,education, science, medicine, technology, and employment.
America has to make criticalinvestments and pay attention to our future leaders and decision makers toimprove the quality of life for everyone. That is why equal opportunity, affirmative action, and diversity areimperative tools that go beyond being morally correct. They are necessary toour nation’s social, economic, and political survival.
Please spread the word toyour friends, colleagues, community organizations and anyone who will listen,that we will partner with groups and organizations to champion this nation’sneed to authentically address demographic challenges. We salute the University of Texas at Austinfor understanding the demographic reality and its bold admissions policy toaccommodate demographic changes. Forthis reason we submitted an Amicus Curie Brief in the Fisher v. University of TexasCase.
May 6 – 10, 2013, we will hostour 39th Annual Conference (“Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Casefor Affirmative Action in Education and the Workplace.”), in San Antonio,Texas. Make certain you join us to learn and to makeyour voice heard in concert with the AAAA national movement. Gregory T. Chambers
28 Kasım 2012 Çarşamba
AAAA Conference 2013 Call for Presenters
To contact us Click HERE
AAAA CONFERENCE 2013 CALL FOR PRESENTERS TheAmerican Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is seeking presenters toshare their expertise, passion and commitment to promoting diversity andaffirmative action with a national audience during our 2013 National Conferenceand Annual Meeting in San Antonio from May 7 to May 10. Our theme for the Conference is “Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Case for Affirmative Action inEducation and the Workplace.”
Weare seeking presentations from professionals with expertise on the challengesfacing affirmative action in Higher Education, Government, and the PrivateSector. We encourage presentations thataddress our theme as well as other emerging issues, trends, analyses andperspectives related to diversity and affirmative action in education and theworkplace. There are tremendous benefitsto participation including:
· Nationalrecognition
· Opportunitiesto learn and share experiences with others
· Networking
· Professionaldevelopment
· ComplimentaryConference registration
Presentationswill be one hour and fifteen minutes in length, including time for questionsand answers. Ideally, presentationsshould help conference attendees put theory into practice. Presentation formatand suggested topics are detailed in the following pages.
AAAAis a national, not-for-profit association of professionals working in areas ofaffirmative action, equal opportunity, human resources and diversity in boththe public and private sectors. Our mission is to promote the understanding andadvocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equity in employment,economic, and educational opportunities. For more information about AAAA, pleasecontact us at:
AAAA
88816th Street NW, Suite 800
Washington,D.C. 20006
(202)355-1399
aaaaconference2013@affirmativeaction.org
www.affirmativeaction.org
To see the complete Call for Presenters with submission criteria, click here: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1101929144254-118/AAAA+Conference+2013++Final+Call+for+Presenters+112012.pdf
Proposalsmust be submitted electronically by December 14, 2012 to the following:
MatthewJ. Camardella
camardem@jacksonlewis.com
AAAA CONFERENCE 2013 CALL FOR PRESENTERS TheAmerican Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA) is seeking presenters toshare their expertise, passion and commitment to promoting diversity andaffirmative action with a national audience during our 2013 National Conferenceand Annual Meeting in San Antonio from May 7 to May 10. Our theme for the Conference is “Diversity on Trial: The Compelling Case for Affirmative Action inEducation and the Workplace.” · Nationalrecognition
· Opportunitiesto learn and share experiences with others
· Networking
· Professionaldevelopment
· ComplimentaryConference registration
Presentationswill be one hour and fifteen minutes in length, including time for questionsand answers. Ideally, presentationsshould help conference attendees put theory into practice. Presentation formatand suggested topics are detailed in the following pages.
AAAA
88816th Street NW, Suite 800
Washington,D.C. 20006
(202)355-1399
aaaaconference2013@affirmativeaction.org
www.affirmativeaction.org
Proposalsmust be submitted electronically by December 14, 2012 to the following:
MatthewJ. Camardella
camardem@jacksonlewis.com
Cornell University Takes Steps to Address Sexual Assault and Harassment
To contact us Click HERE
Women in Academia Report
Posted on Nov 21, 2012
Several incidents of sexual assault and harassment have occurred on the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. In response the university has taken a number of steps to address the situation.
A task force was created to address issues concerning education and training, campus climate, victim support services, and enforcement. The university’s Women’s Resource Center created the Sexual Violence Prevention Working Group to design solutions to the university’s shortcomings in dealing with issues of sexual assault and harassment. Three Cornell University police officers have received special training in investigating alleged cases of sexual assault. Campus lighting was improved in areas where needed.
Full Story: http://www.wiareport.com/2012/11/cornell-university-takes-steps-to-address-sexual-assault-and-harassment/?utm_source=Women+In+Academia+Report&utm_campaign=f092688925-Women_in_Academia_Report_6_14_116_13_2011&utm_medium=email
Posted on Nov 21, 2012
Several incidents of sexual assault and harassment have occurred on the campus of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. In response the university has taken a number of steps to address the situation.
