|
|
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.
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…
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.
By Tammy Binford
Government statistics show that unemployment among people with disabilities is far higher than unemployment for people without disabilities. Year-end figures for 2011 are not yet available, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has figures revealing that the 2010 unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 14.8 percent. That’s more than one and a half times higher than the rate for people without disabilities, which was 9.4 percent.
What may be more startling than the unemployment rate is the number of people with disabilities who aren’t even in the labor force at all. According to data published in December by the BLS, 79.2 percent of working-age individuals with disabilities are outside the labor force, compared to 30.5 percent of those without disabilities.
Now the federal government is trying to take steps to narrow the employment gap between those with and without disabilities by proposing that federal contractors and subcontractors set a hiring goal of having seven percent of their workforces be made up of people with disabilities. read more…
By Marcia Akers
Baby Boomers are now entering their retirement years while some members of “The Greatest Generation” remain in the workforce. Gen Xers and Yers are looking for advancement and rewarding entry-level positions. This first-ever phenomenon of having four generations in the workplace at the same time is creating challenges for employers, including how to create a safe and pleasant environment while capitalizing on the unique resources, experiences, and talents that each group has to offer.
These intergenerational workplace issues have been studied by Chris Weiser, who leads an employee group at Sodexo. “It’s not like Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers need to be like their Baby Boomer boss . . . or Baby Boomers have to learn to text 140 words a minute,” Weiser says. “It’s about understanding that everyone has some style differences.” A high-functioning, age-diverse workforce can be a primary contributor to a company’s current stability and future growth.
By Jeffrey S. Beck
As the weather changes, many employers turn their attention to facility maintenance. If you’re one of those employers, you should consider the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) building design standards for any significant projects you undertake, whether it’s a new coat of paint, remodeling, or thorough winterizing. Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice adopted revised “Standards for Accessible Design” (the “2010 standards”) as well as modifications to the ADA’s general nondiscrimination requirements. Much of the discussion of the recent amendments to the ADA has focused on the changes to its general nondiscrimination requirements. However, you should also be aware of the 2010 standards to avoid liability.
What’s the Big Deal?
Patricia Shiu, director of the U.S. Department of Labor‘s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), delivered the keynote speech at the annual meeting of federal contractors and OFCCP representatives for the National Industry Liaison Group on July 27 in New Orleans. The key portions of Shiu’s speech, in which she provided important updates on the OFCCP, are below. The OFCCP is responsible for the enforcement of federal contractors’ affirmative action and nondiscrimination obligations.
Welcome to the 29th annual Industry Liaison Group Conference. I know how important it is for all of us to get together like this, and I want to thank each and every one of you for spending your time here this week. . . .
In a market in which the number of people looking for jobs wildly exceeds the number of jobs available, some employers have opted to narrow the field of applicants by eliminating unemployed workers from consideration. While some employers restrict the field to individuals who are currently employed, others allow candidates who are “recently unemployed” to apply. Although the reasons employers impose these limitations are not altogether clear, some jobs may have skill requirements that change quickly, and employers may be anxious to hire workers with the most up-to-the-minute skills. Whatever the reason, the tactic has drawn sharp criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and legislative responses at the state and federal level.
Pending Federal Legislation
That was the question we received at the conclusion of the ADA Compliance Virtual Summit, which I conducted with Audra Hamilton on June 15, 2011. The question was reasonable after conference participants learned that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) new regulations emphasize that the focus of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is no longer whether an individual is “disabled” under the statute but whether the employer engaged in discrimination.
EEOC Issues Final Regs for ADAAA
Society’s standards (or lack thereof) regarding clothing and grooming have certainly changed over the last 50 years. Taking a trip on an airplane used to mean “dressing up” and wearing the kind of clothes you would wear to church ― a suit and tie or a dress and heels. Now people fly in sweatpants and sneakers and regularly wear jeans to church. Some employees would happily wear nothing but sweatpants or jeans to work if their employers would let them.
For some employees, personal appearance ― including hairstyle, jewelry, tattoos, piercings, and head coverings as well as clothing ― is a form of self-expression. Religious mandates can also affect an employee’s appearance. Employers are confronted not only with excessively casual appearance but also with other extremes: looks that are too suggestive, too political, too dangerous, too bizarre. What’s “slightly sexy” to one person can be “downright vulgar” to another. So what’s an employer to do? How far can you go in regulating your employees’ appearance?
|
|||||||
