To contact us Click HERE
Inside Higher Ed
October 11, 2012 - 3:00am Gallaudet University placed its chief diversity officer on leave Wednesday, citing her decision to sign a petition endorsing a Maryland voter initiative designed to overturn the state's gay marriage law, the Associated Press reported. Angela McCaskill's signature on the petition was first reported in July, but on Wednesday, T. Alan Hurwitz, president of the Washington, D.C., university that specializes in educating the deaf, announced that he had placed McCaskill on paid administrative leave.
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/10/11/diversity-officer-placed-leave-backing-initiative-gay-marriage-foes#ixzz290VuiBnf
Inside Higher Ed
13 Ekim 2012 Cumartesi
Former Md. Sen. Clarence Mitchell III has died
To contact us Click HERE
The Baltimore Sun
12:02 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2012
Clarence M. Mitchell III, once the nation's youngest black legislator, died Thursday of cancer at age 72 at Seasons Hospice at the Northwest Hospital Center.
Born in St. Paul, Minn., Mr. Mitchell served in the state House of Delegates from 1963 to 1967, when he was elected to the Maryland Senate. He served as a senator until 1986. He was elected at age 23.
Full Story: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-mitchell-iii-20121011,0,1793659.story
Note: Mr. Mitchell attended our AAAA Conference in 2008 and accepted the "Drum Major for Justice" Award on behalf of his uncle Rep. Parren Mitchell...
12:02 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2012
Clarence M. Mitchell III, once the nation's youngest black legislator, died Thursday of cancer at age 72 at Seasons Hospice at the Northwest Hospital Center.
Born in St. Paul, Minn., Mr. Mitchell served in the state House of Delegates from 1963 to 1967, when he was elected to the Maryland Senate. He served as a senator until 1986. He was elected at age 23.
Full Story: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-mitchell-iii-20121011,0,1793659.story
Note: Mr. Mitchell attended our AAAA Conference in 2008 and accepted the "Drum Major for Justice" Award on behalf of his uncle Rep. Parren Mitchell...
I-9 Audits on the Rise
To contact us Click HERE
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton announced on January 20 the creation of an Employment Compliance Inspection Center in Crystal City, Virginia. This center will be home to 15 auditors who will support ICE's worksite enforcement strategy by helping agency field offices around the country expedite Form I-9 audits of businesses selected for inspection by ICE.
The agency stresses that Form I-9 audits are one of the most powerful tools the federal government has to ensure that businesses are complying with U.S. employment laws. From fiscal year 2009 to date, ICE has initiated Form I-9 inspections against 3,769 businesses across the nation.
"The harsh reality is that employers should anticipate more I-9 audits, and soon," notes the law firm Jackson Lewis. "ICE I-9 audits are going to be a fact of life for more employers, large and small. This increased oversight, we think, will not end soon. As Ronald Reagan said, '[G]overnment programs once launched never disappear.'"
Employer Options:
1. If you have the time and the knowledge: Conduct your own I-9 Audit, see more information on right hand side bar.
2. If you don’t have the time: Contact your CEA regional director. He or she can come to you and in a matter of a few hours conduct a complete audit of your files, providing you with a list of any issues to be resolved and solutions for any errors found. Providing you with Peace of Mind!
Helpful Quick Link
Click here to download the current I-9 form.
Click here to download the current I-9 Handbook.
For more information on I-9 verification, including the E-Verify program.
For more general information on I-9’s 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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter: Caemployers
The agency stresses that Form I-9 audits are one of the most powerful tools the federal government has to ensure that businesses are complying with U.S. employment laws. From fiscal year 2009 to date, ICE has initiated Form I-9 inspections against 3,769 businesses across the nation.
"The harsh reality is that employers should anticipate more I-9 audits, and soon," notes the law firm Jackson Lewis. "ICE I-9 audits are going to be a fact of life for more employers, large and small. This increased oversight, we think, will not end soon. As Ronald Reagan said, '[G]overnment programs once launched never disappear.'"
Employer Options:
1. If you have the time and the knowledge: Conduct your own I-9 Audit, see more information on right hand side bar.
2. If you don’t have the time: Contact your CEA regional director. He or she can come to you and in a matter of a few hours conduct a complete audit of your files, providing you with a list of any issues to be resolved and solutions for any errors found. Providing you with Peace of Mind!
Helpful Quick Link
Click here to download the current I-9 form.
Click here to download the current I-9 Handbook.
For more information on I-9 verification, including the E-Verify program.
For more general information on I-9’s 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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter: Caemployers
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
It's Never Too Soon: The Retirement Planning Conference
To contact us Click HERE
Marilyn Sommer, Special Programs
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
12 Ekim 2012 Cuma
It's Never Too Soon: The Retirement Planning Conference
To contact us Click HERE
Marilyn Sommer, Special Programs
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Ruling out race in college admissions: How far will high court go?