A task force was created to address issues concerning education and training, campus climate, victim support services, and enforcement. The university’s Women’s Resource Center created the Sexual Violence Prevention Working Group to design solutions to the university’s shortcomings in dealing with issues of sexual assault and harassment. Three Cornell University police officers have received special training in investigating alleged cases of sexual assault. Campus lighting was improved in areas where needed.
Full Story: http://www.wiareport.com/2012/11/cornell-university-takes-steps-to-address-sexual-assault-and-harassment/?utm_source=Women+In+Academia+Report&utm_campaign=f092688925-Women_in_Academia_Report_6_14_116_13_2011&utm_medium=email
Webinar: Worker's Compensation Update March 30th
To contact us Click HERE
It is important to clarify when employees are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and explain what you should and shouldn’t do if an employee is injured on the job. This seminar will discuss:
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
Think You Know an Employee's "Age"? Don't Be So Sure
To contact us Click HERE
The article below addresses key points related to UIC HR policy102 that provides a nondiscrimination statement that applies to admissions, employment, access to, and treatment in the University programs and activities. Age is one of the protected classes under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Amendments.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
Fall 2012 Event Wrap-Up
To contact us Click HERE
Rebecca Fortier Employee Recognition Award Program
Campus Charitable Fund Drive: October 3rd – December 21st (Extended Date!!!)
Spring 2013 Upcoming Events
Retirement Luncheon: Thursday, February 28
Campus Charitable Fund Drive: October 3rd – December 21st (Extended Date!!!)
Spring 2013 Upcoming Events
Retirement Luncheon: Thursday, February 28
27 Kasım 2012 Salı
United States: ARB Rejects OFCCP's Claim Of Jurisdiction Based On Florida Hospital's TRICARE Participation
To contact us Click HERE
Mondaq
30 October 2012
Article by David J. Goldstein For nearly four years, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been tenaciously pursuing jurisdiction over healthcare providers based on the theory that providers participating in, and receiving more than $50,000 in reimbursement from, the Department of Defense's TRICARE program qualify as federal government subcontractors who are required to comply with the agency's regulations. Even when Congress passed legislation in December 2011that appears designed to reject OFCCP's position, the agency's director, Patricia Shiu, responded that "this is not over yet."
Full Story: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/203898/Healthcare/ARB+Rejects+OFCCPs+Claim+of+Jurisdiction+based+on+Florida+Hospitals+TRICARE+Participation
30 October 2012
Article by David J. Goldstein For nearly four years, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been tenaciously pursuing jurisdiction over healthcare providers based on the theory that providers participating in, and receiving more than $50,000 in reimbursement from, the Department of Defense's TRICARE program qualify as federal government subcontractors who are required to comply with the agency's regulations. Even when Congress passed legislation in December 2011that appears designed to reject OFCCP's position, the agency's director, Patricia Shiu, responded that "this is not over yet."
Full Story: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/203898/Healthcare/ARB+Rejects+OFCCPs+Claim+of+Jurisdiction+based+on+Florida+Hospitals+TRICARE+Participation
OFCCP sends “heads-up” letters for audits to contractors
To contact us Click HERE
Lexology
Ogletree Deakins
Leigh M. Nason USA November 21 2012 The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has begun sending Corporate Scheduling Announcement Letters (CSALs) to federal contractors, giving them a “heads-up” warning of a possible compliance review or audit by OFCCP. Although OFCCP claimed this summer that it would post future notifications online, these recent letters were sent to contractors by mail.
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=97a13075-9394-47cd-a8ac-64fe1e9c8af7
Ogletree Deakins
Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=97a13075-9394-47cd-a8ac-64fe1e9c8af7
BSU awaits affirmative action ruling
To contact us Click HERE
The Star Press
November 25, 2012
Several hundred scholarships awarded to out-of-state minorities could be impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court
MUNCIE — Ball State University might not be able to continue to award Academic Recognition Awards to out-of-state minority students after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in Fisher v. Texas.
The court could constitutionally end affirmative action as a public policy in its upcoming ruling, which would affect universities and colleges
throughout the country.
http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20121126/NEWS01/311260012?nclick_check=1
November 25, 2012
Several hundred scholarships awarded to out-of-state minorities could be impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court
MUNCIE — Ball State University might not be able to continue to award Academic Recognition Awards to out-of-state minority students after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling in Fisher v. Texas.
