Today, the Supreme Court is expected to hear Ricci v. DeStefano, a case involving reverse discrimination that could change the way companies hire employees.
The case involves a team of firefighters in New Haven, Conn., that took a promotion exam. All of the white firefighters passed, but the city threw out the results because no blacks would have been promoted, saying the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities that would most likely violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
However, the white firefighters claim the action not to promote violated their rights under the Civil Rights Act. And in a related case, the city of Chicago last month paid a $6 million settlement to 75 white firefighters who said they lost promotions when their test scores were tossed out in 1986.
According to an alert from Pepe & Hazard LLP, the case could affect employers' hiring practices -- specifically, questioning whether they need to achieve racial parity be considered legal.
Comment and let me know your thoughts on this case, and the steps you've taken to safeguard your hiring/promotion practices from litigation.
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Overheard @: Women's groups respond to Lilly Ledbetter Act signing
Following President Obama's White House ceremony this morning to sign into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, representatives of women's groups are voicing their approval. Among them:
* Debra L. Ness, PresidentNational Partnership for Women & Families: “In making the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first bill he signs into law, President Obama today signals an end to the days when we had to revisit and defend women’s and civil rights victories of the past, and can instead focus on creating jobs, promoting fairness, and ending discrimination in our workplaces.
The harmful U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear will now become an ugly footnote in our history books. We now enter a new era in which equal opportunity is real and anti-discrimination laws matter. In this struggling economy, workers need protection from discrimination more than ever. Equal pay for equal work is among one of our country’s most fundamental values. We applaud President Obama for taking this essential step for fair pay in America.”
* Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director, MomsRising.org: "It was with great pride and joy that I attended today’s Presidential signing ceremony of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Now federal law ensures that employees are able to seek redress if they learn that they have been discriminated against in pay because of their gender, race or ethnicity. Many years ago, Lilly Ledbetter bravely stood up to a major corporation and fought for the rights of workers all across this country to fight pay discrimination. And today, by making this the very first bill he signed into law, President Barack Obama showed us that he is acting on the promises he made in his campaign."
What reaction have you heard -- among women and other groups? Comment below.
* Debra L. Ness, PresidentNational Partnership for Women & Families: “In making the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first bill he signs into law, President Obama today signals an end to the days when we had to revisit and defend women’s and civil rights victories of the past, and can instead focus on creating jobs, promoting fairness, and ending discrimination in our workplaces.
The harmful U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear will now become an ugly footnote in our history books. We now enter a new era in which equal opportunity is real and anti-discrimination laws matter. In this struggling economy, workers need protection from discrimination more than ever. Equal pay for equal work is among one of our country’s most fundamental values. We applaud President Obama for taking this essential step for fair pay in America.”
* Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director, MomsRising.org: "It was with great pride and joy that I attended today’s Presidential signing ceremony of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Now federal law ensures that employees are able to seek redress if they learn that they have been discriminated against in pay because of their gender, race or ethnicity. Many years ago, Lilly Ledbetter bravely stood up to a major corporation and fought for the rights of workers all across this country to fight pay discrimination. And today, by making this the very first bill he signed into law, President Barack Obama showed us that he is acting on the promises he made in his campaign."
What reaction have you heard -- among women and other groups? Comment below.
News You can Use: Obama signs fair pay law
President Barack Obama this morning signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which, according to the Associated Press, clarifies that the 180-day statute of limitations is extended every time an employer violates the law by issuing a paycheck or engages in other practices that discriminate.
Therefore, AP reports, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.
The law carries Ledbetter's name because she's been a staunch fair pay advocate ever since filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when she found out she was earning less than male coworkers. A Supreme Court ruling in 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination.
Read more about the law and its implications for you here, and comment below to let us know your thoughts about the law's approval.
Therefore, AP reports, if an employee alleges that she received a salary 20 years ago that was less than that of male co-workers because of discrimination, each new paycheck since that occurrence would be a new unlawful employment practice that resets the statute of limitations. The bill retains current limits on employer liability by restricting back pay awards to two years.
The law carries Ledbetter's name because she's been a staunch fair pay advocate ever since filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when she found out she was earning less than male coworkers. A Supreme Court ruling in 2007 threw out Ledbetter's complaint, saying she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the initial act of discrimination.
