If you live in California, it may be illegal very soon.

September 8, 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Employers would be prohibited from using consumer credit reports when considering applicants for most jobs under a bill that cleared the state Senate.

AB22 would block using credit checks except when hiring for managers, law enforcement, financial jobs and other positions in which the person would be expected to handle valuable items or information.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton, a Republican from Rancho Cucamonga, says the bill makes it tougher for businesses to hire qualified employees.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, a Democrat from Concord who carried the bill in the Senate, says credit reports are not always accurate and do not give employers the background that might lead to a poor credit rating.

The bill passed the Senate 21-17 Thursday and returns to the Assembly for a final vote on amendments.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/29125387/detail.html#ixzz1XSapg2Sy

Bob Dutton is a moron.  Since when is credit history a sign of a “qualified employee”?  I am not a political person, but Republicans really piss me off.  It’s all about me, me, me and how dare you let anyone else into the door.

DO NOT pay anyone to file the claim for you.  There are unscrupulous people offering nonexistent services and hope you don’t notice the charges on your credit card.  Filing an application is FREE from your state’s employment development or labor department.  Save time and do it online.  If you go in person, expect a long wait.  Just use a search engine to find it.  The search term should be your state, followed by the term:  file for unemployment.  So in CA, it would be:  California file for unemployment.  Make sure the website you go to has a .gov domain name, NOT .com, .net or .org.

Reasons For Losing Your Job

There are some myths about getting unemployment benefits.  Some people think that if you’re terminated you can get unemployment.  The other myth is that if you resign (voluntarily quit your job), you can’t get unemployment.  Here’s how to increase your chances of getting the UE benefits you’re entitled to.

There are layoffs and downsizing.  Getting unemployment in that case is a walk in the park.  However, if your boss is an asshole and you just can’t stand it anymore, but you don’t want to quit for fear you won’t be able to get unemployment, you might be wrong.

Make Sure You Get Unemployment

The true test is how you lost your job.  Don’t assume that because you got fired or quit that you can’t collect.  If you got fired for stealing, horrible attendance, or you just plain suck at your job, you won’t be able to get benefits. 

What about getting terminated for no good reason?  Don’t assume that you can’t get benefits.  In an at-will state your boss can terminate you for ANY reason at all as long at it’s not an illegal reason like, but not limited to, racial, age, pregnancy, disability (the list goes on) discrimination.   

In order to collect, you must have lost your job through no fault of your own.  Remember those words and live that mantra, “through no fault of your own”. 

If you were forced to quit, NEVER write down that you resigned or quit because someone at work was an ass.  Instead, write that you were “constructively discharged”.  A constructive discharge means that your boss or some coworker made the working conditions there so intolerable that you could no longer work in that toxic environment. 

If you were terminated, ALWAYS maintain that you were ready, willing and able to work for the simple fact that you CANNOT get unemployment if you’re not. 

Do something like this, “I wanted to continuing working at [insert your company name here], but was constructively discharged by the hostile work environment created by my manager’s behavior.”  DO NOT explain how on the application.  Save that for the phone interview or in reply if your manager disputes your application. 

Or, “I wanted to continuing working at [insert your company name here], but I came into work yesterday and was told my position no longer exists and that I was not to return.”

Take this quick unemployment survey.  Vote and participate for a chance to redeem a $500 check.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. A U.S. District Court jury brought in a verdict of over $1.5 million for sexual harassment and retaliation in the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) lawsuit against Mid-American Specialties (Mid- American), a Memphis-based company that distributes promotional products and office supplies, the agency announced today. The verdict came after a trial presided over by Chief Judge Jon P. McCalla. The actual jury award included more than $400,000 in compensatory damages and back pay to three women and $1.1 million in punitive damages.

“The jury verdict is an important vindication of the EEOC’s long-standing commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The EEOC will continue to be vigorous in its enforcement of the federal laws protecting workers from sexual harassment and retaliation.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-02203-JMP, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, charged Mid-American with subjecting three former female employees in Memphis to sexual harassment, and retaliating against two of the women for reporting the harassment. This conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation against those who protest it.

“We hope for amicable resolutions but are prepared to try cases to vindicate legal violations,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Recent sexual harassment cases such as this one as well as the large verdict we received against Paul’s Big M in New York, demonstrate that juries support the EEOC’s continued vigorous enforcement.”