The court could constitutionally end affirmative action as a public policy in its upcoming ruling, which would affect universities and colleges
throughout the country.http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20121126/NEWS01/311260012?nclick_check=1
Webinar: Worker's Compensation Update March 30th
To contact us Click HERE
It is important to clarify when employees are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and explain what you should and shouldn’t do if an employee is injured on the job. This seminar will discuss:
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
Think You Know an Employee's "Age"? Don't Be So Sure
To contact us Click HERE
The article below addresses key points related to UIC HR policy102 that provides a nondiscrimination statement that applies to admissions, employment, access to, and treatment in the University programs and activities. Age is one of the protected classes under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Amendments.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
26 Kasım 2012 Pazartesi
U.S. Supreme Court: Complaints By Public Employees Under Constitution's "Petition Clause" Only Protected If Related To Matters of Public Concern
To contact us Click HERE
In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public employee who makes a complaint to a governmental employer under the "Petition Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is only protected from retaliation where the petition involves a matter of public concern. This decision harmonizes public employee complaints under the First Amendment's "Petition Clause" with prior Supreme Court decisions involving public employee complaints under the First Amendment's "Free Speech" clause.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects "the right of the people. . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," (called the "Petition Clause") as well as the people's right to "freedom of speech (called the "Speech Clause)." This case concerned the extent to which public employees are protected by the Petition Clause when they make routine complaints to governmental employers.
Guarnieri was a police chief for a local borough in Pennsylvania, who filed a union grievance against the borough, challenging his termination. Following a subsequent arbitration, Guarnieri was ordered to be reinstated by the borough. After his reinstatement, borough council issued 11 written directives to Guarnieri concerning the performance of his duties. Guarnieri then filed a lawsuit against the borough, arguing that his original union grievance was a "petition" that was protected by the First Amendment's Petition Clause, and that the 11 directives that were subsequently issued by borough council were issued illegally in retaliation for Guarnieri's protected activity in filing a petition.
Diverging from the decisions of other Circuits, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and held that Guarnieri's petition (in the form of his union grievance), was protected under the Petition Clause, even if the content of that petition did not address a matter of public concern.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, and reversed the decision of the Third Circuit. In a 7-2 decision, with Justice Thomas filing a concurring opinion and Justice Scalia filing an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, the Court held that in order to find protection for complaints to governmental employers filed under the Petition Clause, public employees must be petitioning about a matter of public concern. The majority opinion noted that public employees who complain to their governmental employers enjoy protection from retaliation under the First Amendment's Speech Clause only where their complaints involve "matters of public concern," as opposed to matters of "purely private concern." Given this premise, the majority found no distinguishing reason to treat a public employee's "petition" to a government employer under one section of the First Amendment differently from a public employee's "speech" under a different section of the First Amendment.
Therefore, the Court's majority laid down the following rule: "If a public employee petitions as an employee on a matter of purely private concern, the employee's First Amendment interest must give way, as it does in speech cases. When a public employee petitions as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the employee's First Amendment interest must be balanced against the countervailing interest of the government in the effective and efficient management of its internal affairs. If that balance favors the public employee, the employee's First Amendment claim will be sustained. If the interference with the government's operations is such that the balance favors the employer, the employee's First Amendment claim will fail even though the petition is on a matter of public concern."
You can read the Supreme Court's full decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1476.pdf
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects "the right of the people. . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," (called the "Petition Clause") as well as the people's right to "freedom of speech (called the "Speech Clause)." This case concerned the extent to which public employees are protected by the Petition Clause when they make routine complaints to governmental employers.
Guarnieri was a police chief for a local borough in Pennsylvania, who filed a union grievance against the borough, challenging his termination. Following a subsequent arbitration, Guarnieri was ordered to be reinstated by the borough. After his reinstatement, borough council issued 11 written directives to Guarnieri concerning the performance of his duties. Guarnieri then filed a lawsuit against the borough, arguing that his original union grievance was a "petition" that was protected by the First Amendment's Petition Clause, and that the 11 directives that were subsequently issued by borough council were issued illegally in retaliation for Guarnieri's protected activity in filing a petition.
Diverging from the decisions of other Circuits, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and held that Guarnieri's petition (in the form of his union grievance), was protected under the Petition Clause, even if the content of that petition did not address a matter of public concern.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, and reversed the decision of the Third Circuit. In a 7-2 decision, with Justice Thomas filing a concurring opinion and Justice Scalia filing an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, the Court held that in order to find protection for complaints to governmental employers filed under the Petition Clause, public employees must be petitioning about a matter of public concern. The majority opinion noted that public employees who complain to their governmental employers enjoy protection from retaliation under the First Amendment's Speech Clause only where their complaints involve "matters of public concern," as opposed to matters of "purely private concern." Given this premise, the majority found no distinguishing reason to treat a public employee's "petition" to a government employer under one section of the First Amendment differently from a public employee's "speech" under a different section of the First Amendment.
