Thursday, November 1, 2012

Walmart Worker Wins $1.5 Million for Verbal Abuse by Boss


By:  Sylvia Hsieh, Posted October 26, 2012 at http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/10/walmart-worker-wins-1-5-million-for-verbal-abuse-by-boss/

As Walmart employees stage their first retail-worker strike across the country, a 42-year-old former assistant manager has won a $1.5 million lawsuit for being mistreated by a store manager.

Meredith Boucher claimed she was verbally abused for six months between May and November 2009 when she worked as an assistant manager of a Walmart in Canada.

Boucher’s lawsuit accused store manager Jason Pinnock, 32, of calling her a “[expletive] idiot,” a “gong show” and “stupid” and that he made her count items in front of others to prove she could count.

“I didn’t eat. I was losing weight. I was throwing up blood, I was sick to my stomach all the time,” Boucher said.

The jury awarded her more than she originally sued for.

In California, five female Walmart employees are suing for gender discrimination individually, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a class action lawsuit brought by 1.5 million female employees against Walmart – the largest sex discrimination lawsuit in history.

Currently, employees are striking against Walmart’s attempts to “silence, retaliate against workers for speaking out for improvements on the job,” and are threatening to walk out on Black Friday, which is one of the biggest shopping days of the year.

Boucher’s attorney, Myron Shulgan of Shulgan, Martini & Marusic, said he was happy for his client.

“She championed the cause for workers and indicated that corporations will be made to respond to improper treatment of employees,” Shulgan said.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

5 Free Ways to Get a Job Using LinkedIn


By:  Susan Guneliu, posted on August 20, 2012 on www.lifed.com
Looking for a job? If you work in a professional field, then LinkedIn is a great place to find your next career. Just open a free LinkedIn account, create your profile, and get active by publishing content and joining the conversation!
Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but you can follow the five tips below to boost your chances of finding a job using LinkedIn. It’s the most popular social networking site for professionals with hundreds of millions of users, so with patience and persistence, you can make the necessary connections to open new doors to employment opportunities.

1. Make Your Profile Stand Out

When you create your LinkedIn profile, make sure you include as much information as you can. Use all of the sections available to you. Most importantly, lead with your strengths. Make sure the information at the top of your profile is most relevant to the type of job you want to get. Use keywords in your title and profile description, so it’s easier for people to find you when they search for users with those skills.
Once you’ve created a comprehensive profile, take some time to search for people you know and make strategic connections. When you connect with someone on LinkedIn, they are considered a First Degree connection, and all of their connections become Second Degree connections for you. It’s these degrees of connections that help you expand your own LinkedIn network and your exposure by introducing you to a larger audience. Post content, comment on content published by other users, and in time, you’ll build meaningful relationships with other users. You never know what opportunities those relationships might uncover!

2. Get Recommendations

LinkedIn Recommendations are like testimonials of the work you can and have done. They’re a form of social proof that didn’t exist 10 years ago, and you’d be crazy not to use them. How do you choose new products to buy? Do you ask friends and family for testimonials and referrals? Most people seek out opinions from people they know when they’re making important decisions. The same holds true for hiring managers. Reach out to your LinkedIn connections and ask people who you’ve worked with to write a recommendation for you. Be sure to reciprocate and write recommendations for your connections, too! LinkedIn is not a one-way community.

3. Join Groups

Search for groups related to the type of job you want to get and join groups that are active. If a group is very small or no one posts anything to a group, then it’s not worth your time. You can join up to 50 groups with a free LinkedIn account. Once you join a group, not only can you participate in the conversation, but you can also connect with all of the other members of the group. Suddenly, your LinkedIn network has grown significantly! More connections equate to more opportunities to find a job.

4. Search for Jobs

Did you know that companies post jobs to LinkedIn constantly? You can search through those job postings using a wide variety of search criteria. Just visit the Job Search page, enter your search criteria, and you’ll instantly receive relevant results. Some job postings allow you to apply for the job without leaving LinkedIn. When you find jobs you’re interested in, apply for them. When you find companies that interest you, be sure to follow their LinkedIn Company Pages so you get on their radar screens and can stay on top of news and updates from those companies.

5. Create Job Email Alerts

To save time, you can automate your job search using LinkedIn. Simply create email alerts so you automatically receive an email when jobs that you might be interested in are posted to LinkedIn. It only takes a few seconds to create an email alert, and you can create as many as you want.
To create an alert, sign into your LinkedIn account, and conduct an advanced just job search using all of the search criteria that you want. In the results screen, you’ll see a +Save link, which appears on the right side of the page above the first search result. Click the +Save link, enter a search name into the provided text box, and select how often you want to receive email alerts. You can choose to receive email alerts when new job postings match your job search criteria on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. When you receive an email that includes a job that’s right for you, follow the link to get all the details and apply.
Research shows that the vast majority of corporate hiring managers use social networking sites, including LinkedIn, to find new employees. Follow the tips above to create a killer LinkedIn profile that makes you irresistible to recruiters.

Friday, October 26, 2012

10 People at Work You Should Avoid Like the Plague


From the website Life'd, www.lifed.com, posted August 16, 2012
Most companies have employees that are difficult to manage and challenging to work with, but did you know that some of those negative personalities are extremely common? They’re not specific to certain industries or types of work. Instead, they can be found everywhere.
The reasons why some employees are allowed to continue these negative behaviors is a mystery to most workers, but you’ll probably have to deal with them on a daily basis at some point during your career. Sometimes, they can make it very difficult to do your job.
We can all agree that working with challenging co-workers is frustrating, and many people have quit their jobs to get away from team members who make their lives miserable. Don’t get caught up in their ugly traps. Recognize the warning signs of the most common people you should avoid at work and avoid them like the plague!

