Employment Law Blog

News, trends and analysis in employment law and HR

Showing posts for: Harassment & Discrimination

Photo of Jackie Marks
Aug 28 2017
Q&AHarassment & DiscriminationHiring  

Q&A: Altering usual hiring process could lead to retaliation charge

Question: A former employee has reapplied for a job at our company. After she quit about three years ago, she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charges were dismissed, but we don’t really want her back again. We don’t have to hire her, do we?

Read More…
Photo of Josephine Ko
Aug 24 2017
Harassment & Discrimination  

Objective layoff criteria fend off age discrimination claim in California

A California employer successfully defended itself against an age discrimination claim when it relied on objective reasons to implement a reduction in force (RIF). A 60-year old employee claimed that his hotel employer selected him for a RIF due to his age and that this violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act…

Read More…
Photo of Karen Davis
Aug 04 2017
Affirmative ActionHarassment & Discrimination  

KPMG agrees to pay $420K to rejected Asian applicants

Following an affirmative action audit by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), KPMG LLP agreed to pay $420,000 in back pay, interest, and benefits to 60 Asian applicants it rejected for associate auditor jobs in New Jersey. The company also agreed to offer positions to 6 of the…

Read More…
Photo of Jackie Marks
Jul 10 2017
Q&AHarassment & DiscriminationHiring  

Q&A: Should we use employment tests to help us identify the best candidates?

Question: My company is hiring, and a testing company tells us that it can help us identify the best candidate for the job. What do you think?

Read More…
Photo of Jackie Marks
Jul 05 2017
Q&ADisabilityHarassment & DiscriminationHiring  

Q&A: Post-offer medical testing problematic when hiring temp agency employees

Question: We currently contract with a temporary employment agency for workers and will hire some of these workers after 90 days of successful work. We require all new regular employees for production and maintenance positions to undergo a pre-employment (post-offer) medical test. When we offer regular jobs to the temp…

Read More…
Photo of Sean Brown
Jun 30 2017
Harassment & DiscriminationHiringImmigration  

Requiring new hires to present specific IDs for I-9 costs employer $225,750

An employer in eastern Washington required all green card holders to present their Permanent Resident Cards when completing the Form I-9. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that this employer has now agreed to pay a fine of $225,750 to settle discrimination charges. The employer also agreed to…

Read More…
Photo of Karen Davis
Jun 02 2017
Harassment & DiscriminationWage and Hour  

Layoffs, job restructuring, and wage freezes no excuse for unequal pay

A furniture manufacturing company blamed tough economic conditions as the reason for paying three female managers less than their male counterparts, but a federal appeals court didn’t buy it.

Read More…
Photo of Diane Buisman
May 30 2017
Harassment & Discrimination  

Federal courts split over sexual orientation discrimination

A recent string of federal appeals court cases regarding sexual orientation discrimination has shone a light on an area of open interpretation under federal law. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, individuals are protected from discrimination based on sex, but the law doesn’t explicitly encompass protection based on sexual…

Read More…
Photo of Diane Buisman
May 15 2017
Harassment & DiscriminationTermination & Resignation  

Employer unlawfully discriminated against unmarried pregnant employee in Oregon

In a rare case, an unmarried teacher recently won a victory against her employer by applying Oregon’s law protecting individuals from discrimination based on marital status. The teacher worked at a Christian university, which required her to adhere to a certain moral standard. When she revealed that she was pregnant, unmarried, and living with her boyfriend, her employer gave her the options of ending her cohabitation, marrying the father of her child, or losing her job. When she declined the first two options, the university terminated her employment.

Read More…