The jury found that two male managers at Mid-American subjected female subordinates to severe, unwelcome sexual harassment. According to trial testimony, one manager exposed his genitals and forced one of the women to place her hand on his private parts. There was further testimony that another manager made demands for women to participate in a “kissing” or “smooching” club in order to receive the sales leads and accounts necessary for the women to earn commissions.

The trial evidence further showed that as a result of their rejection of managers’ sexual advances and complaints about the harassment, Mid-American fired two of the women. During the two years that the harassment took place, Mid-American had no sexual harassment policy, no training on sexual harassment, and no reporting procedures. Company officials testified that they did not think that such policies and procedures were necessary, so the complaints of the women fell on deaf ears. The human resources manager testified that she did not even know the definition of sexual harassment at the time of the events.

“This jury verdict sends the strongest possible message to employers that sexual harassment and retaliation should never be tolerated in the work place,” said Faye A. Williams, EEOC regional attorney in Memphis. “The jury award further shows that employers without sexual harassment policies and procedures for handling complaints promptly and effectively are taking major risks.”

“Three women displayed tremendous courage in confronting egregious sexual harassment by their supervisors. The jury’s verdict vindicates their courage and sends a message to the defendant that complaints about sexual harassment should never result in termination,” said Kenneth Anderson, EEOC lead trial attorney.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

By James Witherspoon

Under U.S. employment law, some workers are entitled to receive overtime pay for any hours that they work beyond the scheduled 40-hour work week. This law is outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applies to millions of employees across the country. If you are entitled to overtime pay and are not receiving proper compensation, an experienced overtime class-action attorney can help you fight for the wages that you have earned.

Denying Pay and Hours

Some employers purposely avoid paying their workers overtime to minimize their labor costs with the hope that their workers will keep quiet or will not understand what is going on. Not only is this unfair to hardworking employees, but it is also illegal and qualifies as grounds for a class-action lawsuit against the employer. You may have grounds to pursue legal action if you have been:

• Denied overtime pay
• Wrongly told that you do not qualify for overtime pay
• Not paid for working after hours or off the clock
• Unfairly docked pay or hours by an employer to avoid having to pay overtime wages

Any of these acts is a violation of the FLSA for which an employer can be sued. If you or a coworker has not been fairly compensated for overtime work, consider seeking legal counsel to review your circumstances and legal options. Chances are that other employees are being denied the same pay as well, and an attorney can help you file a class-action lawsuit to hold the abusive employer legally accountable for unfair worker treatment.

For More Information

To learn more about overtime pay and how you can take legal action to pursue unpaid overtime that you are owed, visit the website of the overtime class-action lawyers of Feazell & Tighe, LLP, today.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Recovering-Unpaid-Overtime&id=5930606

Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Employees

By Karen Whitehurst

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees who have a disability, as long as the accommodations do not put an undue hardship on the employer. This law ensures that qualified applicants and employees have fair access to employment opportunities. The reasoning behind the Act is that many people with disabilities are completely qualified for certain positions but may face additional hardships due to customary work environments. Typically, these obstacles can be easily accommodated with the assistance of an employer.

Providing Reasonable Accommodations

Qualified applicants or employees with disabilities may need a few changes to a work environment, work schedule, or job duties to enjoy equal access to employment. Ways that employers can make their work environments accessible to a qualified employee or applicant with a physical or mental disability include:

• Adjusting the job application process so that a qualified applicant is able to apply
• Rearranging the physical work environment
• Modifying work hours or other work circumstances

For example, a physically-disabled person may need to rely on public transportation and therefore an employer may allow an adjustment in work hours. Or, an employer may rearrange furniture or provide more accessible equipment to help an employee complete his or her duties.

Some accommodations may be more extensive than others, but the law requires that employers provide these modifications as long as they are feasible and do not place an undue hardship on the employer. Unfortunately, some employers still fail to comply with this law, and therefore some people with disabilities still face discrimination in the workplace or when applying for jobs.

To learn more about discrimination in the workplace, visit the website of the Austin disability discrimination attorneys of Melton & Kumler, LLP.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Karen_Whitehurst
http://EzineArticles.com/?Reasonable-Accommodation-for-Disabled-Employees&id=5936596

Author: Myron

Social media has forever changed the rules in the job marketplace. The amazing amount of information that is so quickly accessible provides a tempting opportunity to be a fly on the wall of an applicant’s personal life. Recruiters need to exercise caution and tread carefully. There are a plethora of social media sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and LinkedIn that provide instant and often personal information about a candidate.