1. The Gossip

Every office has one — the person who knows all the details about each employee’s life both inside and outside the office. The simple fact that The Gossip knows so much demonstrates how much time he spends collecting dirt rather than doing his job. Don’t get your hands dirty, too. Stay away!

2. The Complainer

Does everything stink? The Complainer thinks so. This is the person who can find the negatives in every situation. Whether the boss wants to launch a new initiative or Bob who sits two cubes away is taking Friday off, The Complainer has something to say about it and it won’t be nice.

3. The Contagion

“Good grief, she’s sick again!” Who knows if she’s really sick, a hypochondriac, or an aspiring actress, but one thing is certain — there is always something wrong with her. You want to stay away from The Contagion so you don’t get infected!

4. The Faker

On Seinfeld, George Costanza was the ultimate faker. These are the people who are quick to tell you how busy they always are, yet they never seem to really do anything.  How do they get away with it? You’ll have to wake George up and ask him. He’s sleeping under his desk.

5. The Flirt

Can’t they wait until after hours? Both male and female employees can be guilty of flirting in the office, and it’s never appropriate. Keep your hands to yourself and avoid the “innocent” attentions of the opposite sex while you’re in the office. It can only lead to problems, and you don’t want to taint your own reputation by making it seem like you’re okay with The Flirt’s behaviors.

6. The Busy-Body

Unlike The Gossip, The Busy-Body operates with a sole purpose: to catch employees doing anything that they’re not supposed to do. The Busy-Body might be a hired-gun under the orders of an executive who’s out to cut staff or rid the team of a specific player, or The Busy-Body might be self-appointed. Stay away or you might be next on The Busy-Body’s report.

7. The Steamroller

The Steamroller has one goal in life — to move up the corporate ladder at all costs. That means The Steamroller could throw anyone under the bus at any moment if it means furthering his career or bolstering his reputation. Don’t get caught under his feet, because he won’t stop to help you.

8. The ROAD

In the military, there is a term used to describe people who are just biding their time in their jobs: Retired-on-Active-Duty (ROAD). Whether a person has gone ROAD because they are actually nearing retirement or they’re biding their time until a better job offer comes along, they’re little more than a warm body in the office. They ignore their responsibilities, and other people end up picking up the slack. Don’t let their bad habits rub off on you. After all, they’ll be gone soon, and you’ll still be picking up the pieces.

9. The Wolf Crier

Yes, there are problems in the workplace and fires that have to be put out, but The Wolf Crier believes that every task assigned to her is a dire emergency. Don’t jump to her screams of panic unless they’re warranted.

10. The Bully

Yes, there are bullies in the workplace, too. These are the people who like to get everyone else to do their work for them. They each have their own ways to put the pressure on lower-level employees. Don’t succumb to their bullying ways. You’re not in elementary school anymore, so stand up for yourself.
While these aren’t the only challenging personalities you might encounter at your job, they are likely to cross your path at some point in your career. As mentioned, learn how to politely avoid their traps, and you’ll leave work a bit happier each day.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Pension Plan Found to Be Discriminatory on the Basis of Age


PRESS RELEASE from the EEOC
10-22-12

EEOC Wins Summary Judgment on Liability in Baltimore County Pension Case

Pension Plan Found to Be Discriminatory on the Basis  of Age
BALTIMORE - A federal judge has granted summary judgment  against Baltimore County in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.  In so doing, the judge found that Baltimore  County's pension plan, known as the Employee Retirement System (ERS), violates  the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the plan is inherently discriminatory.  U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg also  denied Baltimore County's motion for summary judgment.  
The EEOC initially filed suit against Baltimore County in  September 2007, charging that Baltimore County discriminated against Wayne A.  Lee, Richard J. Bosse, Sr., and a class of similarly situated employees at  least 40 years of age by requiring them to pay higher pension contributions  than those paid by younger employees (Case No. BEL-07-2500, filed in U.S.  District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division).  The EEOC also named various county labor  organizations as defendants who must negotiate with Baltimore County to  effectuate the changes sought in its lawsuit.  In January 2009, the Court awarded summary  judgment in favor of Baltimore County.   
After the EEOC appealed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals  vacated the entry of summary judgment and remanded the case to the District  Court to decide whether Baltimore County's pension plan is supported by permissible  financial considerations (EEOC v.  Baltimore  County, 385 F. App'x 322,  325 [4th Cir. 2010]).  The District Court  rejected Baltimore County's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Kentucky Retirement v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (2008) excused the pension practice.  Noting that Baltimore County "was given an  opportunity to conduct full discovery, including a comprehensive 30(b)(6) deposition  of Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm that has been responsible for ERS since  its creation," the District Court found that Baltimore County had failed to bring  forward non-age related financial considerations that justify the disparity in  contribution rates between older and younger workers. The next phase of the  litigation will determine damages.
"It is pretty rare that any plaintiff can win any claim  against a pension plan," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez.  "While some may have thought the Kentucky Retirementdecision spelled the  death knell for this case and others like it, our perseverance paid off in  limiting the impact of that decision.   The EEOC is prepared to vigorously litigate these cases, where necessary,  to ensure compliance with the law."
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence said, "The county made  older employees pay more than younger employees for the same retirement  benefits, without any financial justification. Older employees felt the impact  of this discrimination in every paycheck.   Because more money is taken out of older employees' paychecks to fund  their retirement benefits, they receive less pay than younger employees doing  the same job.  With the court's decision,  we are putting an end to this unlawful practice."
This  resolution is the latest in a series of systemic suits the EEOC has brought against  public employers alleging age discrimination in the provision of retirement  benefits.  In several related  cases against Minnesota state agencies, the federal agency challenged early  retirement incentive plans that denied health benefits for those employees who  chose not to retire earlier than age 55.  The Eighth Circuit agreed that the plan  violated the ADEA.  In a case against  an Arizona school district, the EEOC challenged a retirement plan that granted  more compensation for unused leave to younger employees than to older  employees.  These cases settled. 
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment  discrimination.  The EEOC's Philadelphia  District oversees Maryland as well as Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and  parts of New Jersey and Ohio.  Further  information about the Commission is available at its website, www.eeoc.gov .