To contact us Click HERE
The Los Angeles Times
October 10, 2012, 12:51 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed inclined Wednesday to strike down a University of Texas affirmative action plan, but did not make it clear how far they might go in outlawing the use of race in admissions at all colleges and universities.
In his opening question, Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted that applicants to the University of Texas must check a box to certify their race or ethnicity. Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-justices-affirmative-action-20121010,0,7124346.story
October 10, 2012, 12:51 p.m.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed inclined Wednesday to strike down a University of Texas affirmative action plan, but did not make it clear how far they might go in outlawing the use of race in admissions at all colleges and universities.
In his opening question, Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted that applicants to the University of Texas must check a box to certify their race or ethnicity. Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-justices-affirmative-action-20121010,0,7124346.story
In Affirmative-Action Case, History of 14th Amendment Is Inconvenient
To contact us Click HERE
The Daily Beast
Oct 10, 2012 4:39 PM EDT
Oct 10, 2012 4:39 PM EDT
Justices Scalia and Thomas trumpet the value of constitutional originalism, but only when it suits their preferred outcome. Adam Winkler reports.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday (PDF) in a potentially landmark case that could spell the end of race-based affirmative action in higher education. The case involves a challenge to the University of Texas’s admissions policy that makes race one relevant factor—along with the usual assortment of other criteria, like SAT score, grade-point average, being a legacy, and skills such as playing football or the tuba. Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission, claims that UT’s policy violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the “equal protection of the laws.” Full Story: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/10/in-affirmative-action-case-history-of-14th.htmlHow to Think About Affirmative Action Like an Economist
To contact us Click HERE
The Atlantic
Oct 10 2012, 1:46 PM ET
Does affirmative action cheat hard-working white students? Does it hurt minorities? Does it even work? That's the high-stakes debate happening now at the Supreme Court. Here's how a stoic economist might think about it.
If you're hoping today's affirmative action case at the Supreme Court will finally settle the issue of whether race should play a role in college admissions ... tough luck. Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely considered the swing vote this time around, so chances are we're looking at a mushy compromise decision. And that means we're also bound to keep on having the same visceral arguments about skin color and academic opportunity that have been raging in this country for half a century.
Full Story: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/how-to-think-about-affirmative-action-like-an-economist/263403/
Oct 10 2012, 1:46 PM ET
Does affirmative action cheat hard-working white students? Does it hurt minorities? Does it even work? That's the high-stakes debate happening now at the Supreme Court. Here's how a stoic economist might think about it.
If you're hoping today's affirmative action case at the Supreme Court will finally settle the issue of whether race should play a role in college admissions ... tough luck. Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely considered the swing vote this time around, so chances are we're looking at a mushy compromise decision. And that means we're also bound to keep on having the same visceral arguments about skin color and academic opportunity that have been raging in this country for half a century.
Full Story: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/how-to-think-about-affirmative-action-like-an-economist/263403/
Justices Weigh Race as Factor at Universities
To contact us Click HERE
The New York Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 10, 2012
11 Ekim 2012 Perşembe
Michael Davey Interviewed By "Easy Small Business HR" - Podcast Now Available For Download!
To contact us Click HERE
I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed by Dianne Austin, who runs a great informational website called "Easy Small Business HR," which is focused on employment and HR issues that confront small businesses. Our interview covered topics such as the top 3 employment law issues that employers need to be mindful of, the most common complaints that employees level against their employers and actions that get employers into trouble. I had a great time giving the interview and answering Dianne's questions, and I hope everyone gets a chance to listen to the podcast and receive some valuable and helpful information.
You can download the interview directly from Dianne's website at http://easysmallbusinesshr.com/2011/02/esbhr-podcast-interview-employment-law-advice-michael-davey-esq/ Or, you can find the interview on iTunes by searching for "Easy Small Business HR Podcast," as well as on Easy Small Business HR's Twitter and Facebook pages.
Thanks again Dianne!
You can download the interview directly from Dianne's website at http://easysmallbusinesshr.com/2011/02/esbhr-podcast-interview-employment-law-advice-michael-davey-esq/ Or, you can find the interview on iTunes by searching for "Easy Small Business HR Podcast," as well as on Easy Small Business HR's Twitter and Facebook pages.
Thanks again Dianne!
US Supreme Court Adopts "Cat's-Paw" Theory In Military Discrimination Case
To contact us Click HERE
In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, decided on March 1, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in the context of a case involving an employer's alleged violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), that "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA." The significance of this opinion is two-fold: First, the Court through this opinion has explicitly sanctioned the applicability of "cat's-paw" theories of liability in an employment discrimination context. Second, there is nothing in the language of this decision that would suggest that the Court's analysis in this case is strictly confined to cases arising under USERRA. To the contrary, the Court itself acknowledges in the majority opinion that the operative statutory language of the USERRA, which prohibits an employer from denying employment or the benefits of employment to any person on the basis of that individual's membership in or obligation to a branch of the military, is "very similar to Title VII." As such, employees can now rely on this decision to advance "cat's-paw" theories of liability against employers in the traditional discrimination cases arising under Title VII.