There are risks associated with social media and if employers are not careful, they can open a Pandoras box of litigation possibilities. Social networking profiles reveal private information such as age, race, political affiliation, gender, disability and religious affiliation. This type of information is usually interspersed throughout a candidate’s personal profile.

There are a few disturbing scenarios that can occur when an employer does a social media search on a potential candidate. Consider the following: a recruiter does an internet search and finds the candidates picture and religious and political affiliation and uses this information to weed out that particular candidate, or an internet search reveals a candidate in full regalia at a gay pride festival. What does the recruiter do with such personal information that would have never revealed itself in a traditional resume?

Using online information skates a thin line between invasion of privacy and an employer learning as much as possible about a potential employee. Employers must decide if the benefits of researching candidates on social media outweigh the risks. It is critical that employers utilize legal counsel and develop written policies to determine the best protocol for using social media in recruiting efforts.

The policy must clearly define the types of position that would warrant utilizing social media and specific guidelines for the type of information the employer hopes to find by using social media. A comprehensive written policy will go a long way in helping to mitigate risks that arise from social media searches.

Working closely with legal counsel can go a long way in protecting a company from the potential of a case of disparate treatment and its cousin disparate impact, which can occur unintentionally when using social media for recruiting. Human Resources experts argue that using social media can open the door to disparate treatment (an intent to discriminate) or Disparate Impact, when using social media sites that do not reflect the demographics of the total population.

Social media is one of the best ways to recruit passive candidates and is an essential resource in engaging the best candidates in the marketplace. Social media will continue to evolve and recruiters must use common sense, stay compliant with EEO practices and maintain records to avoid being on the losing end of a discrimination lawsuit.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/human-resources-articles/the-hidden-risks-of-social-media-4144652.html

About the Author

Business Training Media is a leading global provider of workforce training webinars, videos, DVDs, online courses, seminars, CDs, audio conferences, books and workshops. The company provides employee training resources for today’s most challenging HR management areas including diversity, leadership, hiring & recruiting, workplace harassment, customer service, OSHA compliance, social media risk, business ethics, motivation, workplace violence, conflict management and much more.

Manager With Kidney Disease Terminated Despite Excellent Performance, Suit Alleges

DETROIT – Global clothing retailer The Gap violated federal law by firing an employee at its Howell, Mich., store because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

The EEOC’s lawsuit (EEOC v. The Gap, Inc.,Case No.2:10CV14559) filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleges that Wayne Cook worked successfully for The Gap as a store manager for nearly three years. In December 2007, Cook took leave to address problems caused by his glomerolonephritis, a kidney disorder. In January 2008, he provided his supervisor with a detailed description of his medical conditions and the problems he was experiencing. In February, Cook returned to work and was fired on the spot, the EEOC said, allegedly for having tolerated the violation of a work rule prior to taking a leave of absence.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from terminating employees because of such medical conditions. The agency seeks to recover monetary compensation for Cook in the form of back pay and compensatory damages for emotional distress, as well as punitive damages. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.

“Mr. Cook was a well-regarded manager, but The Gap chose to terminate him based upon unjustified concerns surrounding his medical condition,” said EEOC Indianapolis Regional Attorney Laurie Young, whose jurisdiction includes Michigan. “The EEOC will pursue vigorously violations of the ADA, including cases like this one, when employers terminate employees based upon fears and stereotypes about their physical condition.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation’s laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

By James Witherspoon

Sometimes workers are afraid to speak up about abuses in the workplace such as harassment, unfair wages, discrimination, or other illegal activities out of fear of being fired or facing other retaliation from their employer. However, firing an employee in response to a complaint about an illegal or discriminatory practice is unlawful in itself. Despite these worker protections, employers still illegally fire or otherwise punish employees for their complaints about workplace conditions.

Workers have a legal right to speak with an employer, file a complaint, or participate in a lawsuit concerning any of the following issues:

• Discrimination
• Sexual harassment
• Hostile work environment
• Civil rights violations
• Whistle-blowing
• Overtime and wage violations
• Equal pay disputes

Workers are legally protected against retaliation from their employers in response to any of these actions. If a worker is fired or faces other retaliatory measures in response to the complaints, he or she has the legal right to take further action against the employer.

To make matters more confusing, most states follow an “at-will” employment doctrine, meaning that an employer or an employee has the right to terminate employment at any time, for any legal reason. This makes it more difficult for former employees to take legal action in response to a wrongful termination, since an employer may cite a different reason for the termination. Even contracted employees who are wrongfully terminated sometimes have difficulty bringing a case. For these reasons, it is important to have a qualified, dedicated legal team on your side to help you build a strong case and fight to uphold your rights.