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

US Department of Labor launches virtual Workplace Flexibility Toolkit during National Disability Employment Awareness Month


From:  U.S. Department of Labor, October 11, 2012


WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor has launched its online Workplace Flexibility Toolkit to provide employees, job seekers, employers, policymakers and researchers with information, resources and a unique approach to workplace flexibility.
Workplace flexibility policies and practices typically focus on when and where work is done. The toolkit adds a new dimension — an emphasis on flexibility around job tasks and what work is done.
Funded by the department's Office of Disability Employment Policy in partnership with the department's Women's Bureau, the toolkit makes more than 170 resources easily accessible, particularly for workers and job seekers with complex employment situations, such as parents of young children, single parents, family caregivers, mature workers, at-risk youth, ex-offenders, and individuals with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities and people with HIV/AIDS.
"Workplace flexibility is a universal strategy that promotes an inclusive workforce and levels the playing field for people with disabilities," said Kathy Martinez, assistant secretary of labor for disability employment policy. "These resources and unique approach will help all workers with complex employment situations become more productive."
The toolkit, which can be accessed at http://www.dol.gov/odep/workplaceflexibility/, points visitors to case studies, fact and tip sheets, issue briefs, reports, articles, websites with additional information, other related toolkits and a list of frequently asked questions. It is searchable by type of resource, target audience and types of workplace flexibility, including place, time and task. New information will be added to the Workplace Flexibility Toolkit as it is identified.
The launch of the toolkit coincides with National Disability Employment Awareness Month, an annual observance to raise awareness about disability employment issues as well as to celebrate the many and varied contributions of America's workers with disabilities. This year's theme is "A Strong Workforce is an Inclusive Workforce: What Can YOU Do?" Visit http://www.dol.gov/odep/ to keep track of NDEAM activities.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Managing Mental Health At Work

