Texas Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Discrimination Lawyer & Attorney : McKinney Law Firm : Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination : Texas

The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy and Public Citizen have completed a National Study of Public Attitudes on Forced Arbitration.  The release is no doubt an effort to support the Arbitration Fairness Act, which is currently in Congress.

The study is based on a major national survey on mandatory arbitration of employment and consumer claims conducted by Lake Research Partners.

The survey of 800 likely voters nationwide found that:

• A solid majority of Americans (59%) opposes forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of employment and consumer contracts, including both men and women and majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
• Similarly strong majorities (59%) support the Arbitration Fairness Act. Support for the Act also crosses traditional gender and political divides.
• Even after voters hear arguments in favor of, and opposed to, forced arbitration, opposition to the practice holds firm. Just one-third of the electorate supports the practice.
• Roughly three-quarters of Americans believe they can sue an employer or company should they be seriously harmed or have a major dispute arise - even if they are bound by forced arbitration terms.
• Most Americans are unaware of the rights being taken away from them. Approximately two-thirds cannot remember seeing anything about forced arbitration in either Terms of Employment or Terms of Agreement for goods and services.

Here is a link to the study materials.

Here are more materials on the current version of the Arbitration Fairness Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In the event of pandemic influenza, employers will play a key role in protecting employees' health and safety as well as limiting the negative impact to the economy and society. Planning for pandemic influenza is critical. To assist you in your efforts, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have developed the following checklist for large businesses. It identifies important, specific activities large businesses can do now to prepare, many of which will also help you in other types of emergencies.

The checklist -- prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- can be downloaded here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Firefighters from New Haven, Conn., on Wednesday exposed an enduring Supreme Court split, as the justices confronted the year's most anticipated racial discrimination case.  A case from the New Haven Fire Department poses the questions: Just what is a job-related test? How should a city evaluate applicants for leadership positions? If a city thinks a test that was used will result in a lawsuit, does it have the right to abort the promotions and order a new test?

In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department in Connecticut gave an exam meant to gauge eligibility for promotions to lieutenant and captain. Scores for Hispanics and for African-Americans ranged from 34 to 59 percent of the scores for whites. Because of the way the promotions were structured, no African-American and only one Hispanic would have won any of the 15 promotions. The question then became whether the Civil Service Board would validate the test results.

After five days of hearings, the board decided the exam was flawed and threw out the results.  White firefighters who would most likely have won the promotions if the test results would have been kept sued.

Initial reports indicate conservative justices showed sympathy for the white firefighters who did not receive the promotions. The court's liberal wing suggested that New Haven officials may have acted reasonably in determining that the test was flawed. After an hour-long oral argument, most signs hinted at a close decision later this year.

Here is a link to an initial take on what today's argument revealed.

Here is a link to Nina Totenberg's excellent NPR piece outlining the issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"No one ever says, 'You're old; we don't want you.' They say, 'This may require some lifting. Are you capable?' " said Paul Westgate, who's 58 and says he was laid off from his job as repairman at an Attleboro, Mass., plant that makes manufacturing equipment. The questions make little sense to him, because in his field, ladders and lifting are "almost a thing of the past," and the job is primarily technically oriented, he said, adding, "I can still do my thing." He says, "They want experience, but they want an experienced 30-year-old."

The Wall Street Journal has a good article out this week discussing recent statistics that show age discrimination claims rising at a dramatic rate.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a report showing that age-discrimination allegations by employees are at a record high, jumping 29% to 24,600 filed in the year ended Sept. 30, up from 19,100 in 2007. Overall employment discrimination complaints are also at a record high -- up 15% to 95,402 complaints -- but the most dramatic increase was in the age-related complaints according to the EEOC.

According to the FY 2008 data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which includes charges filed against state and local governments) increased. Charges based on age and retaliation saw the largest annual increases, while allegations based on race, sex and retaliation continued as the most frequently filed charges. The surge in charge filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions, increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force, and possibly employees’ greater awareness of the law.

The dramatic increase in age claims is not completely surprising.  It may make a certain financial logic in that companies may be targeting older workers in layoffs because the senior staffers are generally the highest paid and have the most lucrative benefits.  However, it can also be one of the most financially devastating forms of discrimination.  Older workers fired at the peak of their earning potential often find it impossible to find comparable work for comparable pay. 

Here is a link to the EEOC's statistics.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The National Law Journal is reporting that defamation lawsuits are on the rise in the workplace.  Employees are taking on employers over the right to reputation, suing over being labeled as damaged goods after losing their jobs.

With the economy forcing so many people out of work, lawyers say the environment is ripe for defamation claims.

Employers are facing mounting pressure over how to treat departing employees, and how to explain the departure without hurting their reputations. The employers' fear is that negative or offensive information will go out the door along with the exiting employee, providing grounds for defamation claims.

And technology — including e-mails, Twitter, Facebook and blogs — is making it easier to disseminate hurtful information about employees.

Read the entire article from the National Law Journal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As of April 3, 2009, all U.S. employers are required to use a new revised Form I-9.The revised Form I-9 reflects changes made to the list of documents acceptable for Form I-9 in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security’s final rule.

Changes under the new rule:

• Requires that all documents presented during the verification process be unexpired;
• Eliminates List A identity and employment authorization documentation Forms I-688, I-688A, and I-688B (Temporary Resident Card and outdated Employment Authorization Cards);
• Adds foreign passports containing certain machine-readable immigrant visas to List A;
• Adds to List A as evidence of identity and employment authorization valid passports for citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), along with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI

The biggest difference in the revised Form I-9 is that all documents presented during the verification process must be unexpired.

Downloads:

• Download the new Form I-9

• Download the DOL's Handbook for Employers – Instructions for Completing Form I-9

December 22, 2010 Update: Updated Link to the handbook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Twitter is a fantastic tool.  There is currently no better way to make an idiot out of yourself in front of a national audience for 140 characters or less. 

A recent job applicant at Cisco was offered a position that was apparently a pretty good paying job.  So, what does said job applicant do?  Well, go on Twitter and badmouth the job of course.

"Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.”

Well, anyone care to hazard a guess as to whether anyone at Cisco (a tech company) follows posts about the company on Twitter?  Uh.....yeah...they do.  And it gets worse for our job applicant.  Her situation went "viral".  Someone from Cisco saw her post and responded.  This spread across Twitter like wildfire.  Internet goons with too much time on their hands traced her Twitter account to her true identity and outed her.  Blog pages went up about the incident.  She was dubbed on the net "Cisco Fatty."  People with even more time on their hands posted Youtube videos about the incident.  In short she was humiliated and, one would assume, she may not be offered the position at Cisco.

The moral of the story?  Stop, STOP, STOP thinking that electronic communications are private.  They aren't.  Whether it be email or Facebook entries, or Twitter, or whatever comes next, remember, someone is always watching.  So don't put anything down in an electronic communication unless you wouldn't mind if it was read by your mother, your spouse, and your boss.

(Update: Someone inquired about this so here is the info: I have referred to the subject of this story as "her" throughout the article b/c I know her identity.  In fact she has come out and posted about the event.  However, there as been an awful lot of piling on her for this mistake so I am choosing not to identify her or to link to anything identifying her personally.  If you care enough, you can find out who it is...but you shouldn't.)

Never post anything you wouldn’t say to your mom, boss and significant other.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)