Showing posts sorted by date for query ledbetter. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ledbetter. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, February 1, 2016

EEOC proposed significant pay equality changes to EEO-1


If your company has 100 or more employees, you should be very familiar with the federal government’s EEO-1 survey. The EEOC requires that you annually complete and file this form, which requests demographic on your employees, broken down by protected classes and job categories.

Last Friday, the White House made a game changing announcement about the information it proposes you submit in your EEO-1 filings.

Monday, September 24, 2012

The one question I would ask President Obama during the debates



Four years ago, Dan Schwartz, on his Connecticut Employment Law Blog, answered the following question: What One Question Regarding Labor & Employment Law Would You Ask the Candidates During the Debates?

With this election cycle's debates on the horizon, Dan has put out a challenge for his fellow employment law bloggers to answer the same question this year. Today through Thursday, I'll be providing the one question I would ask each of the two Presidential and two Vice-Presidential candidates. On Friday, I'll recap the best from my blogging brethren.

First up, President Obama:
Four years ago, you campaigned on a promise to help working families. You promised to expand the FMLA to cover smaller employers, and promised that employers would be required to provide paid sick days to all employees. Yet, four years later, your track record on these issues is spotty at best. The only accomplishment to which you can point in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. What can you say to working families to earn their trust that the next four years will be different?
Tomorrow, my question for Mitt Romney.

Friday, April 1, 2011

WIRTW #171 (the actual retail price without going over edition)


Congratulations to Kristen ten Brink (@onthe10brink on Twitter), who submitted the winning bid to Medical Costs Price Is Right:

The actual retail price of a 19-day at the Cleveland Clinic, including all procedures, labs, doctors, etc., is $106,885.10, which is at least half of what I expected. Kristen, either email or DM me your contact information and I’ll send out your exciting prize package. And, thank you to everyone who participated.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Discrimination

Wage & Hour

Social Media & Workplace Technology

Labor Relations 


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Friday, December 3, 2010

WIRTW #155 (the two-drink-maximum edition)


I was not the only one this week commenting on the legal risks of office holiday parties:

If you’re planning on voting for me at the ABA’s Blawg 100, please do so before you indulge too much at your office party and forget to vote at all.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

Wage & Hour

DOL/ABA Partnership

Social Networking & Technology


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Do you know? EEOC reports record charge filings for 2010


images The EEOC recently published its fiscal year 2010 FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report. Given the state of the economy, its findings are not all that surprising. The EEOC reported a record number of discrimination charge filings, 99,922, its highest total in the agency’s 45-year history. What is surprising, however, is what the EEOC is doing with all these charges—it’s closing files.

Despite the record number of filings, the EEOC resolved 104,999 charges, leaving it with an inventory of 86,338 at the end of its fiscal year. While that number seems high, it’s less than a 1% increase from the end of FY 2009. By way of contrast, the EEOC’s pending inventory increased nearly 16% from FY 2008 to FY 2009. In other words, the EEOC is resolving cases—whether by mediation and settlement, litigation, or dismissals and right to sue letters.

Here’s what the EEOC has to say about the cause of this record number of filings:

This surge in charge receipts is due in part to the expanded statutory authorities that EEOC has been given with the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008; and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (the Ledbetter Act). We also attribute the rise in charge receipts to EEOC becoming more accessible, making charge filing easier and providing better, more responsive customer service. Our internal Intake Information Group expanded the agency’s availability by phone and e-mail. Additionally, in the last four years, the EEOC has concentrated on revamping its charge intake services, expanding walk-in hours, and issuing a plain language brochure to assist potential charging parties in understanding their rights and the EEOC charge process. Individuals can now contact the agency by phone, by mail, by e-mail, by going to the EEOC website, or by visiting EEOC field offices.

These record filings have resulted in record recoveries. In FY 2010, the EEOC secured more than $319.3 million for more than 18,898 people through administrative enforcement activities—mediation, settlements, conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits. This figure represents the highest level of monetary relief ever obtained by the Commission, and a $25.2 million increase from FY 2009. Of this record recovery, $85 million came from the resolution of 285 lawsuits brought by the EEOC.

What does all this mean for employers? The EEOC is no longer an agency where charges go to die. Employers can expect more thorough investigations, quicker resolutions, and more aggressive enforcement. If you are charged with discrimination with the EEOC, you should take it seriously; the EEOC is.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act ends the golden age of employment law


The Democrats swept into office in January 2009 with promises of paradigm-shifting labor and employment law reforms: card check union recognition, Title VII coverage for sexual orientation and gender identity, expanded FMLA coverage, the end of arbitration agreements, and paid sick leave are but a few of the campaign issues on which the Democrats won the the White House and substantial majorities in both halves of Congress.

