If your fear of work involves more than just that towering pile of assignments on your desk, you may not be alone.
According to a survey from CareerBuilder.com, 27% of employees have indicated they felt bullied while at the workplace. The survey notes that the problem is more commonly reported for women (34%) than for men (22%). (WCxKit)
For those employees who reported they had been bullied, the following points were noted as the most typical forms of such actions:
1. My comments were dismissed or not acknowledged – 43%
2. I was falsely accused of mistakes I did not make – 40%
3. I was harshly criticized – 38%
4. I was forced into doing work that really was not my job – 38%
5. Different standards & policies were used for me than for other workers – 37%
6. I was given mean looks – 31%
7. Others gossiped about me – 27%
8. My boss yelled at me in front of other co-workers – 24%
9. Belittling comments were made about my work during meetings – 23%
10. Someone else stole credit for my work – 21%.
While standing up to bullying can get a worker in trouble, it appears many do seem to see it as a deterrent to confronting the situation. A majority of employees claim they will stick up for themselves. Close to half of workers who indicated they’d been bullied also noted they would confront the individual head on, and 28% said they informed human resources. (WCxKit)
“Bullying is a serious offense that can disrupt the work environment, impact morale, and lower productivity,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. “If you are feeling bullied, keep track of what was said or done and who was present. The more specifics you can provide, the stronger the case you can make for yourself when confronting the bully head on or reporting the bully to a company authority.”
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. Contributor to the best selling book, Workers Compensation Management Program: Save 20% t0 50%. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued a national insurer claiming the firm violated federal law by refusing to hire a North Carolina man after he disclosed he was participating in a methadone treatment program for drug addiction.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Raleigh against United Insurance Co. of America, according to EEOC attorney Lynette Barnes. (WCxKit)
The complaint argues the firm violated federal disability discrimination law by refusing to hire Craig Burns, 30, who applied for a job in the firm’s Raleigh office in December of 2009. The firm made a conditional offer of employment to Burns the following month, depending upon his passing a drug test.
The test showed the presence of methadone in his system, so Burns submitted a letter to the firm from his treatment provider saying he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment, the complaint said. Upon receiving this information, United Insurance notified Barnes he was not eligible to be hired and withdrew the employment offer.
According to Barnes, the action violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. A recovering drug addict is covered under the act. (WCxKit)
The suit seeks back pay, compensation for financial loss, along with punitive damages.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
By Martha J. Cardi J.D.
Think workers comp is hard to manage? Try FMLA, state and other leaves of absence.
These overlapping and ever-changing leave laws are so complicated many employers either grant too much leave in fear of being out of compliance, or refuse leave that legitimately should be granted, exposing the employer to risk of lawsuits.
How employers (and/or their TPAs) manage
FMLA can have a big impact on costs, productivity, employee morale and, perhaps most important, reduce the risk of legal action for claims of noncompliance. Quite simply, it pays to devote the resources to make sure it is done right.
To give you an idea of how complicated managing these leaves can be, consider three hypothetical scenarios and how they should be correctly handled. While reading, keep in mind that, while these scenarios look overblown, in real life they actually can get much more complicated than this.
1. Pregnant Employee With Multiple Births
This scenario illustrates the interaction of FMLA and state leaves for an employee with a complicated pregnancy.
Judy in Massachusetts is employed by a company that is covered by both the FMLA and the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act (MMLA). She becomes pregnant with multiple fetuses with a due date of October 15 and is put on bed rest by her OB effective April 15. On August 30 she delivers eight babies, all of which survive.
How much job-protected leave does Judy get, and under which statutes?
1. The MMLA covers only the birth or adoption of a child or children, not pre-birth pregnancy-related disabilities. Therefore, the MMLA does not cover any of her pre-birth time off.
2. The FMLA does cover pregnancy-related disabilities, so this provides job protection for Judy for up to 12 weeks during her period of bed rest.
3. After 12 weeks, Judy exhausts her FMLA on July 8 (assuming she has not taken any other FMLA time in the prior 12 months).
1. Judy is out of FMLA and the MMLA has not yet come into effect. She is likely still protected, however, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended by the ADA Amendments Act effective January 2009) and under the Massachusetts equivalent nondiscrimination law.