From:  The Wall Street Journal, By Melissa Korn
August 28, 2012


John Binns, a partner in the consulting practice at U.K.-based Deloitte LLP, assumed his career "would be finished" after he took a two-month leave in 2007 to treat a severe bout of depression.
When he told his bosses, they assured him that they would support any effort to get him back to health and working again, encouragement that the 54-year-old Mr. Binns calls "massively instrumental in speeding up my recovery." Still, milder symptoms had festered for nearly a year before a worsening of his condition forced him to come forward.
"There was no culture of talking about mental health or recognizing that some of our best and brightest people, statistically, would have a mental-health issue," he says.
That's not uncommon, and it's becoming problematic for companies as an increasing number of adults seek treatment for psychiatric disorders. While firms appear eager to support employee wellness initiatives, managers are wary of getting too deeply involved in staffers' private health issues. Firms can open the door by offering free, confidential hotlines or generous leave policies, but they can't force employees to volunteer details of their conditions.
Most workers have at least a few colleagues who struggle with depression or anxiety. More than one in four American adults has a diagnosable mental-health disorder, and one in 17 has a serious disorder such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. But chances are their co-workers—and managers—have no idea who they are.
Intentionally or not, "corporations encourage a climate of keeping things under wraps," says Dr. Jeffrey P. Kahn, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that companies provide "reasonable accommodation" for employees with disabilities. For someone with a diagnosed mental illness, such accommodations may include anything from offering flexible work hours to allow for weekly therapy sessions, to reassigning the employee to a role with fewer deadlines. The HR office coordinates the effort, generally without ever telling the boss why such accommodations are being made.
Prudential Financial Inc.  offers an employee assistance program, training for managers to spot distress among employees, health clinics that screen for mood instability and more. Still, the company recommends employees stop short of telling managers about their diagnoses, says Ken Dolan-Del Vecchio, vice president of health and wellness. "We don't want managers to be acting as surrogate counselors," he says.
Meanwhile, DuPont is training managers to identify signs of distress in workers, though conversations with a boss about a diagnosis "would never be encouraged," says Paul W. Heck, global manager of employee assistance and WorkLife services. Managers who do identify distress are asked to remind employees of the assistance program, which can offer free counseling.
Deloitte's Mr. Binns brought together a group of company executives and mental-health experts in late 2008 to create Mental Health Champions, which taps unofficial confidants for employees struggling with mental-health or emotional problems. Mr. Binns estimates that 50 to 60 people in his office seek help each year. The "champions" aren't trained medical professionals, but they can provide details on available support and managing disclosure.
Complicating such efforts are employees' fears that disclosing a mental illness will derail their careers—a valid concern.
Details about a serious mental illness are fair game when researching a job candidate, says Dr. Patricia Cook, chairman and CEO of Cook & Co., a Bronxville, N.Y., executive search firm. Such psychological troubles are "reasons for red flags," she says, and can raise questions about potential future success.
Mentions of depression or obsessive compulsive disorder, which Dr. Cook, a licensed psychologist, calls "diagnostic titles du jour," are a bit less worrisome.
Symptoms of some disorders may even be helpful in the office, some say. A person with obsessive-compulsive disorder, for example, could be seen as a perfectionist with a few quirks.
Dr. Cook once considered a candidate for an executive-level position whose prior supervisor alerted her to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The candidate was eliminated from the shortlist; she says she provided an "ego-acceptable excuse" without disclosing specifically that it was because of his mental illness.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D., Ill.) is facing calls to withdraw from the November ballot following his announcement earlier this month that he suffers from bipolar disorder. Mr. Jackson withheld details of his diagnosis for months, possibly because he was haunted by the political implosion of Thomas Eagleton, whose depression helped kill George McGovern's 1972 presidential aspirations.
Dr. Kahn once treated a manager who didn't submit insurance claims for his therapy sessions, fearing the details would make their way back to his employer. Upon receiving a promotion to a more senior position, the man finally sent in those claims. Executives may be more comfortable disclosing their mental-health histories, Dr. Kahn says, because they see themselves as "immune from adverse effects, which they largely are."
Dr. Rich Chaifetz, CEO of employee assistance program provider ComPsych Corp., says client companies are only told how many employees utilize the service, or how often. They might break down the population by gender, age or issues with which they're dealing, but employers aren't told who called in, or what they sought help with.
Federal and local laws protect people with disabilities, including serious mental illnesses, but employers "can always comment on somebody's actual observed performance, behavior [and] interactions in the workplace," says Katharine Parker, co-head of the employment law counseling and training group at Proskauer Rose LLP.
Gabe Howard worked in information technology at a large Ohio company when he was diagnosed with bipolar and anxiety disorders in 2004, spending several days in the hospital after having suicidal thoughts. Thinking his leave wasn't unlike time off for surgery or family needs, he openly discussed the reason for his absence.
The fallout was immediate: One co-worker said that Mr. Howard would have succeeded at committing suicide had he really wanted to die; another accused him of ditching work. He was eventually let go after supervisors complained about his absences and even questioned his diagnosis. He now works as a mental-health advocate and speaker.
Bob Carolla, director of media relations for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, recommends against disclosing a mental-health issue to a manager, if possible, and certainly not in a job interview. "It's not a skill or part of the qualifications that an employer is looking for," he says.
Most of the time, anyway. Fifteen years ago, when Mr. Carolla was hired by NAMI, his own history with depression, he says, was "a big selling point."

Friday, October 12, 2012

Employee Rights To Fight Workplace Abuse Raised In 2 Supreme Court Cases


From:  The Huffington Post, October 2, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in the term that began Monday, will rule on at least two disputes that could have a major impact on how employees fight alleged mistreatment by their employers.
In the two cases, to be heard later this fall, the justices will consider who constitutes a "supervisor" for whose harassing actions an employer can be hold responsible and whether employers can cut off possible class actions by offering full settlements to the initial plaintiff.
Vance v. Ball State University asks precisely who counts as a "supervisor" in a workplace setting. Prior Supreme Court cases have held that an employer can be held liable for harassment or related retaliation by one of its supervisors under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The question is how much authority an employee needs to be considered a "supervisor" -- enough to hire, fire, promote, demote or discipline the victim or just enough to manage the victim's daily work.
Lower courts have split on the issue. Some have decided that people don't have the legal right to sue their employers because they suffered harassment at the hands of a person who lacked the power to fire or demote them.
Other courts have seen it differently, ruling that people who are vested with what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission calls the authority to "direct and oversee their victim's daily work" count as supervisors. Thus, their employers can be held liable for their bad acts under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In the case before the Supreme Court, Maetta Vance alleges that Saundra Davis, her co-worker in Ball State's catering department, threatened, slapped and directed racial insults at her. According to Vance's Supreme Court brief, Davis, who outranked her, had "authority to direct Vance's and other employees' work."
At the time, Vance was the only African-American employee on the Muncie, Ind., university's catering staff. She alleges that Davis and another employee, Connie McVicker, "created an environment of physical intimidation and racial harassment." After Davis allegedly slapped her, Vance claims Davis cornered her in an elevator and threatened her, saying, "I'll do it again." Davis also allegedly used terms like "Buckwheat" and "Sambo." Vance claims that McVicker "regularly" used a highly offensive racial slur to refer to Vance and to the black students at Ball State. Vance also alleges that McVicker "openly boasted of her family's connections to the Ku Klux Klan."
In fact, Indiana has a long history of Ku Klux Klan activity. As recently as 2010, the FBI investigated a case there in which a six-foot-tall cross was burned on the lawn of a white couple who had adopted a black child.
The Supreme Court oral arguments in Vance v. Ball State are scheduled for Nov. 26.
The second employment case deals with "collective" lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act. At issue is whether an employer's offer to satisfy all of the initial individual plaintiff's claims effectively ends the suit, thereby preventing the plaintiff from seeking to turn her single case into a collective case such as a class action.
In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, Philadelphia nurse Laura Symczyk alleges that the company violated overtime laws for years by deducting from her pay a full 30 minutes for lunch even when she didn't take 30 minutes to eat and get back to work. Before Symczyk could formally ask the court to certify her case as a collective action, the company offered her a full settlement of her individual claims -- $7,500 plus costs. Instead of settling, she began the proceedings to create a collective action.
At the Supreme Court, Genesis Healthcare argues that its offer of a full settlement for Symczyk resolves the case. Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree. The Chamber's litigation arm asserts in its amicus brief that companies settle cases like this precisely to avoid them turning into class action suits, which can produce onerous jury awards of millions of dollars on behalf of thousands of employees.
Symczyk's lawyers, however, argued successfully in lower courts that unless workers can keep the door open to potential collective status, employers could essentially "pick off" potential plaintiffs by offering them settlements one by one before the judge could certify any collective case.
This case also has enormous potential ramifications for lawyers who specialize in class action lawsuits. The huge awards can mean huge attorney fees, so the lawyers have a vested interest in letting them go forward even if settlements have been offered.
Oral argument in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk is set for Dec. 3.
The Supreme Court will most likely decide both cases by the end of its term in June 2013. In the meantime, it may add other workplace issues to the docket.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Court Finds Reassignment Ordinarily Is a Reasonable Accommodation For Workers with Disabilities

