Requiring a high school diploma of applicants for a given job may improperly screen out those with learning disability, according to the federal agency. I’ve got more at Cato at Liberty.
{ 16 comments }
Posts tagged as:
EEOC
- Age discrimination law (including my views) discussed [Reihan Salam, NRO] “3d Cir.: Employees Fired for Pornographic Emails Lose Age-Discrimination Case” [Molly DiBianca]
- Will Obama administration lawsuit derail employer use of career-readiness certificates? [Charlotte Allen, Minding the Campus]
- A warning for Gov. Cuomo: “The case against pension-financed infrastructure” [Edward Zelinsky, OUP]
- EEOC is on the warpath and employers had better hope they escape unscathed [Hans Bader, CEI]
- Since we know unemployment extensions have no incentive effects, this story from the Midwest is purely imaginary [Marietta, Ohio Times, related]
- Court rejects “announcement of same sex marriage harassed me” hostile environment claim [Volokh] “Jobs with a higher risk of sexual harassment pay workers more” [WaPo] Half of all students harassed? Surprising it’s only half [Katie Roiphe, NYT]
- Funny-sad “666″ workplace suit: “The safety sticker of the beast” [Volokh]
- “Do you know what an employment lawsuit costs?” [Jon Hyman]
{ 2 comments }
The EEOC’s press release is not entirely clear about the events giving rise to the dispute, but it appears that Georgia Power through its subcontractor requires that heavy equipment operators on a certain project be qualified to pass the federal Department of Transportation’s physical exam for truckers; that applicant Bryan Mimmovich cannot pass that exam because of his controlled epilepsy; and that the EEOC is now arguing that it is discriminatory for the employer to adopt the DOT physical requirements for the equipment operation job.
{ 14 comments }
The EEOC says Comfort Suites dismissed the clerk when it should instead have accepted the services of a state-paid “job coach” who might have “helped the clerk learn to master his job by using autism-specific training techniques.” [EEOC press release, Fox San Diego]
{ 12 comments }
Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).
{ 2 comments }
My new Cato post points out that while this may be craziness, it’s craziness with a long pedigree:
It was way back in the first Bush administration that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began filing lawsuits against employers for “discriminating” against employees with difficult-to-understand or heavily accented speech, the theory being that this served as an improper proxy for discrimination based on national origin. The scope for allowable exceptions was exceedingly narrow, too narrow to cover most teaching positions, as I wrote quite a while back when the issue had just come over the horizon in a Massachusetts case. Indeed, the National Education Association (I pointed out) had been prevailed on to pass a resolution “decrying disparate treatment on the basis of ‘pronunciation’ — quite a switch from the old days when teachers used to be demons for correctness on that topic.”
Read the whole thing here (& Alkon, Peter Pappas/Tax Lawyer’s Blog, Bader). Another view: Josh Hanson.
{ 10 comments }
One of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s current big projects — making it legally hazardous for employers to check job applicants’ criminal records — could actually backfire, according to research cited by some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [Caroline May, Daily Caller]:
Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano pointed to research from economists Harry Holzer and Stephen Rafael and public policy professor Michael Stoll, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, which showed that employers with access to background checks are actually more likely to hire African Americans, especially African American men, than those without access to that informaion.
“Their results suggest that, in the absence of criminal background checks, some employers discriminate statistically against black men and/or those with weak employment records,” the commissioners pointed out in their letter to the EEOC.
- “He coulda been a credenza”: actor’s estate sues over unauthorized “Brando” furniture line [The Daily via Balko] “Motorcycle Gang Sues Over ‘My Boyfriend’s A Hell’s Angel’ T-Shirt” [CBS-LA]
- EEOC decries employer discrimination on the basis of applicants’ criminal records, recommends curbing background checks [WSJ Law Blog, FastCasual, Hyman, Greenfield] Bill in San Francisco would make felons a protected class in jobs, housing [Fox]
- Why are Obama officials intent on reducing due process protections for those accused of campus sexual misconduct? [Silverglate, WSJ; Philadelphia Magazine, Samantha Harris/NY Post, Ciamarella, Daily Caller (AAUP objects to plan); links at SAVE] A contrasting view [Roderick Hills, Prawfsblawg]
- 9th Circuit rejects Bluetooth class action settlement to which Ted Frank’s CCAF objected [Fisher, NLJ, Frank]
- Lawyer who represents jogger in product liability suit expects to file more actions claiming Skechers sneakers responsible for falls [BLT]
- Part of a balanced breakfast: “Why the lawsuit against Nutella is bunk” [Nadia Arumugam, Slate] Update: Judge denies motion to dismiss [Russell Jackson]
- Experts agree it’s OK to nominate Overlawyered for an ABA “100 Best Legal Blogs” slot here.
{ 4 comments }
Taco Bell finds itself at odds with the EEOC. [Jon Hyman]
{ 14 comments }
Under the banner of combating discrimination against the disabled, Congress and the EEOC may together have quietly instituted a fairly momentous extension of the regime of federally mandated workplace benefits — in particular, imposing on even very small employers a new obligation to hold the jobs of employees taking some kinds of leave. [Hyman]
{ 2 comments }
- Maricopa-cabana: Sheriff Arpaio uses tank (with Steven Seagal along) to raid cockfight suspect [KPHO, Coyote, Greenfield, Balko]
- Malpractice reform in New York is about more than money (though it’s about that too) [Paul Rubin, TotM; NYDN]
- EEOC initiative combats alleged employer bias against unemployed job applicants [Bales/Workplace Prof, Hyman]
- After court rejection of Google Books settlement, where next? [Timothy Lee/ArsTechnica, David Post]
- When your lawyerly conduct has been eviscerated by Judge Easterbrook, you know it [Above the Law]
- Ninth Circuit rules on legality of keyword advertising using other firms’ trademarks [Coleman]
- Election showdown over future of Wisconsin Supreme Court [PoL, more, Esenberg, Althouse]
- Legal battle follows NYC’s attempted application of sidewalk bicycle ban to unicyclist [AP]
{ 3 comments }
“Two Houston adult entertainment clubs this week agreed to settle a federal age discrimination case with a former waitress who alleged younger, male managers called her ‘old’ and said she showed symptoms of memory loss. The owners of Centerfolds and Cover Girls agreed to pay $60,000 to Mary Bassi. She was 56 when she was fired in 2006 ‘without provocation or explanation,’ according to a lawsuit the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed on Bassi’s behalf.” [Houston Chronicle; earlier]
{ 5 comments }
Following extensive rumblings of an impending crackdown, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Kaplan, the private education company, over its alleged policy of considering applicants’ credit records in making hiring decisions [Baltimore Sun, George Lenard; earlier here and here]
More from Ted Frank: “Somebody should tell the Transportation Security Administration, which also performs credit checks: they reject job applicants if they have more than $5000 in overdue debt.” And from the same link:
But what’s also driving the push to check credit is fear of lawsuits, [employment attorney Manesh] Rath said, especially in businesses where employees have access to customers’ money or possessions, including the banking, property management, hotel and home health care industries.
…”The employer will have a tough time defending itself,” Rath said, “if it didn’t take the simple measure of doing a background check.”
{ 2 comments }
Jenna Greene at American Lawyer reports on the “ambitious agenda” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken up lately under Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, and quotes me as saying the new group in charge of the commission “make the Carter [administration] EEOC look like a Chamber of Commerce operation.” Related: “EEOC reports record charge filings for 2010″ [Hyman]
{ 3 comments }
Many employers find the practice helpfully predictive, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is stepping up pressure against it. [WSJ Law Blog, Hyman]
{ 3 comments }
Obesity as such has generally not been included as a disability in the past, so the case may signal a newly activist stance at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC press release, AP]
P.S. As commenters point out, “obesity-as-perceived-disability” would be more precise. The law’s recent extension to complainants “perceived as” disabled is proving, just as advocates hoped and defendants feared, to be a major engine of expansion of legal coverage to complainants who in the past could not claim disabled status. More: John Bratt (recalling “Simpsons” episode).
{ 20 comments }
Christopher Woodson says it would violate his religion to comply with a Waynesboro, Va. moving company’s haircut policy, so he’s appealed to the EEOC, which has filed a suit on his behalf. [Amanda Hess, TBD] More: Jon Hyman.
{ 6 comments }
Prepare to meet the EEOC’s wrath [AP/Law.com]. The topic is not new; I wrote about it for Reason quite a while back. More: Julie DelCour, Tulsa World.
{ 11 comments }