2. Judy also may be protected by both federal and Massachusetts sex or pregnancy discrimination laws if her employer allows leaves of absence to employees for non-pregnancy-related temporary disabilities.
3. Her employer would be wise to provide an extended leave of absence due to her pregnancy and/or pregnancy disability to cover the period from
FMLA exhaustion until the MMLA provides the employee with parental/bonding leave.
August 15 -
Once Judy has given birth, the MMLA allows eight weeks of job-protected leave per birth or adoption. So, for having eight babies, she is entitled to 64 weeks of leave, eight for each baby.
2. California Family Rights Act and FMLA
This scenario about how FMLA and state laws interact in a domestic partnership with multiple illnesses shows how the timing of multiple leaves can have a huge impact.
Marie and her registered domestic partner Susan live together with Susan’s 10-year-old child, Thomas. Thomas is diagnosed with a serious health condition and needs physical care at home. Both Marie and Susan work for California employers that are covered by both the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the FMLA.
Can Marie and Susan take time off to care for Thomas?
1. Both FMLA AND CFRA provide 12 weeks of job-protected leave within one leave year to care for certain family members as defined by the statutes. As Thomas’s mother, Susan is entitled to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave under both FMLA and CFRA to care for him. Her leave under each act runs concurrently. After 12 weeks she has exhausted her FMLA and CFRA entitlements for her employer’s defined leave year.
2. After Susan has exhausted her leave rights, Marie takes time off to care for Thomas. Marie also is entitled to 12 weeks off under each leave act. CFRA provides time off to care for a child with a serious health condition under two conditions. (1) If the child is the child of the employee’s domestic partner and/or (2) a child with whom the employee stands “in loco parentis” (in the place of a parent or like a parent, providing care and/ or support).
3. The FMLA does not provide leave to care for the child of a domestic partner, but does provide time off to care for a child with a serious health condition if the employee is in loco parentis to the child. Because Marie, Susan, and Thomas all live together and Marie helps provide financial support and parenting care for Thomas, she qualifies for this leave and in caring for Thomas, exhausts both her FMLA and CFRA rights for the leave year.
Note that the result would be the same if Marie and Susan work for the same employer. Neither FMLA nor CFRA require parents employed by the same employer to share time off to care for a child with a serious health condition.
To understand the complexity of these laws, suppose that before Thomas’s illness, Susan had experienced her own serious health condition. Marie stayed home from work for 12 weeks to provide Susan with physical care during her injury and recovery. This leave is covered by CFRA, which provides leave rights to care for a registered domestic partner with a serious health condition. Susan has exhausted her CFRA time for the leave year, but, her time off does not count toward her FMLA leave rights, as the FMLA does not provide job-protected leave to care for a domestic partner with a serious health condition.
Then when Thomas becomes ill with a serious health condition and needs physical care at home. Marie can take another 12 weeks of leave during the leave year to care for Thomas because she stands in loco parentis to him, and her FMLA rights were not exhausted during her time off to care for Susan.
Note that if Susan’s and Thomas’s serious health conditions occurred in reverse order, Susan’s CFRA and FMLA rights both would have been exhausted in caring for Thomas first, and she would not have had any job-protected time left under CFRA to care for Susan.
3. Caring for an Injured Military Service Member
This scenario illustrates how caring for someone injured in the line of duty differs and interacts with caring for an injured civilian.
Henry is an employee of a company covered by FMLA. When his son, Josh, a serviceman in the US Navy, is injured on an aircraft carrier during an engagement and is sent home, can Henry take time off to care for Josh?
An employee may take up to 26 weeks of job-protected leave in one 12-month period in order to care for a son, daughter, spouse, or parent who has been injured in the line of duty on active duty, or if the employee is designated by the injured service member as his or her “next of kin” per the regulations.
The 12-month period is measured forward from the first date of leave for this reason, regardless of the method used by the employer to calculate an employee’s leave entitlement for other FMLA reasons (e.g., rolling back, calendar year, or other fixed year).