Yesterday, the Senate failed to vote to close debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. That vote, coupled with the incoming Republican majority in the House, means that we likely have seen the end of any significant employment law reforms by the Obama administration’s first (only?) term. The scorecard is stunning. The lone significant employment law legislation to become law under Obama’s watch is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which, in and of itself, is not all that significant. It affects the timeliness of discrimination claims, and potentially exposes businesses to more lawsuits. Yet, if you ranked the various pieces of legislation discussed and debated over the last two years, Ledbetter would rank pretty low in terms of societal impact.

In comparison, President Bush passed three key pieces of employment legislation during his last year in office: the FMLA military leave amendments, the ADA amendments, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The significance of these three laws will be felt for years to come.

In early 2009, I joined the chorus of employment lawyers who believed that President Obama would change the landscape of labor and employment law. No one ever likes to be wrong. For the sake of American businesses, many of which are still trying to climb out of the worse recession in 80 years, I have never been so happy to have been off the mark.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Friday, November 12, 2010

WIRTW #152 (the Facebook firing edition)


Last week, I wrote about the NLRB’s complaint against a Connecticut company claiming that its social networking policy violated federal labor law. Since then, the story has exploded across the Internet, being picked up by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Law.com, the ABA, CNN, ABC News, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, and cnet, to name a few. The NLRB itself has even gotten in on the act, updating its own Facebook page to publicly discuss the issue (not to pre-decide the case or anything). It’s also been a popular topic across the blogosphere:

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

HR and Employee Relations

Litigation

Technology

Wage & Hour


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Friday, October 8, 2010

WIRTW #147 (the SCOTUS preview edition)


This week marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s October 2010 term, which has three important employment cases on its docket.

  • Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, which will decide whether an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act qualifies for protection under that law’s anti-retaliation provision.

  • Staub v. Proctor Hospital, which will decide the viability of the “cat’s paw” in discrimination cases—when may an employer be held liable based on the unlawful intent of employees who caused or influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision.

  • Thompson v. North American Stainless, which will decide the legal viability of “associational retaliation”—retaliation against one who engaged in no protected activity but is closely related to one who did.

    The hyperlinks will take you to my previous thoughts on each of these cases. I’ve had a lot to say about Thompson, since it was a 6th Circuit case. I’ll have more to say on all of these cases after they are argued later this fall, and again after they are decided next year.

    Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

    Discrimination & Litigation

    Social Networking & Technology

    Privacy

    Trade Secrets & Non-Competes

    Wage & Hour

    Labor


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Friday, September 24, 2010

    WIRTW #145 (the bad legislation edition)


    Earlier this week, I urged you, my readers, to take a stand against the Paycheck Fairness Act by calling or emailing your Senators and expressing your opposition to this bill. The following bloggers share my concerns (albeit some more than others):

    Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

    Discrimination

    Wage & Hour

    Employee Relations

    Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Friday, June 25, 2010

    WIRTW #132


    Although earlier this week I touched on Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, I did not discuss it in-depth. Thankfully, there are a lot of bloggers who did:

    Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

    Wage & Hour

    Discrimination

    Competition & Technology

    Miscellaneous


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Friday, February 5, 2010

    WIRTW #113


    The theme of this week’s review is déjà vu. In each category, I’ve linked back to at least one post I’ve written on a similar subject.

    Social Media

    Background Checks

    Discrimination & Harassment

    Courts and Litigation

    Labor Law


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Tuesday, December 29, 2009

    Top 10 Labor & Employment Law Stories of 2009: Numbers 6 and 5


    Gold top 10 winner

    6. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pro-Employee decisions. 2009 brought us two important pro-employee Supreme Court decisions. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville, the Court held that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision covers employees who answer questions during employers’ internal investigations. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the court found that disparate treatment of non-minorities trumps a disparate impact on minorities.

    5. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A mere 9 days after his inauguration, President Obama made the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first piece of legislation he signed into law. The Ledbetter Act reversed the Supreme Court’s eponymous decision, which had held that in Title VII pay discrimination cases the statute of limitations begins to run when the pay-setting decision is made. This law provides that a new and separate violation occurs each time a person receives a paycheck resulting from “a discriminatory compensation decision.” Thus, each paycheck that reflects an alleged discriminatory pay decision will start a new and distinct limitations period. Unfortunately for employers, courts have been applying this law broadly by extending statutes of limitations for all sorts of employment decisions – promotions and demotions, for example.