Therefore, the Court's majority laid down the following rule: "If a public employee petitions as an employee on a matter of purely private concern, the employee's First Amendment interest must give way, as it does in speech cases. When a public employee petitions as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the employee's First Amendment interest must be balanced against the countervailing interest of the government in the effective and efficient management of its internal affairs. If that balance favors the public employee, the employee's First Amendment claim will be sustained. If the interference with the government's operations is such that the balance favors the employer, the employee's First Amendment claim will fail even though the petition is on a matter of public concern."
You can read the Supreme Court's full decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1476.pdf
In Title VII Cases, Sometimes It's All About the Numbers. . .
To contact us Click HERE
On September 28, 2011, in the case of Meditz v. City of Newark the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the trial court had improperly dismissed a lawsuit against the City of Newark, which alleged that the City's residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees was unlawful under Title VII because it created an employment bias against white, non-Hispanic applicants. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had failed to properly evaluate and consider the weight of the statistical evidence that had been presented by the plaintiff. In April of 2007, Gregory Meditz, a white male who resided in neighboring Rutherford, New Jersey, applied for a non-uniformed job with the City of Newark. Meditz was turned down for the job because he did not live in the City of Newark, and thus did not qualify for employment under a City Ordinance that required all non-uniformed City personnel to live within the City limits. Meditz sued, claiming that the City's residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees was discriminatory and unlawfully barred him from qualifying for a non-uniformed job with the City. Specifically, Meditz argued that the residency requirement worked a disparate impact on white, non-Hispanic job applicants because the racial make-up of the population of Newark did not reflect the racial make-up of the surrounding labor market. In support of his claims, Meditz produced statistical data that he gathered from publicly available sources, which revealed that in 2007, only 9.4% of the non-uniformed employees of the City of Newark were white, non-Hispanic, while 28.31% of the City's uniformed employees (who are not subject to a residency requirement) were white, non-Hispanics. Meditz also compared the statistics of the racial composition of the City's non-uniformed employees with the racial composition of the non-uniformed employees from the County of Essex, which maintained its County seat within the City of Newark. This comparison showed that 42.96% of the non-uniformed employees who worked for the County were white, non-Hispanics. Meditz also introduced evidence that in 2005, the percentage of white, non-Hispanics that constituted the non-uniformed employees of Essex County and 5 neighboring counties, ranged from 48.09% to 86.49%, with the percentages of white, non-Hispanics employed in the private labor force in those same counties being only slightly lower. The trial court, however, granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and tossed Meditz's lawsuit, concluding that "these statistics, standing alone, do not constitute sufficient evidence of a significantly discriminatory hiring pattern."On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding that the trial court had misapplied the law and had failed to lend the appropriate weight to Meditz's statistical evidence. Specifically, the Court held that "Meditz offered statistical evidence showing that the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by Newark was lower than the population of white, non-Hispanics in the general population of Newark. Meditz also offered statistics showing the percentage of white, non-Hispanics in surrounding areas both for the general population and for the private and government work forces. Finally, Meditz offered evidence of the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by the Essex County government in Newark. Out of all these percentages, the lowest was the percentage of white, non-Hispanics employed by the City of Newark. This compilation of statistics supported Meditz's claim that white, non-Hispanics were under-represented in Newark's non-uniformed work force." This case provides an excellent illustration of how a disparate impact theory of discrimination under Title VII can be invaluable tool for an individual who believes he or she has been subjected to unlawful discrimination, because in these cases, evidence of discriminatory intent or bias on behalf of the employer is not required. All that a plaintiff needs in order to be successful is to establish a differential employment outcome or treatment that is based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin, which can be proven through statistical analysis and statistical deviations. After all, the numbers don't lie. You can read the Third Circuit's full opinion in Meditz v. City of Newark here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/102442p.pdf
Filming Co-workers In Partial State of Undress is Bad.... In Case You Didn't Know
To contact us Click HERE
In the legal world, common sense and the law do not always go hand-in-hand. Sometimes what seems practically logical or predictable will not be legally sustainable (or vice-versa). But, on those rare occasions when the law and common sense can exist side-by-side without destroying each other like sparring gladiators, it can be refreshing.
This is one of those moments. In the recent case of Jane Doe v. Luzerne County, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a claim brought by a deputy sheriff who alleged that her supervisors and co-workers in the Luzerne County Sheriff's office violated her Right to Privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment when they surreptitiously videotaped her partially nude, showed the video and still photographs to other co-workers in the department, and then stored the files on a county computer where any county employee who had access to the network could find and view them. The district court had thrown out Jane Doe's Right to Privacy claim, finding that while the actions of Doe's supervisor and co-worker in making the video, were "likely ill-conceived and definitely poorly executed," they did not "fall within the zone of privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." (Yes, you read that correctly).