The 26 weeks includes the employee’s 12 weeks of leave for other FMLA-qualifying reasons, but the military caregiver leave must be applied first, so that if the employee does not use the full 26 weeks for caregiver leave, he or she still has the remainder of the 26 weeks, up to 12 weeks maximum, to use for other FMLA reasons.
Assume Henry’s employer uses the 12-month rolling backward method of calculating employee FMLA leave entitlements.
1. Henry has taken no previous FMLA leave since he became eligible, and may take up to 26 weeks to care for Josh.
2. Josh recovers and Henry is no longer needed to care for him after 8 weeks. Henry returns to work and under the regulations forfeits the remaining 18 weeks of military caregiver leave as a result.
3. A month after returning to work Henry requests FMLA time off to care for his wife, who has a serious health condition. His employer is required to apply the military caregiver leave first, up to the 26 weeks. Because Henry used less than 14 weeks of the caregiver leave entitlement, he still has up to 12 weeks of FMLA entitlement for other reasons.
4. Suppose, however, that five months before Josh’s military injury, Henry had taken leave because he adopted a child and took 12 weeks of FMLA leave to bond with the adopted child. When Josh is injured, Michael is still entitled to 26 weeks of leave to care for him, because the 12-month period for this leave reason is always measured forward from the first date of the leave. If his care is needed that long, he can take up to the full 26 weeks despite having taken 12 weeks within the past year, measured rolling backward.
5. Fortunately, Josh recovers within eight weeks, no longer needs Henry’s care, and Henry returns to work. Henry then forfeits the remainder of the 26 weeks of military caregiver leave.
6. A month after returning to work Henry requests FMLA time off to care for his wife, who has a serious health condition. Although Henry has only taken a total of 20 weeks, he no longer has any FMLA time available to use for his wife’s care. Looking back 12 months in accordance with his employer’s rolling back method, Henry has already taken 12 weeks of leave for reasons not related to the military caregiver leave (the adoption and bonding time). Thus, he has no regular FMLA time left to care for his wife.
What Should You Be Doing to Better Manage Leaves?
The takeaway from these examples is that leave laws form a complex web that continually has to be untangled for each case. In addition, these laws are constantly being amended and updated as challenges are decided on in court. (WCxKit)
Every employer should:
1. Make sure supervisors are aware that leave laws are complex and that they should not try to handle leave requests without help from their HR, benefits, or legal department.
2. Make sure supervisors are aware their attitude is important, and that if they respond negatively to requests for leave, it could be construed as FMLA interference and expose the employer to potential legal action.
3. Understand that employers do not have to grant every leave request just to avoid the risk of noncompliance. With proper understanding of leave laws, there are many ways that employers can reduce the burden of unnecessary leaves while still giving employees the leaves to which they are entitled.
Up-to-Date Leave Law Information is the Key.
No human being can be expected to hold this kind of complexity in his or her head, and researching leaves on various government databases is both time consuming and increases the risk of missing any important change or guidance on a gray area. Be sure you have the most current information on FMLA, state and other leave laws available in a format that is easy to search, complete and always up-to-date. If you encounter any “gray areas” in leave laws, be sure to seek expert advice to minimize the risk of legal challenges.
Martha J. Cardi J.D. is Chief Compliance Officer for Reed Group and Chief Editor of Reed Group’s Leave of Absence Advisor, a web-based resource for administering FMLA, state and other leave laws. More info at www.reedgroup.com. Contact at services@reedgroup.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
A federal district court judge in Milwaukee entered a consent decree resolving an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against a major Wisconsin building products company, the agency announced recently.
The EEOC charged Sheboygan Falls, Wis.-based Richardson Industries, Inc., (doing business as Richco Structures), violated federal law when it fired employee Morgan Rae Brocker after supervisors allegedly reported to management that another Richco supervisor sexually harassed Brocker at the company’s Christmas party in 2005.(WCxKit)
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Richardson Industries, Inc., d/b/a Richco Structures, Civil Action No. 2:10-C-0505) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 18, 2010, after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The decree entered July 14, by U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert prohibits future discrimination and provides that Richco will pay Brocker $22,500 and train its managers and supervisors on employers’ obligations and the rights of employees under Title VII.