Read more about the law and its implications for you here, and comment below to let us know your thoughts about the law's approval.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
News You Can Use: Supremes to hear case on crediting pregnacy leave for calculating pension
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in AT&T v. Hulteen, a case that will address how employers should factor maternity leave into calculating years of service for pension benefits.
The women bringing the suit are retired AT&T employees who took pregnancy-related leave prior to the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1979. Before the law became effective, AT&T limited the amount of pregnancy leave that could be credited as years of service, but did not limit other types of disability leave. As a result, the women received smaller pensions than if they'd been given full credit for pregnancy leave.
The case will address whether the benefits limit is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
The women bringing the suit are retired AT&T employees who took pregnancy-related leave prior to the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1979. Before the law became effective, AT&T limited the amount of pregnancy leave that could be credited as years of service, but did not limit other types of disability leave. As a result, the women received smaller pensions than if they'd been given full credit for pregnancy leave.
The case will address whether the benefits limit is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
News You Can Use: Report details discriminatory, unsanitary practices by CVS
The CVS Caremark Corporation is under fire today about the results of an investigation into practices regarding access to its stores and services, quality control and consumer privacy and safety issues at CVS stores.
The study, conducted by consumer advocacy group Cure CVS over a 14-month period, finds that in the metro New York City area, CVS operates four times as many stores per person in the where the median annual household income is over $80,000, as in the least, where the median annual income is under $40,000. There are twice as many CVS stores per person in the wealthiest areas of Greater Los Angeles as there are in the least wealthy. By contrast, Walgreens and Rite Aid have more stores per person in less affluent areas across the country, the group concludes.
The report also finds that CVS is more likely to place 24-hour stores and in-store medical clinics in majority-white neighborhoods and higher-income communities. The chain also has been taken to task for unsanitary practices. In June , the Attorneys General of New York and California demanded that CVS stop offering expired infant formula and over-the-counter medications.
CVS is the nation’s largest drug store chain, operating 6,800 stores nationwide. CVS Caremark Corporation is the nation’s largest source of prescription drugs.
The study, conducted by consumer advocacy group Cure CVS over a 14-month period, finds that in the metro New York City area, CVS operates four times as many stores per person in the where the median annual household income is over $80,000, as in the least, where the median annual income is under $40,000. There are twice as many CVS stores per person in the wealthiest areas of Greater Los Angeles as there are in the least wealthy. By contrast, Walgreens and Rite Aid have more stores per person in less affluent areas across the country, the group concludes.
The report also finds that CVS is more likely to place 24-hour stores and in-store medical clinics in majority-white neighborhoods and higher-income communities. The chain also has been taken to task for unsanitary practices. In June , the Attorneys General of New York and California demanded that CVS stop offering expired infant formula and over-the-counter medications.
CVS is the nation’s largest drug store chain, operating 6,800 stores nationwide. CVS Caremark Corporation is the nation’s largest source of prescription drugs.
Monday, November 10, 2008
News You Can Use: Pregnancy discrimination persists
It's difficult enough being pregnant. Employers absolutely must stop making matters worse by discriminating against moms-to-be.
Thirty years after the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which outlaws employment bias due to pregnancy and/or childbirth, a study from the National Partnership for Women and Families finds that, according to EEOC data, pregnancy discrimination charges increased 65% from 1992 to 2007. Among minorities, such charges rose 76% in the same period.
Even worse, “The increase in complaints about pregnancy discrimination far outpaced the increase in women in the workforce during this time period,” said National Partnership General Counsel Jocelyn Frye, who authored the report. “Because many women who face pregnancy discrimination are reluctant to file charges with the EEOC, the problem may be even more widespread than these figures suggest.”
Thirty years after the enactment of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which outlaws employment bias due to pregnancy and/or childbirth, a study from the National Partnership for Women and Families finds that, according to EEOC data, pregnancy discrimination charges increased 65% from 1992 to 2007. Among minorities, such charges rose 76% in the same period.
Even worse, “The increase in complaints about pregnancy discrimination far outpaced the increase in women in the workforce during this time period,” said National Partnership General Counsel Jocelyn Frye, who authored the report. “Because many women who face pregnancy discrimination are reluctant to file charges with the EEOC, the problem may be even more widespread than these figures suggest.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