One day, Jane Doe, a Luzerne County deputy sheriff, and her partner entered a residence to serve a bench warrant, only to discover the inside of the residence strewn with garbage and at least one dead animal (a cat) observed on the floor. Doe and her partner soon found themselves crawling with fleas. They radioed back to the Sheriff's Department for instructions on how to handle the flea exposure, and were told to proceed to a local Emergency Management Building (EMB), and wait there in their police cruiser until EMB personnel could construct a temporary decontamination shower and until their supervisors arrived.
After arriving at the EMB, Doe and her partner were met by Arthur Bobbouine, Chief Deputy of the Department and Deputy Ryan Foy, both of whom were Doe's supervisors. Foy brought a video camera and immediately began to film Doe and her partner, who were still sitting in their police cruiser with the windows rolled up. Foy testified that he was videotaping the proceedings for training purposes, and both Bobbouine and Foy instructed Doe and her partner that they had to remain inside the cruiser until the decontamination shower was constructed.
Unfortunately, the EMB personnel were unable to construct the decontamination shower, so Bobbouine instructed Doe and her partner to drive to a nearby hospital, which was equipped with a decontamination facility. After getting to the hospital and sitting in the cruiser for another forty-five minutes (as ordered), Doe finally entered the hospital with Foy videotaping her the entire way. Doe testified that throughout her time in the cruiser, both at the EMB and the hospital, and during her walk into the hospital, she repeatedly asked Foy to stop filming, but he refused, stating it was for training purposes.
Doe proceeded to the decontamination shower room, closed the door behind her, undressed and showered without incident. When she finished showering, however, she noticed that there were no towels in the decontamination area - only a roll of thin tissue paper, of the kind that covers examination tables in doctors' offices. A female Sheriff's Deputy, Joyce, instructed Doe through the closed door to wrap the hospital paper around her private areas so that Joyce could enter the room, examine Doe and ensure that all of the fleas had been removed. Doe wrapped the paper around her private areas, but testified that either the paper itself was semi-transparent, and/or that her wet body caused the paper to become semi-transparent after she wrapped it around herself.
Joyce entered the decontamination room, and closed the door behind her, but was unable to lock it, as the door was not equipped with a lock. With Doe standing with her back to the door, Joyce began to inspect Doe for fleas. Doe testified that at this point, most of her back, shoulders and legs were completely exposed, with only the semi-transparent paper wrapped around her buttocks and breasts.
As Joyce was examining Doe for fleas, Foy opened the door to the decontamination room approximately one foot and began surreptitiously filming Doe. Doe was then startled to hear Bobbouine's voice behind her saying "What's that shit all over your back?" in a reference to Doe's back tattoo. Doe instinctively turned, saw the two men and yelled at them to leave the decontamination room. Doe later testified that the video captured someone saying that he could see her "boobies," and that somebody should grab something to "cover [Doe] up." Doe also testified that her buttocks were visible through the wet paper and that Bobbouine had made a statement (also allegedly captured on video) that he "could see [Doe's] ass."
Joyce again closed the door to the decontamination room behind the men, and finished her examination of Doe. After which, Doe left the hospital in scrubs.
Later that same day, Foy uploaded the video he took of Doe onto his County work computer and showed the footage to several male and female officers. At least one officer testified that Foy had displayed a still image of Doe's bare buttocks. Foy then saved several still images (including one showing the tattoo on Doe's back) and the video he took that day in a public computer file, entitled "Brian's ass," which Doe testified could have been viewed by anyone who had access to the Luzerne County computer network. Of the two still images Foy saved that depicted Doe, both showed the visible outline of her buttocks, covered only by thin, wet hospital paper.
Doe sued the County, claiming that the actions of Foy and Bobbouine violated not only her Right to Privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Doe also claimed that the County was liable for an alleged failure to train their officers.
On appeal, the Third Circuit held that, on these facts, the district court committed error by dismissing Doe's Right to Privacy claim. While noting that "the issue of whether one may have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body is a matter of first impression in this circuit," the Court unambiguously found that "Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the Decontamination Area, particularly while in the presence of members of the opposite sex," and that the facts did not "support the assertion that Doe expressly or implicitly consented to Bobbouine and Foy opening the door or filming the events inside the Decontamination Area." The Court noted that there was also a dispute of material fact as to which of Doe's body parts were exposed to Bobbouine and Foy - Doe had presented evidence that her unexposed breasts and buttocks were revealed to Bobbouine and Foy, while the County had argued that only Doe's back, shoulders, arms and legs were exposed. As such, the Court determined that dismissal of Doe's claim in light of this factual dispute was improper.