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Thursday, April 9, 2009

    Preparing for the golden age of labor and employment law


    As an employment lawyer, my practice has a lot of different aspects. I’m a counselor, helping clients tame workplace issues before they become problems. I’m a drafter, writing employee handbooks, policies, contracts, and forms. I’m an investigator, questioning employees involved in harassment and other complaints. I’m a trainer, guiding workforces, managers, and supervisors through the alphabet soup that makes up our labor and employment laws. I’m a negotiator, trying to amicably resolve employee disputes before they become fights. And, I’m a litigator and  trial lawyer, navigating companies through our state and federal courts and administrative agencies.

    All these roles will be tested over the next several years. A liberal Congress, a Democrat President, and the worst economic downturn in 80 years have combined to create a world of problems for our nation’s struggling employers. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has already increased pay discrimination liability, and myriad layoffs have heightened the risk for age and other discrimination lawsuits. If Congress has its way, over the next several years the Employee Free Choice Act will make it significantly easier for unions to organize and bargain favorable first contracts, the FMLA will be expanded to cover smaller employers, and paid sick leave will become a reality. For these reasons, we may be at the dawning of the golden age of labor and employment law.

    In light of all of these changes, it is critical that businesses not be caught unprepared. According to April 8th’s Wall Street Journal, “U.S. businesses, fearful of rising union influence and a crackdown by the Obama administration on workplace practices, are scrambling for legal advice and training.” Luckily for my readers, KJK is offering some of this advice and training for free. On May 13, my colleagues and I will present How to Stay Union Free in a Union-Friendly World, a free seminar on how to best position your non-union business to stay that way. Feel free to contact me for more information, or if you would like to attend.


    Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

    For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

    Thursday, February 12, 2009

    Courts open Pandora’s Box in applying the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act


    Today I am going to get technical and talk about statutory interpretation. Bear with me, though, because how some courts are incorrectly interpreting the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has crucial implications for businesses

    Michael Fox at Jottings by an Employer’s Lawyer highlights the following key passage in the Ledbetter Act:

    For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.

    Plaintiffs are arguing that the phrase “or other practice” covers the full panoply of employment decisions, such as promotions and demotions, and not just pay-setting decisions or policies. At least two courts have bought this argument:

    • Bush v. Orange County Corrections Dept., (M.D. Fla. 2/2/09), which held that plaintiffs could timely challenge demotions, which resulted in reductions in pay, that occurred 16 years before earlier than their EEOC charges.

    • Gilmore v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, (D.N.J. 2/4/09), which held that the Ledbetter Act applies to a discriminatory promotion that would have been to a higher paying job.

    Applying the Ledbetter Act to cases such as Bush and Gilmore, which  involved long-ago promotions and demotions, is misplaced. For “or other commapractice” to have the expansive meaning given by the Bush and Gilmore courts, a comma is missing. Because there is no comma between “decision” and “or other practice,” “or other practice” modifies “compensation.” Thus, the more reasoned interpretation of this provision of the Ledbetter Act is that the Act covers a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory compensation practice. A promotions or demotion is a personnel decision, not a compensation decision or practice.

    The overly broad interpretation applied by the Bush and Gilmore courts goes well beyond the issue in the Ledbetter decision that the Ledbetter Act intended to overturn. Every employment decision, whether a hiring, promotion, demotion, or termination, has some effect on compensation. The Ledbetter Act cannot be so broad as to cover any and every personnel decision. This broad of a reading of the statute will eliminate virtually every statute of limitations in federal discrimination claims, providing employees with an unlimited amount of time to file any discrimination claim. If the Ledbetter Act means what Bush and Gilmore say it means, the Ledbetter Act could prove to be devastating for employers.

    No Ohio court has yet to apply the Ledbetter Act. Ultimately, the meaning of “or other practice” will be up to the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it is important for employers to realize that only two weeks into its life, at least two courts have broadly applied the Ledbetter Act to cover much more than the Ledbetter decision it overturned.

    Friday, January 30, 2009

    WIRTW #64


    It’s been a very busy week. We had the first employment law Supreme Court decision and the first new employment law of the new year. And, we had a lot to read from a lot of excellent bloggers.

    The ChamberPost refers to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as a scam.

    Human Rights in the Workplace discusses the legal risks associated with social networking in the workplace.

    The Connecticut Employment Law Blog gives insight on President Obama’s choices to run the EEOC and the NLRB.

    George’s Employment Blawg provides a thorough analysis of the Employee Free Choice Act.

    What's New in Employment Law? spots a huge faux pas by Starbucks’s CEO. As a PR move, he cut his own salary from $1.2 million to $10,000 annually, lowering his pay below the threshold to qualify as an exempt employee.

    Bob Sutton coins the phrase Asshole Collar, bosses with a white collar and colored shirt.