In this case, Vincent Staub worked as a medical technician for Proctor Hospital under 2004 when he was terminated for allegedly violating a "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning that had been placed in his employment file by his supervisors, Janice Mulally and Michael Korenchuk.
While employed at Proctor, Staub was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, which required him to attend drill one weekend per month and to train full time for two to three weeks per year. At Staub's subsequent employment discrimination trial, the jury determined that both Mulally and Korenchuk were hostile to Staub's military obligations. Specifically, Mulally had scheduled Staub for additional shifts without notice so that he would "pay back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover his schedule for the Reserves," and Mulally had also informed one of Staub's co-workers that Staubs's "military duty had been a strain on the department," and asked that co-worker to help her "get rid of" Staub. Korenchuk referred to Staub's obligations to the Reserves as "a bunch of smoking and joking and a waste of taxpayers' money," and was aware that Mulally was "out to get" Staub.
In January of 2004, Mulally issued Staub a "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning for purportedly violating a company rule that required him to stay in his work area whenever he was not seeing a patient. This warning required Staub to report to either Mulally or Korenchuk when he had no patients or when his patient testing was completed. Staub contended at trial that the company rule allegedly invoked by Mulally did not exist, and that even if it did, he did not violate it.
On April 2, 2004, one of Staub's co-workers complained to Proctor's vice-president of human resources, Linda Buck, and to Proctor's chief operating officer, Garrett McGowan, about Staub's unavailability and abruptness. McGowan directed Korenchuk and Buck to create a plan that would "solve Staub's availability problems." Before such a plan could be put in place, however, Korenchuk informed Buck that Staub had left his desk without informing a supervisor, in violation of his January Corrective Action notice. Relying upon this accusation (which Staub contended was entirely false), Buck reviewed Staub's personnel file and terminated him. Staub's termination notice stated that Staub had been terminated for violating the directive contained in Mulally's January Corrective Action notice.
Staub challenged his termination through Proctor's internal grievance procedures. Staub contended that his termination was improper because Mulally had fabricated the allegation underpinning the January Corrective Action notice due to her hostility towards his military obligations. Buck did not follow up with Mulally with respect to Staub's allegation, and did not reverse Staub's termination.
Staub then sued Proctor claiming a violation of the USERRA, alleging that his termination was illegal as it was motivated by hostility towards his U.S. Army Reserve obligations. Specifically, Staub argued that although Buck herself (who had actually terminated Staub), held no such hostility, Mulally and Korenchuk clearly did, and that "their actions influenced Buck's ultimate employment decision." Staub's claim proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in his favor and awarded him $57,640.00 in damages.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a "cat's-paw" theory of liability, such as the one that Staub had advanced in this case, could not be maintained unless the non-decisionmaker had exercised "singular influence," over the actual decisionmaker so that the decision to terminate was the "product of blind reliance." The Seventh Circuit held that since the evidence in this case showed that Buck was not "wholly dependent" upon either Mulally's or Korenchuk's advice, Staub had no cause of action under USERRA.
In a unanimous decision with two Justices concurring in the judgment, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted recognized that when creating a tort action under federal law, Congress "adopts the background of general tort law," including the concept of "proximate cause." In claims for intentional torts, for example, the Court noted that in order to be found liable, an individual must intend not only "the act itself," but "the consequences of the act." Therefore, adopting these tenets and applying them to the operative language of the USERRA statute, the Court held that: "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA." As such, in order to prevail in such actions, a plaintiff cannot hold an employer liable simply by showing that the ultimate decisionmaker relied upon information that was (unbeknownst to the decisionmaker) prompted by discrimination. Rather, the plaintiff must prove that the originator of that discriminatory information created the information with the intent that such information would cause the plaintiff to suffer an adverse employment action.
The Court rejected Proctor's suggestion that the Court adopt a rule that a decisionmaker's independent investigation and rejection of an employee's allegations of discriminatory animus can insulate an employer from liability, as such an action would negate the effects of any prior discrimination. The Court held that "we are aware of no principle in tort or agency law under which an employer's mere conduct of an independent investigation has a claim-preclusive effect. Nor do we think the independent investigation somehow relieves the employer of 'fault.' The employer is at fault because one of its agents committed an action based on discriminatory animus that was intended to cause, and did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision." The Court also rejected Justice Alito's suggestion that an employer should be held liable only when it "should be regarded as having delegated part of the decisionmaking power to the biased supervisor."