According to company information, Richardson Industries, Inc., is a privately held corporation with several different divisions devoted to furniture and woodworking. (WCxKit)
The company’s website states that Richco Structures, which is located in Sheboygan Falls, Haven and De Pere, Wis., and is part of the company’s Richardson Building Products division, “Is one of the Midwest’s largest manufacturers of custom fabricated wood roof trusses, floor trusses, and wall components, as well as a distributor of engineered wood products for the construction industry.”
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
A Dorchester restaurant and bar and its owner have been accused of violating Massachusetts civil rights and public accommodations laws in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Office.
According to the AG’s office, the complaint alleges the eatery, Peggy O'Neil, engaged in a pattern of not allowing customers of color to enter and use the bar. (WCxKit)
“We allege that [Caron O'Neil, owner of] Peggy O’Neil engaged in discriminatory and unlawful conduct,” Coakley said. “No one who lives, works, or visits Massachusetts should be subjected to discrimination. All businesses must ensure that appropriate anti-discrimination policies are posted and adhered to within their establishments.”
The lawsuit claims that in December 2010, two men of Cape Verdean and African-American descent went to Peggy O’Neil, located in Dorchester, and waited in line with other customers as staff allowed numerous Caucasian customers to enter the bar in front of them. The owner, Caron O’Neil, who was working alongside bar staff allegedly said to the group, “This is your first time here, huh?” and informed them that they could not get in because it was too late. She allegedly told the group she did not “want any trouble,” that she didn’t know them, and that they should find somewhere else to go. At the same time, several white customers were allowed to enter the bar.
Later that evening, a second group of friends of Cape Verdean, Spanish and African American descent went to the bar and was also allegedly denied entry by bar staff. Bar staff asked them for their identification cards which they provided. The bouncer allegedly asked them if they knew the owner of the bar and who they were there to see. At the same time, other Caucasian customers were allowed to enter the bar, many of whom appeared to be intoxicated.
According to the lawsuit, O’Neil told the group that they could not come in the bar because they did not know the bar’s owner. She allegedly stated to them, “You don’t look like the type of people” the owner would know and “we don’t like people of your kind here” among other statements. The lawsuit further states that a third group of persons of color were denied entry to Peggy O’Neil in April 2011 and were treated in a similar manner. (WCxKit)
The Attorney General’s lawsuit is seeking monetary damages, civil penalties and permanent injunctive relief, in addition to a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants and Peggy O’Neil’s staff to comply with state and federal anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, undergo anti-discrimination training, and implement an approved anti-discrimination policy.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), the oldest and largest nationwide organization of blind people, held more than 20 informational protests across the United States to raise awareness about the practice of paying below the federal minimum wage to Americans with disabilities.
The Rehabilitation Act is supposed to provide services to disabled Americans so that they can obtain competitive employment, but Title V, Section 511 of the proposed Rehabilitation Act language reinforces Section 14(c) of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which allows certain entities holding special wage certificates to pay workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage.
According to the NFB, the protests were held July 26, the 21st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, at the primary district office locations of United States senators serving on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (the HELP Committee). The HELP Committee is currently considering legislation—the Workforce Investment Act—which would reauthorize the payment of subminimum wages to disabled workers.(WCxKit)
Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind said, “Unequal pay for equal work on the basis of disability is unfair, discriminatory, and immoral. We urge the senators who serve on the HELP Committee to eliminate the indefensible practice of paying disabled workers less than the federal minimum wage.”
Twenty-one informational protests were held in 16 states, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.
Unfortunately, the reauthorization vote on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) scheduled for August 3, 2011 did not take place and as of August 11 is still stalled in committee.(WCxKit)
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Alcoa Mill Products, Inc., will pay $485,000 in back wages to 37 Hispanics and African-Americans as well as $35,500 to two women who all were rejected for job positions at the company's plant in Lancaster, Pa.
The settlement resolves a finding by the U.S. Department of Labor that the company discriminated against Hispanic, African-American and female applicants for material handler positions. Alcoa Mill Products is part of Alcoa Inc., a major aluminum producer.(WCxKit)
The department's office of federal contract compliance programs conducted a scheduled compliance review of the Lancaster manufacturing facility from 2009 to 2010, and determined the company had violated an executive order in failing to meet its obligations as a federal contractor, ensuring qualified job applicants receive equal consideration for employment without regard to sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. Alcoa holds contracts with the U.S. Army in excess of $50 million.
