|
|
Last month, Diversity Insight writer Tammy Binford explored the legal issues involved when employees must juggle work and special-needs parenting collide. Now, she looks at how employers can help their employees balance work and their obligations as parents of special needs children.
With the steady flow of news putting religious issues in the spotlight, it’s a good time to review the requirements regarding religion in the workplace.
Religion and Private Employers
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state employer such as a university from discriminating against applicants and current employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations except in very limited instances. If an applicant or employee can demonstrate that her political views or associations caused a state employer to make an adverse employment decision (e.g., refusal to hire, termination, or failure to promote), the employer must prove it would have taken the same action regardless of the individual’s political views. In a recent decision, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) explained what constitutes unlawful “political discrimination” and how state employers can prevent it, particularly in a politically charged election year.
Facts
According to the 2010 Hate Crime Statistics report released by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program late in 2011 the number of hate crimes reported nationwide in 2010 remained fairly steady from the previous year. Participating local law enforcement agencies reported a total of 6,628 incidents — up just slightly from the 6,604 incidents reported in 2009 — involving 7,699 offenses as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability. Alabama showed an increase in the number of hate crimes reported — from nine in 2009 to 19 in 2010, but remained well below the average of such crimes reported in other states.
Agencies that participated in the Hate Crime Statistics Program in 2010 represented over 285 million inhabitants, or 92.3 percent of the nation’s population, and their jurisdictions covered 49 states and the District of Columbia. For each hate crime offense type reported, law enforcement must indicate at least one bias motivation. A single-bias incident is defined as an incident in which one or more offense types are motivated by the same bias. A multiple-bias incident is defined as an incident in which more than one offense type occurs and at least two offense types are motivated by different biases. read more…
It’s often easy for employers to be understanding when workers occasionally need to duck out of work early for a meeting at school or a trip to a child’s doctor. It happens to nearly every working parent once in a while.
But what about an employee whose child has some kind of special need, a parent whose caregiving responsibilities are seen as especially time-consuming and difficult to juggle with work responsibilities? An employer in that situation may be sympathetic but worried about getting the job done, even nervous about the reliability of the employee.
In addition to those attendance and performance concerns, employers have to be aware of legal hazards. Can an employer’s treatment of employees with special-needs children become a legal hazard? It is possible. read more…
The vast majority of all equal employment opportunity lawsuits are filed by individual employees or job applicants. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may file cases on behalf of individuals, but it rarely does so because of limited resources. To get more “bang” for its litigation bucks, the EEOC is increasingly turning to “pattern-or-practice” cases. You should respond to any EEOC charges against your company with that in mind, crafting your responses to avoid creating issues that trigger federal court litigation funded by the agency.
EEOC Focus: Systemic Claims
In recent years, the EEOC has shifted much of its focus to systemic claims, otherwise known as pattern-or-practice claims, which target discriminatory patterns, practices, or policies that have a broad impact on certain groups of individuals. In 2005, for example, the EEOC created the Systemic Task Force for the primary purpose of improving its methods and strategies for targeting systemic discrimination. In fact, although the EEOC has recently filed fewer lawsuits on behalf of individual employees, the number of systemic discrimination lawsuits it has initiated has approximately doubled in the past 10 years. In 2010 alone, out of 165 systemic investigations, the agency obtained 29 settlements or conciliation agreements, bringing in approximately $6.7 million. read more…
It may seem that requiring a high-school diploma for a job is a correct answer. However, a recent “informal discussion letter” from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that you may need to do more studying before making that choice.
Background
In October 2011, the state of Tennessee wrote the EEOC, asking whether “the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), prohibits the state of Tennessee from requiring students with learning disabilities to take ‘Gateway tests’ or ‘end-of-course assessments’ in order to receive their high-school diplomas.” The EEOC initially responded by referring the state to the Tennessee Department of Education. However, the EEOC then took the opportunity to address one statement in the letter that raised employment-related concerns for the agency under Title I of the ADA. We want to ensure you are aware of the agency’s position on the matter. read more…
On March 8, 1857, women from New York City factories staged a protest over working conditions. In 1981, 124 years after that historic protest, Congress established National Women’s History Week to be commemorated the second week of March. In 1987, Congress expanded the week to a month. Here are some facts about American women from the U.S. Census Bureau:
We have eliminated many forms of workplace discrimination and made great strides toward erasing others. Nonetheless, one form of discrimination ― “Beauty Bias,” as coined by Stanford Law Professor Deborah Rhode ― remains alive, well, and possibly inherent in the human condition.
When babies are shown pictures of adults, they usually reach for the most attractive faces. That bias continues through life. A 1994 study showed that nine percent of working men described by observers as “homely” received nine percent less than average earnings, while 32 percent of the most “handsome” men earned five percent above the average. The most attractive women earned four percent more than average, and the least attractive earned five percent less than average. A study of law school graduates showed that after 15 years of practice, good looks added over $10,000 per year in income.
Q: Our company is considering implementing a policy that would make individuals who smoke ineligible for employment. In doing so, we would save a substantial amount of money on our insurance premiums. Can we do this? If so, how do we monitor employees who claim they have quit smoking?
A: Many industries are implementing or considering “no-smokers” policies. Basically, the premise is that insurance companies are lowering their premiums for companies that have policies prohibiting employees from smoking. However, these are not your typical “no-smoking- in-the-workplace” policies. These policies prohibit employees from smoking ― period, regardless of whether they’re on the job. In addition to lowering health insurance premiums, many employers argue that hiring smokers increases production costs because of smoke breaks and high absenteeism from smoking-related illnesses. read more…
|
|||||||