EEOC Press Release, 9-13-2012


Chicago -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against airline giant United Airlines Inc. The circuit court overturned precedent to agree with the EEOC that "reasonable accommodation" as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may require employers to provide employees with disabilities with "reassignment to a vacant position" when the employee cannot be accommodated in his or her current position.   
The EEOC's suit charged that United violated the ADA by refusing to place workers with disabilities in vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working.  Instead, UAL required these employees to compete for jobs on the company website.  The company's practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing their employment. 
In June 2009, the EEOC filed the original lawsuit in the Northern District of California based on its investigation of a number of discrimination charges filed by United employees located in San Francisco and Chicago.  United successfully moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois, where an earlier Seventh Circuit case, EEOC v. Humiston Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000), had already held that a competitive transfer policy did not violate the ADA.  In February 2011, the lower court, bound by this precedent, dismissed the EEOC's case against United.  
On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the EEOC that Humiston Keeling "did not survive" an intervening Supreme Court decision, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).  The Court of Appeals held that "the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer." 
"The Court's decision will have far-reaching benefits for individuals with disabilities who strive for economic independence and want to work," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "We are pleased that the case may now go forward." 
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case.  This case will allow them to seek reassignment and continue their careers with United."   
EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan added, "In defining 'reasonable accommodation' to include 'reassignment to a vacant position,' Congress clearly intended to ensure that employees with disabilities remain productive workers even when they can no longer do their current jobs due to disability -- as long as reassignment is possible and poses no undue hardship.  With its decision, the Seventh Circuit joins the D.C. and Tenth Circuits in implementing Congress's intent."  
According to the company web site, United Airlines has almost 50,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world.  The air carrier operates air travel hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C.  United is one of the largest international carriers based in the United States.  
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov. 

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Should You Tell Your Employer About Your Side Job?

Source:  Rebecca Thompson, U.S. News and World Report, August 9, 2012


Low wages, pay freezes, and the threat of layoffs mean that for many employees a second job is a necessity. But does your employer agree?
While a side job can mean the difference between "making it" and financial ruin, companies have become more stringent in regulating what their employees do outside of work. Some organizations prohibit side jobs altogether, while others enforce disciplinary action ranging from immediate dismissal, to a written reprimand, to a demotion.
From a company's perspective, it's for good reason. But don't allow your employer's policies and red tape to scare you away from creating financial padding and learning new skills. Whether you take on additional work as a freelancer, consultant, floor salesperson, or start selling your handcrafted goods, moonlighting can be your path toward building a better future.
If you decide to set up shop outside your current workplace, set up a meeting with your boss first. You need to request approval even if there are no explicit policies regarding side jobs in the employee handbook. (Hint: And if a second job is clearly prohibited, you can still ask.) Don't risk getting fired or losing extra income over a simple five-minute conversation. Here's how:
Know Why Your Company is Worried
Employers typically don't see any advantages to their employees working side jobs, but it can be beneficial for both employer and employee, stimulating creativity, motivation, and new ideas. The key is to keep the focus on your current position:
Put the company first. Most employers want to hear that you'll continue to put your job at their company first. Assuage your manager's concerns by letting her know you won't work at your second job during office hours and that you'll still be able to work overtime during periods of heavy work. Show your commitment to your current position as a priority.
Lay out how you'll remain effective. Your boss doesn't want you to be overwhelmed and fatigued just because you're workingmultiple jobs, so lay out the strategies that will allow you to remain just as effective as you are now. Don't talk about the new job; discuss how you'll continue to rock your current one.
Keep quiet about confidential information. A small number of companies will be concerned that you'll leak confidential, in-house information, particularly if your side job is utilizing the same skills that your existing job does. If you can't get permission to work in the same vertical, try a side job in a different arena all together.
Act as a good representative. What you do off-hours can seem like none of your employer's business, but it is, especially if what you're doing could be deemed offensive to your employer's customers. Make sure that whatever side job you choose won't put you in an awkward position with any of your company's clients, partners, or customers.
These tips should get you quick approval to take on the side job you've been dreaming about. If you can't get approval however, consider volunteering or taking a career development class. While many employers won't support you getting paid to expand your skill set, they will endorse broadening your horizons in general.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Tuesday Morning’s ousted CEO files discrimination charges against the furniture retailer

