Rojgar Job News

Words normally come easy on this blog. Today I should be writing a simple post about a new Executive Order that will make it easier for people to file for unemployment claims if they believe their workplace is unsafe. But I can’t.  Not right now. There’s too much pain in the United States today.  And any words that I can offer beyond  “I hear you. I’m here for you. And I will fight hard for you.” seem trivial and forced. I have lived my life with a different experience. Yes, it’s been in the face of anti-semitism (ever have pennies thrown at you in middle school and swastikas passed to you as notes?) but it’s not the same as the experiences of being black in America. For that experience, I have tried to listen to others. Back in 2014, my favorite law professor (I can say that now that I’m years beyond law school) and the one who I worked for after my first year, Kimberly Jade Norwood, wrote a guest column that I was able to ...

On April 30, 2019, we reported that the California State Senate had taken steps toward enacting the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “traits historically associated with one’s race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles.” The bill passed the Assembly on June 27, 2019 and, on Wednesday, July 3, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law, making California the first state to expressly include natural hairstyles in its anti-discrimination law. The preamble to the CROWN Act observes that “[t]he history of our nation is riddled with laws and societal norms that equated ‘blackness’ and the associated physical traits . . . to a badge of inferiority, sometimes subject to separate and unequal treatment.” It goes on to note that this association came to permeate the workplace, where “professionalism was, and still is, closely linked to Europ...

On October 1, 2019, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Harvard University in a closely watched case examining whether the college’s admissions process, which takes candidates’ race and economic circumstances into account, results in race-based animus against Asian-Americans. The suit, filed by an anti-affirmative action advocacy group, Students for Fair Admissions (SFA), accused Harvard of overemphasizing race in the admissions process, or “race balancing,” resulting in a higher bar for academically talented Asian-American applicants. Harvard defended the policy during an intense, three-week long trial, with its President explaining that a whole-person approach to admissions “reaffirm[s] the importance of diversity” and the College’s admissions leadership explaining that race-conscious admissions help to transform student demographics at the nation’s most elite college. District Court Judge Alli...

Our colleagues Colter Paulson and Justin DiCharia at the Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog (which covers, as you may have guessed, developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) authored the post below discussing the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in a case in which the Court was tasked with deciding whether an employer may enter into agreements with its employees to shorten the time period for filing of employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers in the Sixth Circuit may want to review their employment contracts following a recent decision in which the court ruled that employers cannot contractually shorten the statutory limitations period for Title VII claims—except in the arbitration context. In  Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino , Judge Bush (with Judges Boggs and Gibbons joining) explained that Title VII’s 300-day statute of limitations for discrimination claims is a substantive right granted by Co...

To its critics positive discrimination is a set of benefits and privileges reserved for minorities. BAME inclusion events and initiatives designed to encourage BAME job applicants are frequently found in the firing line. It’s a pretty dynamite topic which evokes feelings of victimisation, unfairness and inequity and can stunt enthusiasm for diversity in the workforce. Is it lawful? This is all a great shame given that contrary to popular belief as evidenced from the twittersphere and tabloid newspapers, positive discrimination is both uncommon and unlawful. The Equality Act 2010 section 159 did introduce a new concept of positive action , on the other hand, and the distinction is more than semantic. In short, where an employer runs a recruitment exercise and: is faced with a choice between equally qualified candidates; where one or more of the candidates possesses a “protected characteristic” (which includes, but is not limited to, being black); and where people with t...

Good faith lying – an interesting concept ethically but, in practical terms, vital grease in the wheels of a civil society – “no, it was delicious, honestly, I’m just a bit full”, “I love your parents” and (especially in the legal world) “with great respect”. But what if you lie to your employee in the genuine and quite reasonable belief that it will make things easier all round, and are then caught? How bad can it be and what credit do you get in the Employment Tribunal from trying not to upset the employee unnecessarily? Very and none respectively, according to the Court of Appeal in Base Childrenswear –v– Otshudi this week. Otshudi’s line manager thought that she was stealing from the business and so dismissed her, but told her that it was by reason of redundancy instead. Very decent of him, you might think, giving her a no-fault reason allowing a dignified exit, notice pay and a non-harmful reference in circum...

On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that the EEOC must continue to take all steps necessary to complete EEO-1 Component 2 data collection for calendar years 2017 and 2018.  As we recently discussed here, the EEOC filed a motion on October 8, 2019 asking the court to issue an order deeming the Component 2 data collection “complete.”  The court denied the EEOC’s request and ordered the agency to keep collecting pay data until January 31, 2020.  The court relied on its own April 25, 2019 Order, which states that the pay data collection will not be deemed complete “until the percentage of EEO-1 reporters that have submitted their required EEO-1 Component 2 reports equals or exceeds the mean percentage of EEO-1 reporters that actually submitted EEO-1 reports in each of the past four reporting years.”   The parties disagreed about how to calculate the mean percentage, but the court determined ...

As we most recently reported here and here, as of September 30, 2019, employers with 100 or more employees  (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) were required to report to the federal government pay data for 2017 and 2018 for their workforce (known as “Component 2” data), broken down by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category.  However, consistent with its current practice regarding submission of Component 1 data – which consists of a listing of employees’ job category, sex, race, and ethnicity – the EEOC has agreed to continue collecting Component 2 data for a six-week period after the September 30, 2019 deadline, ending on November 11, 2019.  The pay data collection process has been the subject of ongoing litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  In April 2019, it issued an order approving the September 30, 2019 deadline and requiring the EEOC to file status reports every 21 days explaining ...

The United States currently is experiencing an unprecedented public health emergency due to the COVID-19 virus.  The economic fallout of this crisis has been sudden and brutal on US employers, with vast numbers of businesses ordered to close and nearly 1 million new unemployment claims filed in the past two weeks alone.  In response, Congress has passed several new laws to take emergency action to address the impact on employers and employees.  These laws and the speed at which they were put in place has left many overwhelmed and with many questions about what obligations they impose and how they will operate, if they can at all, through this crisis. Although there is a certain feeling that in unprecedented times like this, employers should have more flexibility to take what could be potentially business-saving measures, no matter how drastic, it is important for employers to remember that, even during these trying times, the laws enforced by the US Equal Employment Oppor...