While it reversed the decision of the Seventh Circuit, the Court explicitly left two questions unanswered: First, the Court expressed no opinion as to whether an employer could be held liable under such a "cat's-paw" theory of liability if a co-worker, rather than a supervisor, committed a discriminatory action that influenced a subsequent adverse employment action. Second, the Court acknowledged that in this case, Staub took advantage of Proctor's internal grievance procedures after having been terminated, but refused to comment on whether Proctor would enjoy an affirmative defense to liability had Staub not done so. Therefore, one is likely to see these issues being litigated in the lower courts in the future.
You can read the Supreme Court's full opinion in Staub v. Proctor here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-400.pdf
In this case, Vincent Staub worked as a medical technician for Proctor Hospital under 2004 when he was terminated for allegedly violating a "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning that had been placed in his employment file by his supervisors, Janice Mulally and Michael Korenchuk.
While employed at Proctor, Staub was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, which required him to attend drill one weekend per month and to train full time for two to three weeks per year. At Staub's subsequent employment discrimination trial, the jury determined that both Mulally and Korenchuk were hostile to Staub's military obligations. Specifically, Mulally had scheduled Staub for additional shifts without notice so that he would "pay back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover his schedule for the Reserves," and Mulally had also informed one of Staub's co-workers that Staubs's "military duty had been a strain on the department," and asked that co-worker to help her "get rid of" Staub. Korenchuk referred to Staub's obligations to the Reserves as "a bunch of smoking and joking and a waste of taxpayers' money," and was aware that Mulally was "out to get" Staub.
In January of 2004, Mulally issued Staub a "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning for purportedly violating a company rule that required him to stay in his work area whenever he was not seeing a patient. This warning required Staub to report to either Mulally or Korenchuk when he had no patients or when his patient testing was completed. Staub contended at trial that the company rule allegedly invoked by Mulally did not exist, and that even if it did, he did not violate it.
On April 2, 2004, one of Staub's co-workers complained to Proctor's vice-president of human resources, Linda Buck, and to Proctor's chief operating officer, Garrett McGowan, about Staub's unavailability and abruptness. McGowan directed Korenchuk and Buck to create a plan that would "solve Staub's availability problems." Before such a plan could be put in place, however, Korenchuk informed Buck that Staub had left his desk without informing a supervisor, in violation of his January Corrective Action notice. Relying upon this accusation (which Staub contended was entirely false), Buck reviewed Staub's personnel file and terminated him. Staub's termination notice stated that Staub had been terminated for violating the directive contained in Mulally's January Corrective Action notice.
Staub challenged his termination through Proctor's internal grievance procedures. Staub contended that his termination was improper because Mulally had fabricated the allegation underpinning the January Corrective Action notice due to her hostility towards his military obligations. Buck did not follow up with Mulally with respect to Staub's allegation, and did not reverse Staub's termination.
Staub then sued Proctor claiming a violation of the USERRA, alleging that his termination was illegal as it was motivated by hostility towards his U.S. Army Reserve obligations. Specifically, Staub argued that although Buck herself (who had actually terminated Staub), held no such hostility, Mulally and Korenchuk clearly did, and that "their actions influenced Buck's ultimate employment decision." Staub's claim proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in his favor and awarded him $57,640.00 in damages.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a "cat's-paw" theory of liability, such as the one that Staub had advanced in this case, could not be maintained unless the non-decisionmaker had exercised "singular influence," over the actual decisionmaker so that the decision to terminate was the "product of blind reliance." The Seventh Circuit held that since the evidence in this case showed that Buck was not "wholly dependent" upon either Mulally's or Korenchuk's advice, Staub had no cause of action under USERRA.
In a unanimous decision with two Justices concurring in the judgment, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted recognized that when creating a tort action under federal law, Congress "adopts the background of general tort law," including the concept of "proximate cause." In claims for intentional torts, for example, the Court noted that in order to be found liable, an individual must intend not only "the act itself," but "the consequences of the act." Therefore, adopting these tenets and applying them to the operative language of the USERRA statute, the Court held that: "if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA." As such, in order to prevail in such actions, a plaintiff cannot hold an employer liable simply by showing that the ultimate decisionmaker relied upon information that was (unbeknownst to the decisionmaker) prompted by discrimination. Rather, the plaintiff must prove that the originator of that discriminatory information created the information with the intent that such information would cause the plaintiff to suffer an adverse employment action.
The Court rejected Proctor's suggestion that the Court adopt a rule that a decisionmaker's independent investigation and rejection of an employee's allegations of discriminatory animus can insulate an employer from liability, as such an action would negate the effects of any prior discrimination. The Court held that "we are aware of no principle in tort or agency law under which an employer's mere conduct of an independent investigation has a claim-preclusive effect. Nor do we think the independent investigation somehow relieves the employer of 'fault.' The employer is at fault because one of its agents committed an action based on discriminatory animus that was intended to cause, and did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision." The Court also rejected Justice Alito's suggestion that an employer should be held liable only when it "should be regarded as having delegated part of the decisionmaking power to the biased supervisor."