From:  The Washington Post, August 3, 2012
By:  Associated Press


The ousted CEO of furniture retailer Tuesday Morning Corp. has filed discrimination charges against the company, saying she was sent packing after the board learned she had breast cancer.
Kathleen Mason also is seeking unspecified damages and her old job back. The discrimination charges were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Dallas.
A representative for Tuesday Morning declined to comment.
Mason’s attorney, Rogge Dunn, said board members’ attitude toward Mason changed after she disclosed she had cancer. He says one board member even made a sarcastic comment about her wig.
The Dallas-based discount retailer announced in June that it was firing Mason, who had been CEO since 2009. It lowered its financial outlook at the same time.
In announcing Mason’s firing, the company said it was time to transition leadership to a “new executive who will guide the company through its next stage.” It promoted Michael Marchetti, its executive vice president and chief operating officer, as interim CEO. Mason said at the time that she was surprised by the move.
Tuesday Morning, which sells closeout housewares and home decor, reported in April that its third-quarter loss widened as fewer people visited its stores and bought less each visit. The company had planned to revamp its website and improve its marketing to help improve slowing sales.
Dunn says that Mason informed the board of her cancer so they wouldn’t be alarmed if she began losing her hair or growing gaunt as a result of treatment. But he said the board’s attitude toward Mason soon began to change and she was fired less than three months later.
Board members started contacting Mason’s subordinates directly, which they hadn’t done before, Dunn said. In March, he said one board member made a sarcastic comment about how nice Mason’s hair looked; she was wearing a wig at the time.
“One of the reasons Kathleen is doing this is not just for herself, but for others in the workplace,” Dunn said. “A lot of times there’s overreaction and misunderstanding by employers about cancer.”
Tuesday Morning has about 850 stores across the country.


Thursday, July 19, 2012

As U.S. wages rise, gender gaps remain

Article by: DEE DePASS, Star Tribune


The nation's weekly wages rose 2.4 percent in the second quarter from a year ago, but that didn't erase big income gaps between male and female factory workers and managers, according to a government report released Wednesday.
American wages and salaries rose to $771 per week during the quarter. But female plant workers made just $505 a week, compared with the $716 earned by men, according to the U.S. Labor Department. Wage disparities on the state level are not yet available.
The disparity in management wages for all industries were even broader, showing men earning $1,342 a week compared with women who earned $945 a week.
Across all sectors and occupations, the report found that "women who usually worked full time had median weekly earnings of $689 or 79.7 percent of the $865 median [wage] for men."
Upon learning the results, Oriane Casale, assistant director for Minnesota's Labor Market Information Office, said "Wow, that is a big jump," and noted that the gender wage gaps were large.
Some of the national gender gaps have to do with the recession, she said. While male factory workers lost ground early in the recession, manufacturing, especially of durable goods like washing machines and cars, is "coming back like gangbusters." That has benefited men.
By contrast, more women lost ground later in the recession when layoffs spread to sectors such as law firms, schools, and hospitals, Casale said.
But on the national front, the manufacturing industry provided a host of possible reasons for wage disparities. Casale noted that men and women often hold different jobs within specific manufacturing companies, and that can affect pay.
For example, metal manufacturers tend to require higher skills, pay more and are heavily represented by male workers. But chicken processing, canning and other food processing plants have a more balanced gender mix, lower skill requirements and many more female workers.
Another ingredient contributing to wage gaps has to do with age and experience, Casale said. "If you have an older, male workforce versus a younger, female workforce you could see some wage differences there" simply because more experienced workers tend to be paid more.
Other economists noted that Wednesday's report showed that wages were rising faster than inflation. Wages for all workers climbed 2.4 percent, compared with a 1.9 percent rise in the urban consumer price index.

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Is taking work home overtime? In age of smartphones, remote access to PCs, hourly employees say they are due extra pay

From:  The Columbus Dispatch
By:  Kelly Yamanouchi, Atlantic-Journal Constitution, Monday, July 9, 2012

Those smartphones and BlackBerrys that enable work anytime, anywhere are increasingly blurring the lines between work life and personal life — and introducing the sticky issue of when overtime is owed to workers.

The always-connected worker and the pressures of the uncertain economy have led many to feel that they should always be working — because they can, thanks to the growing use of smartphones. That’s allowing work to bleed into evenings, weekends and even sleep, with some people taking their phones and BlackBerrys to bed with them.

And the situation becomes tricky for hourly employees, who qualify for overtime.

“We’ve gotten into a place in our culture where the more you work, the better it is, and the more you should be proud of it,” said attorney Amanda Farahany. “And so people don’t want to assert their overtime right.”

Overtime laws are abused by companies “on a daily basis,” she said.

But in some cases, that has led to lawsuits, seeking pay for what is sometimes called “ BlackBerry overtime” or “electronic overtime.”

For employers, “that’s an area of exposure, and it’s coming like a freight train,” said attorney David Long-Daniels. By giving hourly employees BlackBerrys or remote access to workplace computers through iConnect or Citrix, “you’ve implicitly told them to work,” he said.

Long-Daniels advises companies not to allow hourly employees and others who qualify for overtime to use BlackBerrys or remote access to their work computers unless the workers are told to record the times when they use the devices, and the company has a system in place to record the hours.