"No worker should be denied a job because of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with his or her ability to accomplish the work," said OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu. "I am glad we reached a fair settlement with Alcoa Mill Products, one that not only provides financial remedies for the affected victims, but also creates opportunities for good jobs."
Under a conciliation agreement with OFCCP, Alcoa Mill Products agreed to pay back wages and extend job offers to nine of the 37 identified class members as positions become available.(WCxKit)
Additionally, the company agreed to spend at least $20,000 on equal employment opportunity, anti-harassment, and sensitivity training for its workforce, including all managers and human resource personnel involved in hiring. Finally, the company agreed to revise its selection process for material handlers.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
In the new Global Report on Equality at Work 2011, the International Labor Office (ILO) is stating that in spite of continuous positive advances inanti-discrimination legislation, the global economic and social crisis has led to a higher risk of discrimination against some groups like migrant labour.
“Economically adverse times are a breeding ground for discrimination at work and in society more broadly. We see this with the rise of populist solutions,” said ILO Director-General Juan Somavia, adding, “this threatens painstaking achievements of several decades.” (WCxKit)
The report entitled
Equality at Work: The Continuing Challenge, cites equality bodies which receive increased numbers of complaints, showing that workplace discrimination has become more varied, and discrimination on multiple grounds is becoming the rule rather than the exception.
It also warns against a tendency during economic downturns to give lower priority to anti-discrimination policies and workers’ rights in practice. “Austerity measures and cutbacks in the budget of labor administrations and inspection services, and in funds available to specialized bodies dealing with non-discrimination and equality, can seriously compromise the ability of existing institutions to prevent the economic crisis from generating more discrimination and more inequalities,” the report says.
According to the report, the lack of reliable data in this context makes it difficult to assess the exact impact of these measures. It therefore calls on governments to put into place human, technical, and financial resources to improve data collection on discrimination at the national level.
The report also notes that new forms of discrimination at work arise while the old challenges remain at best only partially answered.
Among the key findings of the report:
1. Significant progress has been made in recent decades in advancing gender equality in the world of work. However, the gender pay gap still exists, with women’s wages being on average 70 to 90 percent of men’s. While flexible arrangements of working schedules are gradually being introduced as an element of more family-friendly policies, discrimination related to pregnancy and maternity is still common.
2. Sexual harassment is a significant problem in workplaces. Young, financially dependent, single, or divorced women and migrants are most vulnerable, while men who experience harassment tend to be young, gay, or members of ethnic or racial minorities.
3. Combating racism is as relevant today as it ever was. Barriers impeding equal access to the labour market still need to be dismantled, particularly for people of African and Asian descent, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, and above all women in these groups.
4. Migrant workers face widespread discrimination in access to employment, and many encounter discrimination when employed, including access to social insurance programs.
5. Rising numbers of women and men experience discrimination on religious grounds, while discrimination based on political opinion tends to take place in the public sector, where loyalty to the policies of authorities in power can be a factor in access to employment.
6. Work-related discrimination continues to exist for many of the world’s 650 million persons with disabilities as their low employment rate reveals.
7. Persons with HIV/AIDS can suffer discrimination through mandatory testing policies, or testing under conditions, which are not genuinely voluntary or confidential.
8. In the European Union, 64 per cent of those surveyed expected that the economic crisis would lead to more age discrimination in the labour market.
9. In a limited number of industrialized countries, discrimination based on lifestyle has emerged as a topical issue, especially in relation to smoking and
obesity. (WCxKit)
The Global Report recommends four priority steps to combat discrimination including the promotion of the universal ratification and application of the two fundamental ILO Conventions on equality and non-discrimination; the development and sharing of knowledge on the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation; development of the institutional capacity of ILO constituents to more effectively implement the fundamental right of non-discrimination at work; and strengthening of international partnerships with major actors on equality.
1. Equality at Work: The Continuing Challenge, Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, International Labour Conference, 100th Session 2011, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Author Rebecca Shafer, JD, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. is a national expert in the field of workers compensation. She is a writer, speaker, and website publisher. Her expertise is working with employers to reduce workers compensation costs, and her clients include airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality, and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:RShafer@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
The Columbus (Ohio) Fire Division battalion chief who was the first female in that position has come up short in the discrimination lawsuit she filed against the city in federal court.
According to The Columbus Dispatch, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson dismissed Yolanda Arnold's claims that she had been harassed due to the fact she is black and that she had suffered retaliation because of her discrimination claims. Arnold also claimed she was humiliated and embarrassed. (WCxKit)
Watson ruled recently that Arnold did not offer specific proof of her allegations in three years of court proceedings that included a number of depositions of witnesses and presentations of exhibits like emails, newspaper stories and other documents.
According to Watson, a large amount of the evidence was hearsay, which was not admissible direct evidence of discrimination.
Arnold, 55, who is still a Columbus fire battalion chief, said recently that she is appealing the judges decision to dismiss her suit.
The lawsuit originated from allegations by city building inspectors in 2004 that fire inspectors under Arnolds command were missing inspections and collecting overtime pay.
Separate investigations by the Columbus police and fire divisions detected no wrongdoing. A third investigation, by a private attorney, reported management problems in the Fire Prevention Bureau, which Arnold oversaw, but it also found that claims of racial discrimination in the bureau were unfounded.
At the time of the third investigation, Fire Chief Ned Pettus accused Arnold of lying to investigators and suspended her for a week. She also was removed from the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Arnold filed the lawsuit in January 2008. Watsons ruling was in response to a request from the city for a summary judgment against Arnold.
Ten other Columbus firefighters who were employed as fire inspectors filed three similar discrimination lawsuits against the city in federal court. (WCxKit)
Watson dismissed a pair of those suits on March 31, the day he also threw out Arnolds. A third is pending.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@WorkersCompKit.com.
Arizona-based High-Tech Institute Inc., doing business as Anthem College Online, will pay $260,000 as part of a settlement of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.
In its suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Civil Action No.CV-09-2041-ROS), the EEOC charged that Anthem College subjected female employees to repeated sexual harassment by supervisors. (WCxKit)
According to the EEOC, six female admissions representatives working at the Phoenix, Ariz., location were frequently sexually harassed by three supervisors. EEOC allegations included that the supervisors engaged in unwanted sexual touching and comments, writing sexually suggestive e-mails and soliciting sex from employees during unwelcome visits to the their homes in the early morning hours. Some of this abusive behavior was witnessed by other Anthem College employees, the EEOC said.
The EEOC maintained that Anthem College knew or should have known about and tolerated this sexually hostile work environment caused by its supervisors. The agency said the company’s former human resource manager wrote that Anthem College employees were fearful to come forward because an alleged harasser was seen drinking and socializing with upper management and that there was blatant disrespect to employees and rampant poor management.
According to the EEOC, the company unreasonably delayed removing a class member from under the supervision of an alleged harasser who, the company’s own former human resources manager testified, was a “psychopath.” The EEOC argued that despite Anthem College’s knowledge about the harassment, the company failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the harassment.
“Employees who have an official or strong duty to communicate to management are considered part of management,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill of the Phoenix District Office, which originated the legal action. “Here, there was a breakdown in reporting by persons, whose job descriptions required them to report any issues affecting the normal operation of the admissions department, including sexual harassment. They failed to do so, with serious consequences.”
In addition to the settlement requiring Anthem College to pay $260,000 to the former employees, Anthem College also must investigate any further complaints of sexual harassment, provide training for managers and supervisors on conducting sexual harassment investigations and post a notice that harassment of Anthem College employees will not be tolerated. (WCxKit)
EEOC Phoenix District Director Rayford Irvin added, “We insist that companies fulfill their obligation to protect employees from sexual harassment and provide the necessary training to ensure this protection."
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers Compensation costs, including airlines, healthcare, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. See www.LowerWC.com for more information. Contact:Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com .
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker or agent about workers comp issues.
©2011 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com.
Posted in