While it reversed the decision of the Seventh Circuit, the Court explicitly left two questions unanswered: First, the Court expressed no opinion as to whether an employer could be held liable under such a "cat's-paw" theory of liability if a co-worker, rather than a supervisor, committed a discriminatory action that influenced a subsequent adverse employment action. Second, the Court acknowledged that in this case, Staub took advantage of Proctor's internal grievance procedures after having been terminated, but refused to comment on whether Proctor would enjoy an affirmative defense to liability had Staub not done so. Therefore, one is likely to see these issues being litigated in the lower courts in the future.
You can read the Supreme Court's full opinion in Staub v. Proctor here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-400.pdf
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
10 Ekim 2012 Çarşamba
Tax Refunds on Debit Cards
To contact us Click HERE
The U.S. Treasury Department plans to launch a pilot program to deliver tax refunds through prepaid debit cards, as an effort to cut the expense of paper checks and aid lower-income taxpayers who don't have bank accounts.
About 600,000 low- and moderate-income taxpayers nationwide, a slice of those earning about $35,000 or less annually, will receive letters inviting them to activate a debit card that can receive direct deposits. The Treasury Department's new program will deliver some tax refunds on prepaid debit cards, giving recipients an alternative to check-cashing outlets.
The program will cost the government about $1.5 million and marks the latest federal effort to send fewer payments by mail. The U.S. still issues an estimated 45 million paper checks a year for tax refunds. Each one costs the government about $1, including the cost of processing roughly 600,000 claims a year for missing checks. Each payment by direct deposit costs the U.S. about 10 cents.
The new Treasury pilot program will provide consumers a debit card that has many features of a checking account, such as free bill paying and free ATM withdrawals at select machines. Consumers also can use the card for shopping, without added fees.
Half the 600,000 offers from Treasury will carry a $4.95 monthly fee, while the rest will be free. The letters will use a mix of messages, including some offering recipients a savings-account feature. Treasury officials said the different approaches will allow them to determine which is most likely to lead consumers to sign up for the card.
Source: PrimePay Blog
For IRS forms and publications 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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter:Caemployers
The U.S. Treasury Department plans to launch a pilot program to deliver tax refunds through prepaid debit cards, as an effort to cut the expense of paper checks and aid lower-income taxpayers who don't have bank accounts.About 600,000 low- and moderate-income taxpayers nationwide, a slice of those earning about $35,000 or less annually, will receive letters inviting them to activate a debit card that can receive direct deposits. The Treasury Department's new program will deliver some tax refunds on prepaid debit cards, giving recipients an alternative to check-cashing outlets.
The program will cost the government about $1.5 million and marks the latest federal effort to send fewer payments by mail. The U.S. still issues an estimated 45 million paper checks a year for tax refunds. Each one costs the government about $1, including the cost of processing roughly 600,000 claims a year for missing checks. Each payment by direct deposit costs the U.S. about 10 cents.
The new Treasury pilot program will provide consumers a debit card that has many features of a checking account, such as free bill paying and free ATM withdrawals at select machines. Consumers also can use the card for shopping, without added fees.
Half the 600,000 offers from Treasury will carry a $4.95 monthly fee, while the rest will be free. The letters will use a mix of messages, including some offering recipients a savings-account feature. Treasury officials said the different approaches will allow them to determine which is most likely to lead consumers to sign up for the card.
Source: PrimePay Blog
For IRS forms and publications 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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter:Caemployers
Optional New OSHA Pamphlet
To contact us Click HERE
The California Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) has posted a new Time of Hire pamphlet on its website. This optional pamphlet meets the requirements under Labor Code section 3551 to notify new employees about California workers' comp rights and benefits either at the time of hire or by the end of the first pay period.
"This pamphlet is one way we can help employers and claims administrators ensure employees know what to do if they get hurt or sick because of work," said DWC Chief of Legislation and Policy Susan Gard. "We want to provide easy to understand information in multiple languages that meets the needs of California's diverse workforce."
The pamphlet, posted in English and Spanish, was developed in response to requests from claims administrators and provides employees with information about what to do if they are injured on the job and ways to resolve disputes over workers' comp benefits. In addition, it discusses the role of the primary treating physician and medical provider networks (MPNs). Pre-designation forms are included as part of the document.
This optional time of hire pamphlet is presented in a graphic format that can be customized to meet individual needs and is also offered in "text only" format in English and Spanish, which gives claims administrators the option to more fully customize the presentation. Pamphlets are available at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/dwcrep.htm#2
This new pamphlet is the latest publication helping DWC reach out to assist employers and workers. DWC recently posted updated fact sheets and guides for injured workers in English and Spanish. A basic fact sheet for workers, developed in conjunction with Cal/OSHA and the labor commissioner's office, is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Hmong. Additionally, DWC has posted a fact sheet for employers in English and Spanish on its website.