Among the lawsuits over electronic overtime is one filed last year in U.S. District Court in Atlanta against Amerisave Mortgage Corp. by former employees. In the case, which has been granted conditional class-action status, senior mortgage processors claim that they routinely worked more than 40 hours a week without getting overtime pay, and that Amerisave was aware that employees used their phones and other devices to answer calls and email but did not track the time.  Amerisave denies those allegations. The discovery period just ended in that case.

Jason Zulauf and his brother, Jeffrey, who are among the workers suing Amerisave, said they worked on commission and didn’t realize they could qualify for overtime.  Jason Zulauf said the computer system that Amerisave employees used to work from home would automatically clock them out after 40 hours, but they were told by managers to “back down” their hours — or adjust them downward — so they could work more hours to earn more in commissions.

An attorney representing Amerisave, Jeff Mokotoff, said the company has “clear, unequivocal written policies that require the employees to record all the time that they work.”

The Zulaufs said they worked as long as 16 hours a day, six days a week. “We had no life,” Jason Zulauf said. “It took a lot of time away from our families.”

Farahany, who is the  Zulaufs’ attorney, said that “most people don’t realize the rights they have under the overtime laws.”

The overtime law, part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, was enacted during the Great Depression to “make it more expensive for an employer to make one person work more than to simply hire another person,” Farahany said. “Over time, companies have simply eroded that law, and we’re back in a place now where employees are out of work.”

Companies call that increased productivity, a driver of economic growth.

Farahany contends that if companies follow the overtime law, “it will bring people back to work. It worked in the Great Depression.”

The Amerisave case follows similar cases in other parts of the country, including one filed against T-Mobile USA Inc. in 2009, in which employees and former employees alleged that they were given company BlackBerrys or smartphones and “required to review and respond to T-Mobile-related emails and text messages at all hours of the day, whether or not they were punched into T-Mobile’s computer-based timecard system.”

In a complaint filed against commercial real-estate firm CB Richard Ellis, an employee claimed that he and other employees were given BlackBerrys and other devices to access work-related emails.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Congress acts on federal employee bills

From:  The Washington Post 
Posted at 06:00 AM ET, 07/02/2012
Just before getting out of town for the Fourth of July holiday, both chambers of Congress and a Senate committee approved separate pieces of legislation Friday that would affect federal employees.
The House and Senate passed a transportation bill that includes a provision to allow phased retirement for federal employees. Employees would be able to work part-time after retirement, with their salaries and annuities pro-rated.

Proponents on both sides of the partisan divide expect the measure to save tax money while providing a way for experienced workers to transfer their skills and workplace knowledge to younger staff.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee gave final approval to bills that would update the Hatch Act, provide agencies with greater power to prevent government contractors from engaging in human trafficking and make it easier for veterans to obtain federal licenses.

The Hatch Act measure would provide a greater range of penalties for federal employees who violate the act. Termination generally is the penalty. The legislation would allow reprimands, demotions and suspensions.

The bill also would ease prohibitions on state and local government employees, whose positions receive federal funding, who run for partisan elective office.

Among other provisions, the End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012 would require companies with federal contracts worth at least $1 million to certify that they have procedures to prevent human trafficking. This has been an issue for contractors who supply foreign labor for U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Veterans Skills to Jobs Act would facilitate employment of veterans by allowing agencies to use the training that veterans received in the military to meet the requirements for federal licenses in certain cases.

The committee gave preliminary approval to the bills Wednesday, but the final vote was delayed until the panel had a quorum on Friday.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

General Mills to Cut 850 Jobs, Roughly 425 in MN

From: Twin Cities Business, May 22, 2012, —Nataleeya Boss


General Mills, Inc., plans to cut 850 jobs worldwide, about half of which are in Minnesota, the Golden Valley-based food manufacturer announced Tuesday.

The company said that the cuts are part of a plan to lower costs and “improve organizational effectiveness.”

General Mills employs about 35,000 globally, including about 5,500 in Minnesota. The cuts will mostly affect administrative and support positions, and they include layoffs as well as open jobs that will remain unfilled, General Mills spokeswoman Kirstie Foster told Twin Cities Business in a Tuesday e-mail.

The company said it will invest its savings from the job cuts to support future growth strategies and “to accelerate innovation across General Mills’ global business platforms.”

During General Mills’ third-quarter earnings call in March, CEO Ken Powell told investors that the company has recently experienced “a particularly challenging operating environment with commodity inflation the highest we’ve seen in 30 years.” In addition, slow economic recovery has kept many consumer budgets tight, he said.

The company’s net income during the first three quarters of its current fiscal year totaled $1.2 billion, representing a 16 percent decline from the same period a year earlier. Net income for the third quarter that ended February 26 totaled $391.5 million, almost flat with $392.1 million a year earlier.

Meanwhile, sales for both the third quarter and the first three quarters of the year rose about 12 percent.
In its Tuesday announcement about the job cuts, the company said that its previous earnings forecast for the full fiscal year hasn’t changed, and it expects to earn between $2.53 and $2.55 a share.

Meanwhile, the company plans to invest about $13 million in new production equipment as part of its restructuring plan. It expects the plan to result in total pretax charges of about $109 million, including the investment in new equipment and severance packages for the laid-off employees.

The company said about $94 million of those charges will be recorded in its fiscal fourth quarter, which ends Sunday. The rest will be recorded in its next fiscal year.

