Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 15, 2011
State and Federal Poster Inc. recommends to update the new Federal labor law posters which has changed its E-Verify & Right to Work which verifies the eligibility of the employees to work in the United States. The E-Verify works by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that verifies the employment eligibility of employees. Even federal contractors can enroll in E-verify at any time without waiting for its specific date. The contractor or any other subcontractors that are working on a project are required to enroll within 30 days to the E-verify of its award date. When companies enroll to E-verify, you will be asked many questions and must provide basic contact information. After this process has been completed, USCIS will look through the information and activate the account.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) protects those with disabilities and prohibits the use of genetic information of the employees health. GINA forbids the health plans and health insurers from rejecting coverage of a healthy individual and giving that person higher benefits due to developing a disease in the future. The ADA defines the word disability as a physical or mental impairment that limits themselves from a life activity. The ADA takes part with employers with 15 or more employees which include states and local government.This act states that an individual can not discriminate another individual who can be qualified with a disability.

###

I hurt my back while at work (walgreens) and need to get an X-ray. The boss said that the insurance ppl haven’t called him back yet, so to just go pay out of pocket. but shouldn’t there be like a workers comp. number or something that i use to get my cost covered? even the doc. office lady said so. id apprecaite any help someone can give me, cause if i pay out of pocket, im fairly certain i WON’T be reimbursed- plus x-rays are EXPENSIVE.

Answer:

You need to file a workers comp claim IMMEDIATELY! Walgreens should have an injury report form on file.

It is ILLEGAL for your boss to prevent you from seeking medical care for a work related injury. The worker’s comp information is supposed to be CLEARLY displayed in a common area like a break room. It should have the WC company name, address and phone number. A corporation as big as Walgreens should already know this. Do you have an employee manual? Look in there.

Call the state’s department of labor. Call a doctor’s office and ask them how to proceed so you can get the care  you need without being responsible for the bill.

EDWARD KELLY, a 65 year old male of North American national origin has filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal district court in White Plains, New York, (Civil Action No. 11-CIV-4074, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) against his former employer, ACI Communications, Inc. (ACI) and TWOWAY Communications, Inc. (TWOWAY), Susan Chen and other ACI/ TWOWAY officials (defendants) for unlawful age and national origin discrimination, and unlawful retaliation for KELLYs complaints to defendants and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC) about the unlawful discrimination occurring at KELLYs workplace and for KELLYs participation in proceedings before the EEOC. KELLY is being represented by the Law Offices of Jimmy M. Santos, PLLC.

In his complaint, KELLY alleges that, in January 2009, ACI, with its principal place of business located in Kent, Washington State, and which is a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by TWOWAY, a Taiwanese Company, re-hired KELLY to serve as ACIs Regional Sales Director of the Eastern part of the United States. KELLY further alleges that, in the summer and fall of 2010, defendants began to single out KELLY and subject him to a hostile work environment due to his age and North American national origin. Specifically, in his complaint, KELLY alleges that: in a December 15, 2010 email, CHEN, the owner and/or most senior executive of ACI and TWOWAY, asked KELLY if he was having a problem focusing [on his job] due to your age; defendants re-assigned KELLY from his former position as SALES DIRECTOR to a Sales VP, Strategic Business Development (the VP POSITION), in which the markets to which KELLY was assigned had/have virtually no realistic opportunity for growth and assigned KELLYs prior market base and the Eastern United States sales territory to a Taiwanese male in his late 20s or early 30s with much less sales experience than KELLY and within the Company; one of the defendants systematically berated KELLY and accused him of having memory problems; and, in contrast to KELLY and other employees, defendants generally showed preferential treatment to employees of Taiwanese national origin in their 20s and early 30s in contrast to employees in their 50s or over of North American national origin.

KELLY also alleges in his complaint that ACI/ TWOWAY have engaged in lay-offs which have disproportionately and negatively impacted employees of North American national origin and favored employees of Taiwanese national origin, have generally imposed preferential treatment to employees of Taiwanese national origin, and have promoted employees of Taiwanese national origin in contrast to ACI/ TWOWAYs adverse treatment of the Companys employees of North American national origin.

KELLY further alleges in his complaint that, after he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on December 30, 2010, on January 6, 2011, ACI/ TWOWAY unlawfully retaliated against KELLY by placing him on administrative leave, restricting his access to the Companys files and property and requested him to [immediately] return all [Company files and property]. KELLY further alleges that on March 24, 2011, KELLY participated in a mediation session held at the EEOCs New York Office. Shortly thereafter, KELLY alleges that on March 30th, ACI/ TWOWAY blatantly terminated KELLYs employment in retaliation for his participating in the EEOC mediation and on the pretext that [KELLY] was no longer interested in resuming his employment with [the Company]. In his complaint, KELLY is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages for all back and front pay owed him, full compensatory and punitive damages, damages due to defendants breach of KELLYs employment contract, and liquidated damages under the N.Y. Labor Law for defendants making unauthorized deductions from KELLYs agreed-upon annual salary.

KELLY is being represented by Jimmy M. Santos, Esq. of Cornwall, Orange County, New York. Any media inquiries should be directed to the Law Offices of Jimmy M. Santos, PLLC, attn. Jimmy M. Santos, at office no. (845) 534-3185, cell no. (347) 753-3258, fax at (845) 595-2266, and/or via email at jmssesq(at)gmail(dot)com.