The Court also found that the following factors all weighed in favor of finding a Right to Privacy for Doe under these circumstances: (1) the video and pictures may have included images of Doe's exposed breasts and/or buttocks; (2) the potential harm to Doe of dissemination of non-consensual disclosure of those images or video over the Internet was great; (3) the context of the disclosure of the video and images at her work and to her co-workers could increase the harm suffered by Doe; and (4) there were inadequate safeguards imposed against non-consensual disclosure because Foy had uploaded the video and images to a public file where anyone with network access could view them.
Consequently, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court and allowed Doe's Right to Privacy claim to continue.
So, in case anyone out there was fuzzy on this issue, videotaping your co-workers partially nude is a no-no.
You can read the Third Circuit's full opinion in Doe v. Luzerne County here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/103921p.pdf
This is one of those moments. In the recent case of Jane Doe v. Luzerne County, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's dismissal of a claim brought by a deputy sheriff who alleged that her supervisors and co-workers in the Luzerne County Sheriff's office violated her Right to Privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment when they surreptitiously videotaped her partially nude, showed the video and still photographs to other co-workers in the department, and then stored the files on a county computer where any county employee who had access to the network could find and view them. The district court had thrown out Jane Doe's Right to Privacy claim, finding that while the actions of Doe's supervisor and co-worker in making the video, were "likely ill-conceived and definitely poorly executed," they did not "fall within the zone of privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." (Yes, you read that correctly).
One day, Jane Doe, a Luzerne County deputy sheriff, and her partner entered a residence to serve a bench warrant, only to discover the inside of the residence strewn with garbage and at least one dead animal (a cat) observed on the floor. Doe and her partner soon found themselves crawling with fleas. They radioed back to the Sheriff's Department for instructions on how to handle the flea exposure, and were told to proceed to a local Emergency Management Building (EMB), and wait there in their police cruiser until EMB personnel could construct a temporary decontamination shower and until their supervisors arrived.
After arriving at the EMB, Doe and her partner were met by Arthur Bobbouine, Chief Deputy of the Department and Deputy Ryan Foy, both of whom were Doe's supervisors. Foy brought a video camera and immediately began to film Doe and her partner, who were still sitting in their police cruiser with the windows rolled up. Foy testified that he was videotaping the proceedings for training purposes, and both Bobbouine and Foy instructed Doe and her partner that they had to remain inside the cruiser until the decontamination shower was constructed.
Unfortunately, the EMB personnel were unable to construct the decontamination shower, so Bobbouine instructed Doe and her partner to drive to a nearby hospital, which was equipped with a decontamination facility. After getting to the hospital and sitting in the cruiser for another forty-five minutes (as ordered), Doe finally entered the hospital with Foy videotaping her the entire way. Doe testified that throughout her time in the cruiser, both at the EMB and the hospital, and during her walk into the hospital, she repeatedly asked Foy to stop filming, but he refused, stating it was for training purposes.
Doe proceeded to the decontamination shower room, closed the door behind her, undressed and showered without incident. When she finished showering, however, she noticed that there were no towels in the decontamination area - only a roll of thin tissue paper, of the kind that covers examination tables in doctors' offices. A female Sheriff's Deputy, Joyce, instructed Doe through the closed door to wrap the hospital paper around her private areas so that Joyce could enter the room, examine Doe and ensure that all of the fleas had been removed. Doe wrapped the paper around her private areas, but testified that either the paper itself was semi-transparent, and/or that her wet body caused the paper to become semi-transparent after she wrapped it around herself.
Joyce entered the decontamination room, and closed the door behind her, but was unable to lock it, as the door was not equipped with a lock. With Doe standing with her back to the door, Joyce began to inspect Doe for fleas. Doe testified that at this point, most of her back, shoulders and legs were completely exposed, with only the semi-transparent paper wrapped around her buttocks and breasts.
As Joyce was examining Doe for fleas, Foy opened the door to the decontamination room approximately one foot and began surreptitiously filming Doe. Doe was then startled to hear Bobbouine's voice behind her saying "What's that shit all over your back?" in a reference to Doe's back tattoo. Doe instinctively turned, saw the two men and yelled at them to leave the decontamination room. Doe later testified that the video captured someone saying that he could see her "boobies," and that somebody should grab something to "cover [Doe] up." Doe also testified that her buttocks were visible through the wet paper and that Bobbouine had made a statement (also allegedly captured on video) that he "could see [Doe's] ass."
Joyce again closed the door to the decontamination room behind the men, and finished her examination of Doe. After which, Doe left the hospital in scrubs.
Later that same day, Foy uploaded the video he took of Doe onto his County work computer and showed the footage to several male and female officers. At least one officer testified that Foy had displayed a still image of Doe's bare buttocks. Foy then saved several still images (including one showing the tattoo on Doe's back) and the video he took that day in a public computer file, entitled "Brian's ass," which Doe testified could have been viewed by anyone who had access to the Luzerne County computer network. Of the two still images Foy saved that depicted Doe, both showed the visible outline of her buttocks, covered only by thin, wet hospital paper.
Doe sued the County, claiming that the actions of Foy and Bobbouine violated not only her Right to Privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Doe also claimed that the County was liable for an alleged failure to train their officers.
On appeal, the Third Circuit held that, on these facts, the district court committed error by dismissing Doe's Right to Privacy claim. While noting that "the issue of whether one may have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his or her partially clothed body is a matter of first impression in this circuit," the Court unambiguously found that "Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy while in the Decontamination Area, particularly while in the presence of members of the opposite sex," and that the facts did not "support the assertion that Doe expressly or implicitly consented to Bobbouine and Foy opening the door or filming the events inside the Decontamination Area." The Court noted that there was also a dispute of material fact as to which of Doe's body parts were exposed to Bobbouine and Foy - Doe had presented evidence that her unexposed breasts and buttocks were revealed to Bobbouine and Foy, while the County had argued that only Doe's back, shoulders, arms and legs were exposed. As such, the Court determined that dismissal of Doe's claim in light of this factual dispute was improper.
The Court also found that the following factors all weighed in favor of finding a Right to Privacy for Doe under these circumstances: (1) the video and pictures may have included images of Doe's exposed breasts and/or buttocks; (2) the potential harm to Doe of dissemination of non-consensual disclosure of those images or video over the Internet was great; (3) the context of the disclosure of the video and images at her work and to her co-workers could increase the harm suffered by Doe; and (4) there were inadequate safeguards imposed against non-consensual disclosure because Foy had uploaded the video and images to a public file where anyone with network access could view them.
Consequently, the Court remanded the case back to the trial court and allowed Doe's Right to Privacy claim to continue.
So, in case anyone out there was fuzzy on this issue, videotaping your co-workers partially nude is a no-no.
You can read the Third Circuit's full opinion in Doe v. Luzerne County here: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/103921p.pdf
Webinar: Worker's Compensation Update March 30th
To contact us Click HERE
It is important to clarify when employees are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and explain what you should and shouldn’t do if an employee is injured on the job. This seminar will discuss:
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
Think You Know an Employee's "Age"? Don't Be So Sure
To contact us Click HERE
The article below addresses key points related to UIC HR policy102 that provides a nondiscrimination statement that applies to admissions, employment, access to, and treatment in the University programs and activities. Age is one of the protected classes under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Amendments.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
25 Kasım 2012 Pazar
Melissa Harris-Perry: Clarence Thomas Is 'Wrong' On Affirmative Action (VIDEO)
To contact us Click HERE
Huffington Post
Posted: 10/14/2012 12:26 pm EDT Updated: 10/14/2012 11:12 pm EDT
Melissa Harris-Perry wrote an open letter to Justice Clarence Thomas and read the note aloud on her Saturday MSNBC show.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the affirmative action case brought about by 22-year-old Abigail Fisher, who claims that her 2008 rejection from the University of Texas was due to her race.
Harris-Perry said that the case inspired her to write a note to Justice Thomas. The MSNBC host recalled Thomas' position on affirmative action, describing how the Supreme Court justice placed a 15-cent price tag from a cigar box on his Yale law school diploma. Quoting Thomas' book, Harris-Perry said he put the price tag on his diploma because he felt "that affirmative action made his law degree worthless."
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/melissa-harris-perry-clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_1965082.html?utm_hp_ref=media
Posted: 10/14/2012 12:26 pm EDT Updated: 10/14/2012 11:12 pm EDT
Melissa Harris-Perry wrote an open letter to Justice Clarence Thomas and read the note aloud on her Saturday MSNBC show.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the affirmative action case brought about by 22-year-old Abigail Fisher, who claims that her 2008 rejection from the University of Texas was due to her race.
Harris-Perry said that the case inspired her to write a note to Justice Thomas. The MSNBC host recalled Thomas' position on affirmative action, describing how the Supreme Court justice placed a 15-cent price tag from a cigar box on his Yale law school diploma. Quoting Thomas' book, Harris-Perry said he put the price tag on his diploma because he felt "that affirmative action made his law degree worthless."
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/melissa-harris-perry-clarence-thomas-affirmative-action_n_1965082.html?utm_hp_ref=media
Don't Be Fooled, the Attack is on Diversity and Inclusion
To contact us Click HERE
The Huffington Post
Posted: 10/16/2012 5:10 pm
The challenge in the Fisher v. University of Texas case is about more than whether the University of Texas (and others like it) should be permitted to factor race along with numerous other aspects of an applicant's biography when attempting to create a diverse learning environment. It is an attack on diversity and inclusion as a value.
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-davies/texas-affirmative-action-inclusion_b_1971771.html
Posted: 10/16/2012 5:10 pm
The challenge in the Fisher v. University of Texas case is about more than whether the University of Texas (and others like it) should be permitted to factor race along with numerous other aspects of an applicant's biography when attempting to create a diverse learning environment. It is an attack on diversity and inclusion as a value.
Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharon-davies/texas-affirmative-action-inclusion_b_1971771.html
Two important new cases uphold employers' defenses to claims of sexual harassment
To contact us Click HERE
Lexology
Fox Rothschild LLP
Richard B. Cohen USA October 18 2012 The Supreme Court ruled in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) that an employer may assert as an affirmative defense to claims of sexual harassment that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Two new court decisions illustrate exactly what this means. Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=982b0b4d-07f4-42f7-81f0-802112df8e4c&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-10-24&utm_term=
Fox Rothschild LLP
Webinar: Worker's Compensation Update March 30th
To contact us Click HERE
It is important to clarify when employees are eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and explain what you should and shouldn’t do if an employee is injured on the job. This seminar will discuss:
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
• When is an employee eligible for worker's compensation benefits?
• Dos and Don'ts when an employee gets injured on the job.
• 2011 changes to the workers' compensation system.
• New legislation and court rulings from 2010.
• Why offer modified work, and what to do when it is refused by your employee.
• Communicating with your injured workers – how and why.
HRCI Approved:
The use of this seal is not an endorsement by the HR Certification Institute of the quality of the program. It means that this program has met the HR Certification Institute’s criteria to be pre-approved for recertification.
Speaker: Steven Roberts Esq
Date: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Mr. Roberts is a partner in the workers’ compensation defense firm of Yrulegui and Roberts. He is certified by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in Workers’ Compensation.
He has full range of trial experience including all phases of workers’ compensation litigation; appellate court hearings and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board trials.
Registration information Click Here
Established in 1937, CEA is a non-profit association providing personalized and cost effective comprehensive information, services, and training for all aspects of human resources management,California Labor Law and relations solutions throughout California. Located throughout the state, CEA’s staff of regional directors draw upon more than 150 years combined knowledge and experience to assist in all aspects of employer-employee relations.
For more information please contact:
Scott J. Dear, Director of Membership Services
Toll free 1-800-399-5331 or 916-921-1312
Mobile 916-281-5898
Email: sdear@employers.org
Website: www.employers.org
Twitter: Caemployers
Think You Know an Employee's "Age"? Don't Be So Sure
To contact us Click HERE
The article below addresses key points related to UIC HR policy102 that provides a nondiscrimination statement that applies to admissions, employment, access to, and treatment in the University programs and activities. Age is one of the protected classes under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Amendments.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
From Diversity Executive
By Frank Kalman 11/5/12
A recent study unearths myriad ways to look at a person’s age. Consider this to drive engagement and performance.
24 Kasım 2012 Cumartesi
Affirmative Action Enforcement: The Federal Contract Compliance Program
To contact us Click HERE
4th WORLD CONFERENCE ON REMEDIES FOR ECONOMICINEQUALITY
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
October 12, 2012
Dr. BernardE. Anderson, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania AffirmativeAction Enforcement: The Federal ContractCompliance Program
In the year ofour Lord 2012, this country continues to be afflicted by racial inequality inAmerican economic life. Blackunemployment persistently remains at twice the unemployment rate of whiteworkers, black families continue to make do with $6 for every $10 enjoyed bywhite families, and black wealth, measured by net worth, hovers in theneighborhood of $5000, compared with $116 thousand for white families.
These egregiouseconomic disparities are rooted in past and present labor marketdiscrimination. The quest to overcome employment discrimination requires the useof many tools; affirmative action is one of the most important, and effective. significantly between 1977 and 2007. But it widened noticeably after the rapidrise in layoffs in the midst of the 2007-2009 recession. It’s important to assure that the pattern oflayoff and recall during the business cycle does not reflect discriminatorydecision-making. Vigorous enforcement of affirmative action can secure thatoutcome. Affirmative action is a sine qua non for eliminating racial inequalityin American economic life.
4th WORLD CONFERENCE ON REMEDIES FOR ECONOMICINEQUALITY
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
October 12, 2012
Dr. BernardE. Anderson, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania AffirmativeAction Enforcement: The Federal ContractCompliance Program
In the year ofour Lord 2012, this country continues to be afflicted by racial inequality inAmerican economic life. Blackunemployment persistently remains at twice the unemployment rate of whiteworkers, black families continue to make do with $6 for every $10 enjoyed bywhite families, and black wealth, measured by net worth, hovers in theneighborhood of $5000, compared with $116 thousand for white families.
These egregiouseconomic disparities are rooted in past and present labor marketdiscrimination. The quest to overcome employment discrimination requires the useof many tools; affirmative action is one of the most important, and effective.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)