General Mills is the eighth-largest public company in Minnesota based on revenue, which totaled $14.8 billion for the fiscal year that ended in May 2011.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Minnesota to Pay Damages, Insurance Coverage to Resolve EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Published May 3, 2012

By the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal judge has approved a consent decree requiring the Minnesota Board of Public Defense (BOPD) to make restitution to settle an EEOC age discrimination lawsuit.

The BOPD must pay $53,000 to four former employees who were denied employer contributions for retiree health and dental insurance because they were older than age 55 at the time that they retired.  The BOPD must also to offer to pay future premium costs for one of the employees who would still be entitled to receive them but for the unlawful early retirement provision.

This decree, entered by federal Judge Richard Kyle, resolves the last in a series of cases brought by the EEOC against Minnesota state agencies regarding early retirement incentive plans contained in collective bargaining agreements for certain employees.  The incentive plans provided that the employee had to retire by age 55 to obtain the incentive, and would lose it if he or she worked longer.
For an employee who did retire by age 55, the employer continued to pay the employer’s share of the insurance premiums which generally ranged from 85% to 100% of the total amount of the premium—and continued to do so until the retiree reached age 65.  For an employee who retired after age 55, the employer paid nothing, and the cost of retiree insurance fell entirely on the retired employee.

Thus, explained EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Laurie Vasichek, who led the litigation team on the cases, “Not retiring by age 55 was like stepping off a cliff as far retiree medical insurance was concerned, and the parties to the collective bargaining agreements referred to this provision as the ‘Age 55 Cliff.’”

The EEOC contended that the “Age 55 Cliff” was unlawful age discrimination.  Courts agreed, with the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a judgment by U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson, which held that the early retirement incentives were arbitrary age discrimination.

The settlement with the BOPD is believed to resolve the final case in which the “Age 55 Cliff” was challenged.  The EEOC brought cases against six different state agencies in all.  In total, the EEOC obtained, through court judgments and consent decrees, just under $2 million in lost premium contributions, which were distributed to approximately 85 people.  The state also paid the employers’ share of health and dental insurance to those claimants who were eligible for it but for their age.

“As the courts recognized, it is arbitrary and unlawful for employers to maintain incentive plans that explicitly reduce benefits as people grow older,” said EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson.  “Paying benefits for younger retirees while not paying the same benefits for other retirees — merely because the latter were older at the time of retirement — is pure and simple age discrimination, and it is unlawful.  But the situation has now been corrected, and we commend the state of Minnesota for working with the EEOC to resolve these cases.”

In addition to Hendrickson and Vasichek, the EEOC’s litigation team included Associate Regional Attorney Jean Kamp as well as Nicholas Pladson and Jessica Palmer-Denig, trial attorneys in the EEOC’s Minneapolis office.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Muslim woman wins $5 million in punitive damages from AT&T in workplace discrimination suit

From:  The Washington Post

By Associated Press, Published: May 5, 2012

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A former Kansas City woman who converted to Islam in 2005 said she was harassed for years at AT&T, and that the abuse boiled over in 2008 when her boss snatched her head scarf and exposed her hair.

A Jackson County jury on Thursday awarded Susann Bashir $5 million in punitive damages in her discrimination lawsuit, along with $120,000 in lost wages and other actual damages.

The Kansas City Star (http://bit.ly/JKWbqR ) reported Saturday the award appears to be the largest jury verdict for a workplace discrimination case in Missouri history.

Bashir said in court documents that her work environment became hostile immediately after she converted, with her co-workers making harassing comments about her religion and referring to her hijab as “that thing on her head.”

“I was shocked. I thought, ‘What is going on?’” she told the newspaper. “Nobody ever cared what I wore before. Nobody ever cared what religion I was before.”

Bashir worked at AT&T’s office in Kansas City for 10 years as a fiber optics network builder before being fired from her $70,000-a-year job. She claimed she endured religious discrimination nearly every day of the final three years she worked there, including being asked if she was going to blow up the building and being called a “towelhead” and a terrorist.

AT&T said Friday it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal.

Despite the jury’s award, Bashir stands to receive much less than $5 million because Missouri law caps such awards at five times the actual damage amount, plus attorney fees.

Amy Coopman, Bashir’s lawyer, said attorney fees will be determined later by the judge.

The previous largest such verdict came in 2009, when Mohamed Alhalabi, an Arab-American Muslim, was awarded $811,949 in St. Louis County Circuit Court in a case against the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

That same year, a Jonesboro, Ark., jury ordered AT&T to pay $1.3 million to two former employees fired for attending a Jehovah’s Witnesses convention.

Bashir said she called an employee help line in March 2005 and asked the company to provide sensitivity training for her co-workers.

“It was a worthless call,” she said. “Nothing ever changed.”

The harassment continued and in March 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched an investigation after she filed a complaint.

She said that made some workers angry and led to the final encounter with her boss.

Bashir said she became so stressed out that she couldn’t return to work. She asked that her boss be removed or that she be transferred, but neither happened.

She was fired after not returning to work for nine months.

“By firing me, they stole my ability to work at a job I liked,” Bashir said.

She said the incident was hard on her mentally and physically and tore her family apart. She is going through a divorce, and in October she and her daughter moved to Anchorage, Alaska, where she works as an apartment manager.

“I have mixed feelings,” Bashir said. “I’m happy not to be reporting to that management structure. But it’s hard in this economy to find a job with that level of compensation. I didn’t want to lose my job, because I felt I was doing good work.”

Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com