Private-sector employers (including labor organizations) whose workplaces fall under the National Labor Relations Act will be required to post the employee rights notice where other workplace notices are typically posted. Also, employers who customarily post notices to employees regarding personnel rules or policies on an internet or intranet site will be required to post the Board’s notice on those sites. Copies of the notice will be available from the Agency’s regional offices, and it may also be downloaded from the NLRB website.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
"Title VII would have little force if an employer could defeat a claim of discrim- ination by treating a single member of the protected class in accordance with the law. Suppose the district court’s view carried the day: a female employee suffering from discrimination on the basis of her sex would have to establish that her employer discriminated against all women in the workplace to assert a sex dis- crimination claim. That, sensibly, is not how Title VII operates. Instead, “[t]he principal focus of the statute is the protection of the individual employee, rather than the protection of the minority group as a whole.” Connecti- cut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 453-54 (1982); City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 708-09 (1978) (recognizing that fairness to the class of women employees does not excuse discrimination against an individual female employee). Discrimination against one Hispanic employee violates the statute, no matter how well another Hispanic employee is treated. See Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001). We agree with the plaintiffs that there is no token excep- tion to anti-discrimination law. See Teal, 457 U.S. at 455"--Burnell v. Gates Rubber Co., No. 10-3490 (7th Cir. July 27, 2011): District court's grant of summary judgment affirmed in part (section 1981 and discriminatory discharge), reversed in part (retaliatory discharge). This case focuses on the ever popular "temporal proximity" aspect of discrimination claims. In this case, the plaintiff had a long history of lodging complaints of perceived racial discrimination, mostly from 1993-1996, but had lodged a complaint as early as 2006 (he was terminated in December 2006). Though the plaintiff was terminated for refusing a disciplinary form, because the employer made a statement about the plaintiff "playing the race card" when the plaintiff refused to sign, an inference that the termination was in part based on complaining about racial discrimination was created.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
University of Wisconsin Law School Symposium, "The Constitutionalization of Labor and Employment Law?"
Through discussion of five separate areas of constitutional law:
- Freedom of Speech,
- Freedom of Association,
- Equal Protection,
- The 13th Amendment, and
- Workplace Privacy under the Fourth Amendment,
this symposium explores whether constitutional law concepts are infiltrating public and private labor and employment law, and whether this development is beneficial or detrimental to the rights of workers.
Up to 12.0 CLE credits have been approved for this event for all you Wisconsin lawyers trying to get their credits! Hope to see you all there!
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The EEOC charged that a Woodman’s store in Beloit, Wis., terminated Kimberly McMillan-Goodwin, a long-term Woodman’s employee who worked as a clerk at its gas station, because she had a back condition that kept her from lifting more than ten pounds. The EEOC contended that McMillan-Goodwin had successfully worked in that position with the lifting restriction for many years. Woodman’s, however, placed McMillan-Goodwin on medical leave and then terminated her. ...
In resolution of the suit, Woodman’s will pay $35,000 to McMillan-Goodwin. The decree also includes substantial other relief, including injunctions against any further discrimination and retaliation. Further, the company will adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination based on disability; update its employee handbooks; conduct training on the ADA; and post a notice to employees about the resolution of the suit in all of its locations. The EEOC will monitor Woodman’s compliance with the decree for two years.
“This case might never have arisen if Woodman’s had had clear policies and training to guide its management and human resources employees on the requirements of the ADA,” said EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson of the agency’s Chicago District, which has jurisdiction over Wisconsin. “Among the most important provisions in the consent decree, therefore, are the requirements that Woodman’s adopt a policy to clarify its obligations and provide training to its management and human resources staff.”
The suit was EEOC v. Woodman’s Food Markets. Inc. (Civ. No. 10-cv-562-wmc), and was filed September 28, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Madison.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
- Race (also protected federally under Title VII)
- Color (also protected federally under Title VII)
- Creed/Religion (also protected federally under Title VII)
- Ancestry (also protected federally under Title VII)
- National Origin (also protected federally under Title VII)
- Age (also protected federally under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA))
- Sex/Gender (also protected federally under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act (EPA))
- Disability/Handicap (also protected federally under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA))
- Arrest & Conviction Record (NOT protected federally)
- Marital Status (NOT protected federally)
- Sexual Orientation (NOT protected federally)
- Military Status (NOT protected federally, but in some cases, USERRA may apply)
- Use or nonuse of lawful product (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, tobacco, etc) (NOT protected federally)
- Hiring or recruitment
- Lay-off and firing/termination
- Job assignments
- Leave or benefits
- Licensing or union membership
- Retaliation against those who assert their rights under the WFEA, WFMLA, etc
- Harassment on the job because of a person's sex or protected class (e.g., race, religion)
- Genetic testing or giving an improper honest test
- Other related actions
- Is my complaint timely? A complaint under the WFEA is timely if filed within 300 days of the alleged discrimination.
- How do I file a complaint? The ERD department is very helpful to individuals without a lawyer, but an employment lawyer has the training and expertise to carefully draft a complaint to hit all the important points that need to be made.
- How long does the process take? After the complaint is filed, it is then processed and sent to the employer (also known as the Respondent). Then the employer has about a month to draft a well-crafted response and then the employee (called the Complainant) has 20 days to respond to the employer's response. After all responses are submitted, the investigator then reviews the file and makes an Initial Determination of either Probable Cause or No Probable Cause.
- What will I "win" if I prevail? This is probably the biggest consideration in deciding whether to file a claim and whether to settle and for how much. Only a knowledgeable employment attorney can assist here as the ERD avoids providing legal advice. An administrative law judge (ALJ) can only award a "make-whole remedy" which is limited to back pay, reinstatement (if reasonable), lost benefits, interest and attorney's fees and costs. Punitive and Compensatory damages are only possible through circuit court after the ALJ issues their decision.