    The Ohio Labor Lawyers provide some insight on what to do when a union business agent shows up with signed authorization cards.

    Where Great Workplaces Start give some examples of alternatives to layoffs, such as wage reductions or reduced work schedules.

    The HR Capitalist shows everyone what a strip club’s employee handbook looks like.

    Gruntled Employees gives a grammar lesson on the difference between to lay off (a verb), layoff (a noun), laid-off (an adjective).

    World of Work reports on the 10th Circuit’s dismissal of a WARN Act case.

    The Evil HR Lady on email etiquette.

    LawMemo Employment Law Blog discusses a case that could potentially come before the Supreme Court, on the issue of what qualifies as a mixed-motive discrimination case.

    On.point presents the story of a dismissal of a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by a transsexual.

    Workplace Privacy Counsel points out that under GINA, one could be held liable for the disclosure of genetic information even if it was made inadvertently.

    Thursday, January 29, 2009

    As promised, President Obama signs Ledbetter Fair Pay Act


    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/29/obama.fair.pay/index.html for the details.

    Tuesday, January 27, 2009

    Note the effective date of the Ledbetter bill


    From PointofLaw.com, on the effective date of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

    SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that date.

    May 28th? The Supreme Court issued its Ledbetter ruling on May 29, 2007, so Lilly Ledbetter's suit was still pending then. So does she get another shot at her lawsuit?

    It looks like the Ledbetter bill will completely wipe away the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision, as if it never even happened. President Obama has promised to sign this bill into law on Thursday, January 29.

    Friday, January 23, 2009

    Ledbetter passes Senate – President’s signature is next


    It’s looking like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be the first piece of legislation President Obama will sign into law. The Washington Post reports that yesterday it passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36. The Washington Post goes on to quote Lilly Ledbetter, who said that she had spoken to the President following the Senate vote, and that “he has assured me that he will see me in the White House, hopefully in just a few days.”

    For more the Ledbetter Act and its implications for employers, see Ledbetter Fair Pay Act likely to be first employment legislation of the Obama Presidency and Are we overreacting to Ledbetter?

    Friday, January 9, 2009

    WIRTW #61


    What I’m Reading returns after an extended holiday break.

    To follow up on my post from earlier this week on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Michael Moore’s Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog comments on the record retention nightmare that this law would create for employers. Michael also has some good thoughts on compliance with the ADA Amendments Act.

    In the wake of Boston College firing its head football coach after he accepted an interview with the New York Jets, Gruntled Employees has some thoughts on employee loyalty.

    The Workplace Prof Blog reports on a recent NLRB decision that found an unfair labor practice from an attorney’s deposition questions.

    With tongue firmly planted in cheek, LaborPains offers 10 New Year’s resolutions for labor union officials.

    Where Great Workplaces Start gives us another list, the top 5 ways to be an HR hero in 2009.

    The Cleveland Law Library Weblog reminds everyone that as of 1/1/09, Ohio’s minimum wage increased to $7.30 per hour.

    Overlawyered brings the story of four Piqua, Ohio, employees who are suing their co-workers for their share of a $207 million Mega-Millions payout. Their claim: “The four said they were out of the office and unavailable to contribute to the office pool for the Dec. 12 drawing but allege an oral agreement that winnings would be shared whether workers happened to be around to contribute or not.”

    The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips reminds us that some people simply have too much time on their hands. The evidence, an EEOC complaint alleging religious discrimination stemming from an employee’s use of “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

    The ABA Journal reports on a Hooters Waitress, fired for having visible bruises courtesy of some domestic abuse, who won her unemployment claim.

    The Delaware Employment Law Blog asks a very important question: Why don’t employers care about employees’ internet use?

    Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer compares whether recession juries are good or bad for employers. I agree with Michael that large jury awards are usually fueled by anger against the employer and not sympathy for the employee. If this is true, then lawyers picking juries for the foreseeable future will want to try to weed out those potential jurors who have been affected by the recession and harbor anger against corporations as a result.

    Maybe you’ve heard, but Wal-Mart recently settled almost all of its pending 76 wage and hour class actions for a staggering $640 million. The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog suggests that Wal-Mart might have been motivated the Employee Free Choice Act and ponied up as a preemptive strike against unionization.

    Meanwhile, World of Work argues that the Employee Free Choice Act may not be as done of deal as some other commentators are suggesting.

    Another hot legislative issue, family and caregiver issues, will receive special attention during President Obama’s administration, according to Corporate Voices for Working Families.

    Finally, the FMLA Blog reports on a case in which the court held that an employer’s honest suspicion of employee fraud justified its insistence for a second medical opinion.