Other information available from DWC:
New - Time of Hire pamphlet
Basic Facts for Employers
Basic Facts for Injured Workers
Basic Facts for Employers and Employees (posting)
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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter: Caemployers
The California Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) has posted a new Time of Hire pamphlet on its website. This optional pamphlet meets the requirements under Labor Code section 3551 to notify new employees about California workers' comp rights and benefits either at the time of hire or by the end of the first pay period."This pamphlet is one way we can help employers and claims administrators ensure employees know what to do if they get hurt or sick because of work," said DWC Chief of Legislation and Policy Susan Gard. "We want to provide easy to understand information in multiple languages that meets the needs of California's diverse workforce."
The pamphlet, posted in English and Spanish, was developed in response to requests from claims administrators and provides employees with information about what to do if they are injured on the job and ways to resolve disputes over workers' comp benefits. In addition, it discusses the role of the primary treating physician and medical provider networks (MPNs). Pre-designation forms are included as part of the document.
This optional time of hire pamphlet is presented in a graphic format that can be customized to meet individual needs and is also offered in "text only" format in English and Spanish, which gives claims administrators the option to more fully customize the presentation. Pamphlets are available at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/dwcrep.htm#2
This new pamphlet is the latest publication helping DWC reach out to assist employers and workers. DWC recently posted updated fact sheets and guides for injured workers in English and Spanish. A basic fact sheet for workers, developed in conjunction with Cal/OSHA and the labor commissioner's office, is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Hmong. Additionally, DWC has posted a fact sheet for employers in English and Spanish on its website.
Other information available from DWC:
New - Time of Hire pamphlet
Basic Facts for Employers
Basic Facts for Injured Workers
Basic Facts for Employers and Employees (posting)
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: http://www.employers.org/
Twitter: Caemployers
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
It's Never Too Soon: The Retirement Planning Conference
To contact us Click HERE
Marilyn Sommer, Special Programs
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
What's the Real Cost?
To contact us Click HERE
With the increase in Federal agency initiatives targeting employers, such as I-9 audits or independent contractor classification audits, employers face increased scrutiny. In addition, disgruntled current or former employees are free to lodge complaints with State and Federal agencies that may spark an investigation. In either case, an employer faces potential liability, as very few employers are capable of keeping up with the myriad of employment laws. In reality, most employers try to remain compliant with employment laws, but if the government looks hard enough, it is likely to find a violation or two.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
9 Ekim 2012 Salı
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
It's Never Too Soon: The Retirement Planning Conference
To contact us Click HERE
Marilyn Sommer, Special Programs
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Spring is the time when flowers blossom, when we cast off our winter garb and welcome bright colors and light clothing and when we are reminded of our promises to stay fit and healthy. It is also a time to think about future goals. If one of those is retirement, then hopefully you attended the Retirement Planning Conference which was held on Saturday, April 14, 2012 at Student Center East.
The Retirement Planning Conference is intended to assist UIC faculty, staff, and families in planning for retirement by providing information and access to resources. Retirement planning can never start too soon. Whether you are planning on retiring in three years or thirty years the seminars offer information that assists you in preparing for your retirement. The 400 people in attendance this year were welcomed by Maureen Parks, Executive Director and Associate Vice President, University Human Resources. Next, a presentation on the State of Illinois Retiree Health Plan with insight into the Retirement Steps and Timeline was addressed by Tim Gavin from University Payroll and Benefits Services.
State Universities Retirement System of Illinois (SURS) counselors conducted workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics for planning and managing your retirement benefits. Representatives of Fidelity and TIA-CREFF provided insight into investment strategies and income distribution at retirement. State Universities Annuitants Association UIC UNITED, UIC Chapter of SUAA representatives were available to discuss protecting your retirement benefits, while other presenters discussed benefit impact on social security and challenges of pension reform.
Of greatest value reported by attendees were the Retirement Planning Expo Fair breakout sessions and the wealth of printed information distributed on arrival.
For more information access the following links:
Retirement Planning Conference http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/Special_Programs/retirement_conf.shtml
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees and the Retiree Guide:
Websites of Interest for Illinois Retirees
The Retiree Guide
For information on protecting your retirement benefits and membership contact SUAA http://www.uic.edu/orgs/suaa/
Defining Diversity: Beyond Race and Gender
To contact us Click HERE
by Kevin WhitelawJanuary 13, 2010 posted on the NPR websiteJust about every medium or large U.S. company talks about its dedication to diversity, whether in a prominent section of its Web site or in its corporate mission statement. But the definition of what, exactly, these firms mean by diversity is often vague. Only 30 percent of human resources professionals say that their company even has an official definition of diversity, according to a 2007 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management.
Beyond Simple DemographicsWhile diversity has traditionally referred to categories like race and gender, companies and diversity experts are increasingly considering a wide range of factors from age and sexual preference to disabilities and even weight.
Read more http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122327104
Beyond Simple DemographicsWhile diversity has traditionally referred to categories like race and gender, companies and diversity experts are increasingly considering a wide range of factors from age and sexual preference to disabilities and even weight.