To learn more about retaliation and wrongful termination, visit the website of the Austin wrongful termination lawyers at Melton & Kumler, LLP.

James Witherspoon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Witherspoon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Wrongful-Retaliatory-Termination&id=5874837

Federal Security Contractor Forced Pregnant Women From Their Jobs, Agency Charged

KANSAS CITY – Akal Security, Inc., the largest provider of contract security services to the federal government, will pay $1.62 million to a class of 26 female security guards, settling a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

According to the EEOC, in 2004 New Mexico-based Akal began a nationwide pattern and practice of forcing its pregnant employees, working as contract security guards on U.S. Army bases, to take leave and discharging them because of pregnancy. The women worked at Fort Riley, Hood, Stewart, Campbell, Lewis, Anniston, Sunny Point and Blue Grass Army Depot. Akal also subjected the women to less favorable terms and conditions of employment because of pregnancy, including preventing them from completing their annual physical agility and firearms tests or forcing them to take such tests before their certifications had expired. Akal also retaliated against an employee who complained about the discrimination by filing baseless criminal charges against her, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC filed suit against Akal in 2008 in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas ( U.S. EEOC v. Akal Security, Inc., Case No. 08-1274-JTM-KMH) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. Eleven of the class members were also individually represented by Forrest Rhodes and Don Berner of Foulston Siefkin, LLP, Wichita, Kan. According to its website, www.akalsecurity.com, Akal is one of the largest contract security companies in the United States and operates in 40 states and 20 countries.

“This is a very important settlement that will help protect an entire class of women from discrimination on account of pregnancy,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “This agreement reinforces the EEOC’s commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place.”

In addition to the monetary relief, the two-year consent decree settling the suit requires Akal to:

•Report to the EEOC about any employees who are required to take a leave of absence while pregnant, are terminated while pregnant, or make a complaint of pregnancy discrimination;
•Report to the EEOC about any physical agility test it intends to implement to screen or requalify employees and whether pregnant employees are permitted to take the test;
•Issue a message from its CEO to all employees along with a well-defined, comprehensive anti-discrimination policy; and
•Provide annual compliance training to managers and supervisors on the requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
“Akal operated its business without regard to federal law,” said Barbara Seely, regional

attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District Office, whose jurisdiction includes Kansas. “Employees who become pregnant and can continue to perform their jobs should not be pushed out of traditionally male jobs just because they don’t fit the employer’s image. We are confident Akal now understands the price of allowing this type of illegal stereotyping to drive employment decisions, and that it will ensure pregnant employees are treated fairly going forward.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov

Upscale Chain Settles After Litigation Revealed Head Chef Fondled Male Employees

PHOENIX —Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar, at DC Ranch in Scottsdale, Ariz., will pay nearly a quarter million dollars and furnish other relief to settle a same-sex sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit (CV-07683-PHX-SMM), which was brought in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix, charged that male employees who worked at Fleming’s in Scottsdale, a fine dining steak house, were sexually abused by the head chef, Tod Rawson. The evidence gathered during the EEOC’s investigation revealed that, among other things, Rawson frequently pinched or squeezed his subordinates’ private parts, flicked their genitals with his bare hands, and groped them from behind. Rawson even used kitchen utensils from the restaurant to touch his victims’ genitals through their clothing, the EEOC said. Evidence uncovered during the lawsuit also revealed that several managers at Fleming’s knew what was happening well before formal charges were filed but did nothing to stop it. After several internal complaints, a formal EEOC charge was filed.

“The key lesson we want people to take from this case: employers must protect their employees from sexual harassment,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “This means doing a meaningful internal investigation designed to find the truth and not designed to merely cover tracks. Also, employers must immediately stop further sexual harassment from occurring. Here, not only did Fleming’s not fire the harasser, they let him continue the harassment for more than a year and a half before allowing him to resign. When employers prove incapable of addressing these toxic situations, the EEOC is ready to right these wrongs.”

Rayford Irvin, District Director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, added, “We want the public to know that sexual harassment isn’t just about misconduct between men and women. It includes sexually abusive behavior between people of the same sex also. Regardless of your gender or anyone else’s, you don’t have to tolerate sexual harassment.”

The EEOC Phoenix District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, with offices in Albuquerque and Denver.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov