The statistics don’t lie. More people are planning to work beyond what once was a traditional retirement age. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has projected that the primary working-age group—those ages 25-54—will decline from 66.9 percent of the labor force in 2010 to 63.7 percent in 2020. Workers 55 and older are projected to go from 19.5 percent of the labor force to 25.2 percent during the same period.

The U.S. Census Bureau released an analysis in January pointing out that for the last 20 years, the labor force participation rate of people at least 65 years old has increased, and the increase is particularly evident over the last 10 years.

read more…

by Kylie Crawford TenBrook

Several years ago, I attended a celebration for one of my brothers, who had just become an Eagle Scout. Several relatives were there, including some distant relatives I hadn’t seen in years. One of those distant relatives, who is close to my age, approached me, and the following exchange took place. (The comments in parentheses are my thoughts as the conversation progressed. Please take my fresh-out-of-law- school cockiness with a grain of salt―I have been severely humbled since then.)

Relative: So, Kylie, what are you doing these days?

read more…

by Tara Martens Miller

Freedom to believe and practice your own religion is a strongly held American value as well as a right recognized by  the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and most state organizations charged with receiving and investigating claims of discrimination. Sometimes, however, an employee’s expression of religious beliefs in the workplace can be disruptive―especially if the employee’s beliefs clash with the beliefs of her coworkers. When does an employer’s attempt to control religious expression become discriminatory? And how does a company reconcile its efforts to promote workplace diversity with an employee’s right to push back against “diversity” he opposes?

Basic protections under the law

read more…

by Taylor Chapman

In many situations, it is relatively easy to understand what constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. For instance, you cannot refuse to hire an applicant because she is a woman or treat a female employee differently from a male employee because of her sex. The legal requirements become more uncertain, however, when an employee claims you engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping, as one Virginia employer recently learned.

What is sex stereotyping?

read more…

by Tammy Binford

A new study from business and research organization The Conference Board says that more than 10 percent of the U.S. population currently has some form of disability. Other research from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that disproportionate numbers of people with disabilities are either unemployed or working in jobs that pay low wages.

Employment statistics for people with disabilities have the potential to grow even bleaker in the near future as employers cope with an aging population and an influx of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with service-related disabilities. It’s clear that employers need to be ready to not just accommodate workers with disabilities but also capitalize on the strengths those employees can bring to the workplace. read more…

by Toni Everton

An increasing number of unsuccessful job applicants are filing discrimination charges, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state enforcement agencies are taking a close look at job applications for evidence of unlawful bias. So the question is, what can you ask on a job application? This article doesn’t contain an all-inclusive list of what to ask on a job application; rather, it provides guidance on a couple of issues the EEOC and state enforcement agencies have recently questioned.  read more…

by Steven Collis

In its first class action lawsuit challenging an employer’s use of criminal records, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ended up dropping its case against PeopleMark and getting socked with $750,000 in sanctions. Recently, the EEOC suffered another stinging loss when a federal court dismissed its discrimination case against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (which was discussed in a previous blog post, “EEOC’s use of ‘race raters’ against Kaplan University gets failing grade”) based on an unsound analysis by the commission’s expert witness. With the same expert providing statistical evidence in another case, could the agency strike out in a third background check class action lawsuit?

Over the past few years, the EEOC has aggressively challenged the use of credit reports and criminal history checks in hiring decisions, alleging that use of the information results in a discriminatory impact on candidates in protected groups. In 2012, the commission successfully negotiated a $3.13 million prelawsuit settlement of a race discrimination charge against Pepsi in which the soda giant’s criminal background check policy was called into question for allegedly discriminating against African Americans. However, the agency has been less successful pursuing similar cases in court, mainly because of its struggle to proffer reliable evidence of discriminatory impact. Despite the EEOC’s mixed results, the recent settlements and case filings indicate that the use of credit and criminal history checks in the hiring process is a hot topic. read more…

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Bureau of International Labor Affairs has released “Reducing Child Labor and Forced Labor: A Toolkit for Responsible Businesses,” the first guide developed by the U.S. government to help businesses combat child labor and forced labor in their global supply chains. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), worldwide there are 215 million children in child labor, with 115 million performing hazardous work. It also estimates that 21 million people are in forced labor, six million of them children.

Using the DOL’s toolkit should help employers reduce “the chance that your products—and the raw materials they come from—are manufactured, mined or harvested by children who should be in school, or by workers locked in sweatshops or forced into work through false promises or threats.” read more…

by Brandon Gearhart

A recent decision from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee employers) illustrates the importance of the interactive process when making employment decisions about a disabled worker. The court returned a previously dismissed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim to the lower court, in part because the employer made a decision regarding disability accommodations without consulting the disabled worker. 

Facts

Nicholas Keith was born deaf and is unable to speak. After receiving lifeguard certification from Oakland County, Michigan, he applied for a lifeguard position at the Oakland County wave pool in 2007. Katherine Stavale, Oakland County’s recreational specialist, offered Keith a lifeguard job conditioned on him passing a physical exam. Dr. Paul Work performed the exam. After looking at Keith’s medical records, Work stated, “He’s deaf; he can’t be a lifeguard.” He failed Keith because he didn’t believe he could function independently as a lifeguard. read more…

by Tammy Binford

Consider the modern workforce: The up-and-coming Gen Y Millennials sit alongside Gen Xers, baby boomers, and even a few 70-and-older workers who’ve decided to delay retirement or skip it altogether.

Researchers tout an era when four distinct groups inhabit the workplace—those born in 1945 and before, the boomers born from 1946-1964, Generation X born from 1965-1978, and Generation Y born from 1979-1997. Granted the oldest generation makes up a tiny slice of the workforce and many employers won’t have all four age groups represented, but age diversity is a reality that savvy employers can use to their advantage—if they understand what makes people in various stages of life tick. read more…