Read more http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122327104
Information Alert: HireTouch Applicant Email Templates Now Available
To contact us Click HERE
Starting Friday, 10/5/12, HireTouch administrative users will have the ability to send out mass email correspondences directly to applicants in just a few clicks. Users will be able to notify applicants where they are in the application process in the following situations:
Mass Communication
Single Applicant Communication
As requested by our users in feedback sessions, users will have the capability to edit these messages and personalize them, as well as to determine the timing of contacting the applicants. Units can determine if the emails should come from the person processing the correspondences or if they should come from another unit representative, such as a department head or a manager.
Security Access
Resources:
Sending Letters Job aid: http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/support/jobaids/HireTouchApplicantCorrespondence.pdf
Support:
Mass Communication
Single Applicant Communication
As requested by our users in feedback sessions, users will have the capability to edit these messages and personalize them, as well as to determine the timing of contacting the applicants. Units can determine if the emails should come from the person processing the correspondences or if they should come from another unit representative, such as a department head or a manager.
Security Access
Resources:
Sending Letters Job aid: http://www.uic.edu/depts/hr/support/jobaids/HireTouchApplicantCorrespondence.pdf
Support:
What's the Real Cost?
To contact us Click HERE
With the increase in Federal agency initiatives targeting employers, such as I-9 audits or independent contractor classification audits, employers face increased scrutiny. In addition, disgruntled current or former employees are free to lodge complaints with State and Federal agencies that may spark an investigation. In either case, an employer faces potential liability, as very few employers are capable of keeping up with the myriad of employment laws. In reality, most employers try to remain compliant with employment laws, but if the government looks hard enough, it is likely to find a violation or two.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
What’s the cost of a claim? It might be fines for incomplete I-9s, unpaid taxes for misclassification of workers, overtime for unpaid wages or a need to change employment practices. But, the biggest cost is usually legal fees. It is a best practice to hire counsel when an employer faces a government investigation, employee claim or audit. Contacting counsel before reacting/responding to a claim is prudent, but it does create an expense. Moreover, a disgruntled employee is likely to have an attorney herself. When an employee has an attorney, that attorney will likely make a demand for some kind of monetary compensation for whatever wrong the employee alleges. The demand ordinarily includes the payment of that employee’s attorney’s fees.
Most Federal discrimination laws allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party”. In a case that goes to litigation, this can mean that the employee’s attorney will ask the court to award “reasonable attorney’s fees”. Typically, the employee’s will ask that the court award attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. Even in cases that settle, employees expect their attorney’s fees to be paid by the employer, which again can add up to significant amounts of money even in a case that is considered suspect.
In a recent Federal employment discrimination case, a jury awarded an employee $110,000 in damages for the employer’s retaliation for her protesting unlawful employment practices. The employee asked the court for an award of attorney’s fees. Although the employee also brought two other unsuccessful claims (one for gender discrimination and one under the FMLA) that the jury rejected, the judge in that case awarded the employee $250,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses. Think about it: her attorney’s fees award more than doubled the amount of actual damages that the jury awarded to her. The judge reasoned that the winning claim (retaliation) was “intertwined” with her other discrimination claims such that she was entitled to all of her attorney’s fees.
What is the lesson learned from this illustrative case? Be proactive as an employer. Conduct regular training for both employees and management, including on topics such as harassment. In addition, conduct a self-audit of internal recordkeeping, policies and procedures, etc. If you find violations on your own, it’s cheaper and easier to correct with the assistance of counsel than when your company is facing a claim or audit. Finally, while not all claims are avoidable despite best efforts, if the company has taken proactive steps such as those mentioned above, it can mitigate its exposure and can reduce the number of claims. After all, paying someone else’s attorney’s fees doesn’t exactly help the bottom line.
8 Ekim 2012 Pazartesi
Colleges Venture Off Campus to Bridge Military-Civilian Divide
To contact us Click HERE
The Chronicle of Higher Education
September 17, 2012
Ever since the original GI Bill set millions of World War II veterans on the path to college degrees, higher education has shaped many vets' transition to civilian life. But as today's returning service members confront a stagnant economy—and a society in which so few Americans share their military experience—colleges' role in that transition is expanding. It now extends to veterans who may never set foot in a classroom.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Go-Off-Campus-to/134450/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
September 17, 2012
Ever since the original GI Bill set millions of World War II veterans on the path to college degrees, higher education has shaped many vets' transition to civilian life. But as today's returning service members confront a stagnant economy—and a society in which so few Americans share their military experience—colleges' role in that transition is expanding. It now extends to veterans who may never set foot in a classroom.
