In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland affirmed the notion that discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination based on national origin are distinct legal claims. Moreover, because 42 USC § 1981 only prohibits discrimination based on race, a claim alleging national origin discrimination under the Act has little chance of success. Let’s take a closer look at this interesting decision.
The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a jury verdict in favor of an Egyptian-American Muslim employee of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) who claimed the BSA denied him career advancement opportunities based on his national origin and religion. The court upheld the verdict because the employer failed to show the evidence was “overwhelmingly inconsistent” with the jury’s decision.
Kamal Aly, an Egyptian-American Muslim, began working as a district executive for the BSA’s Mohegan Council in August 2001. During his first two years with the BSA, he completed two professional development trainings and received positive annual performance reviews. read more…
Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission show that charges of discrimination based on religion and national origin are the fastest growing categories in the past decade. Of course, that coincides with the aftermath of 9/11 and, rational or not, American anger and suspicions over Middle Eastern Arab communities. This shift in public mood creates a problem for HR professionals, whose job it is to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and harassment―a prejudice-free island in an ocean littered with group hatred. That’s no easy job, as United Parcel Service (UPS) was reminded recently. read more…
by Brad Cave
Q: Will I be in violation of federal discrimination laws if I provide an “English as a second language” (ESL) employee English language training at the company’s expense?
A Any possible discrimination charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be based on national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has promulgated express guidelines for employers with employees who don’t speak English as their primary language. The agency has recognized that employers sometimes have legitimate business reasons for basing employment decisions on linguistic characteristics, but because those characteristics are closely associated with national origin, you must be careful to ensure that the business reasons you rely on justify any burdens placed on employees because of their national origin.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you are prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on several protected classes, including race and national origin. In the following case, an Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH) physician claimed that his ethnicity and national origin prompted the revocation of his hospital privileges. Read on to learn how the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) handled his claims.
“Sham” Peer Review Leads to Federal Court Case
Many employers have had more than their fair share of discrimination allegations. Continental Airlines was accused of race, color, national origin, religious, and disability discrimination in one lawsuit. Let’s take a look at how it did more than its fair share of trying to work with the employee before eventually terminating him.
Meet Alfred Toronka, a black airline employee from Sierra Leone and a Seventh-day Adventist who also expressed a belief in voodoo. He was hired by Continental Airlines in 1997 to work as a material specialist in its technical operations department; driving was one of his essential job functions. He was terminated in 2008. read more…