Full Story: http://chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Go-Off-Campus-to/134450/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Meyer Tool will pay $325,000 to 60 African-American applicants to settle US Labor Department allegations of racial discrimination at Cincinnati plant
To contact us Click HERE
Contact Name: Scott Allen or Rhonda Burke
Phone Number: (312) 353-6976 or x4807
Release Number: 12-1804-CHI
"Workers should never be denied a fair shot at employment because of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair settlement with Meyer Tool — one that will provide remedies to the affected workers and guarantee that, going forward, qualified applicants of all races and backgrounds will have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field for good jobs."
Based on a compliance review of the facility, OFCCP investigators determined that Meyer Tool had failed to ensure qualified job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to race as required by Executive Order 11246. The department filed an administrative complaint on Nov. 19, 2010, alleging systematic discrimination on the part of the company.
Under the terms of the consent judgment, Meyer Tool not only will provide financial remedies and job offers to the affected workers, but also will maintain employment records as required by law, provide equal employment opportunity training to all employees involved in the hiring process and submit detailed progress reports on this front to OFCCP for the next two years.
Cincinnati-based Meyer Tool manufactures engine parts, primarily for the aerospace industry, and is one of the area's largest private companies. During the period of OFCCP's review, Meyer Tool held contracts worth nearly $300,000 to provide engines and engine parts to the U.S. Army.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
OFCCP v. Meyer Tool Inc.
Case Number: 2011-OFC-00003
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20121804.htm
News Release
OFCCP News Release: [09/17/2012]Contact Name: Scott Allen or Rhonda Burke
Phone Number: (312) 353-6976 or x4807
Release Number: 12-1804-CHI
Meyer Tool will pay $325,000 to 60 African-American applicants to settle US Labor Department allegations of racial discrimination at Cincinnati plant
CINCINNATI — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has reached an agreement with federal contractor Meyer Tool Inc. to settle findings of race-based hiring discrimination. Under a consent judgment approved by a Labor Department administrative law judge, Meyer Tool will pay $325,000 in back wages and interest to 60 qualified African-American applicants who were rejected for entry-level machinist positions at the company's manufacturing plant in Cincinnati. Meyer Tool also will extend job offers to at least 11 members of the original class as positions become available."Workers should never be denied a fair shot at employment because of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to do the job," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair settlement with Meyer Tool — one that will provide remedies to the affected workers and guarantee that, going forward, qualified applicants of all races and backgrounds will have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field for good jobs."
Based on a compliance review of the facility, OFCCP investigators determined that Meyer Tool had failed to ensure qualified job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to race as required by Executive Order 11246. The department filed an administrative complaint on Nov. 19, 2010, alleging systematic discrimination on the part of the company.
Under the terms of the consent judgment, Meyer Tool not only will provide financial remedies and job offers to the affected workers, but also will maintain employment records as required by law, provide equal employment opportunity training to all employees involved in the hiring process and submit detailed progress reports on this front to OFCCP for the next two years.
Cincinnati-based Meyer Tool manufactures engine parts, primarily for the aerospace industry, and is one of the area's largest private companies. During the period of OFCCP's review, Meyer Tool held contracts worth nearly $300,000 to provide engines and engine parts to the U.S. Army.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit its website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.
OFCCP v. Meyer Tool Inc.
Case Number: 2011-OFC-00003
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20121804.htm
Recent EEOC Ruling Recognizes Transgender Discrimination
To contact us Click HERE
US Politics Today
The EEOC has acknowledged that transgendered people can suffer from workplace discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
September 16, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- A landmark ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists and equal rights advocates around the country breathing a sigh of relief. The EEOC declared in an April decision that transgender people are protected against workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Why Is This Decision Important?
Full Story: http://uspolitics.einnews.com/247pr/303704
The EEOC has acknowledged that transgendered people can suffer from workplace discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
September 16, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- A landmark ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists and equal rights advocates around the country breathing a sigh of relief. The EEOC declared in an April decision that transgender people are protected against workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Why Is This Decision Important?
Full Story: http://uspolitics.einnews.com/247pr/303704
California Hospital to Pay $975,000 to Settle Racial Harassment, Discrimination Case
To contact us Click HERE
Workforce
By Sheena Harrison Published: September 17, 2012
A California hospital has agreed to pay a $975,000 settlement in a harassment and discrimination case that alleged the employer created a hostile work environment for Filipino staff members.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center sued Delano, California-based Delano Regional Medical Center in 2010 in U.S. District Court. The EEOC said the hospital's English-only language policy was used to harass and discriminate against Filipino employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/article/20120917/NEWS01/120919967/california-hospital-to-pay-975-000-to-settle-racial-harassment
A California hospital has agreed to pay a $975,000 settlement in a harassment and discrimination case that alleged the employer created a hostile work environment for Filipino staff members.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center sued Delano, California-based Delano Regional Medical Center in 2010 in U.S. District Court. The EEOC said the hospital's English-only language policy was used to harass and discriminate against Filipino employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/article/20120917/NEWS01/120919967/california-hospital-to-pay-975-000-to-settle-racial-harassment
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)