###

Answer:

Terminated means your employment was ended, but the unemployment office doesn’t know why you were terminated, so they have to find out from the employer. That’s why it takes longer.

Ask yourself this, why was your employment ended? Were you laid off or were you fired? If you were laid off, then say you were laid off. But if you were fired, that’s a different can of worms. You may not be able to collect benefits if you were fired.

I’ve been here for 6 months, worked hard and has not been given a raise or consideration for a promotion although Ive asked to be considered for higher up open positions. My boss in my department walked out 2 months ago then quit. Therefore, I was appointed to carry the load until they name a successor. I carried the load and bonused on my payroll check for reaching my dept. goals.

This boss that quit was brought back and placed at another of our locations that was hiring for same position. He worked there for a month then walked out on them too. However, as I was holding down my store, the owners and my GM hired another male white figure to take over our department. I was ok with it but not surprised.

A few months later, this new guy was fired for stealing within the company. I was asked to hold things down again. Again, I was working 55-60 hours per week, showing up everyday holding things afloat until someone was hired. I assumed it was going to be me but it wasn’t.

Now, 3 other positions have been open throughout each of our 4 stores that deals with more money (promotion), higher title and additional experience that I would have loved I was not considered for neither. The owner hired and moved around numerous white males from store to store with pay raises when I was still holding down my department as a one man show with no raise or no growth potential.

As I complained that I’m getting burned out they pulled a general worker from our warehouse to assist me in my department whereas they are seeking to allow him to now take over bc he knows the system a bit..I”m not to happy about this at all.

Additionally, as I have to work the field, and visit customers. I’ve been threaten by customers, called the “N” word, rocks thrown at me and was told to leave the property or my black *** would be shot. Told my boss of these issues and I fear for my safety but he just tells me that’s part of the job while your in that position.

I have a bachelor’s degree, took the LSAT exam (so so score) and very dependable. I Show for work everyday and bonus while working 50+ hours per week. I want to do something to leave this location but i have no idea what. Jobs are still hard to come by but my money, integrity and safety are at risks and most likely I won’t be promoted anytime soon.

None of the individuals promoted has been working there as long as I. Also,they do not have college degrees or any forms of continued education which I promote to all yong people working the store. I don’t think the owners are practicing workplace diversity or is this a form of discrimination? I’m thinking of calling out national corporations employee concern number but I will wait for responses.

Answer:

Click here to learn how to document problems at work. Do your absolute best to establish a timeline of events just like they do in the cops shows on TV. If you told your superiors that you where having racial discrimination issues out in the field and they did nothing, but blew it off and said “that’s part of the job”, then you could very likely have a case. It is illegal for the employer to do nothing after such complaints. Document, document, document.

Here is some interesting reading for you, the EEOC Press Releases. Just do a search on that page for “racial discrimination” so you can see how companies like yours are getting sued and having to pay some big bucks.

After you get a good handle on the documentation, then find a lawyer…

You need to make the decisions that are best for your business and family as well as give consideration to the people who work for you. Unfortunately, after issuing a painful but necessary cut to your staff, you still may be accused of discrimination or wrongful termination. Good jobs are hard to come by these days, and employees may try any tactic to keep their positions. You need to be familiar with both federal and state laws that apply to employment practices, as well as know that steps you can take if faced with such a lawsuit.

Let me start with a piece of good news. Texas is one of the friendliest states in terms of employer protection. Our state follows the “employment at will” rule, which means that, with limited exceptions, an employee can be fired without warning and without cause. Even if there is a written contract establishing employment, the employer must specifically indicate that he or she will not terminate anyone except for under certain circumstances, which must be laid out. So, even if you signed on the dotted line when hiring someone to assist you in your office, you likely have retained the right to let that person go at any moment that you choose.

The “at will” policy does reach its boundaries when it comes into conflict with the federal and state laws that are in place to protect employees. Texas employers cannot discriminate against or fire employees who fit into the following categories:

1. Whistle blowers – If any employee reports fraudulent activity or safety or environmental concerns to authorities, this person cannot be fired as a result.

2. Refusing to Break the Law – This should not be surprising. If you ask an employee to commit an illegal act and your request is refused, you may not use this decision as cause for termination.

3. Victim of Discrimination against Protected Class – An employee cannot be fired simply based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age (with exceptions), disability, or for taking maternity or family medical leave

If you are dealing with a former employee who is suing you for discrimination or wrongful termination and his reasoning does not fit into one of the categories listed above, the case should be dismissed quickly. This is certainly the desired outcome, as the cost for further legal defense can be quite difficult for employers to handle. Out of the discrimination claims that are not dismissed outright, eighty-one percent wind up in front of arbitrators of in administrative hearings. These proceedings cost the employer an average of between $22,000 and $40,000. Of course, cases that end up going to trial will be exponentially higher in total cost. An employer’s best course of action is to know his rights and his boundaries when dealing with employees and always to operate within these guidelines.

Keeping up with this issue is crucial for employers because accusations of discrimination are on the rise, both here in Texas and around the country. Age discrimination is one area that perhaps does not get much publicity, but is a growing problem. As shared by Joe Bontke from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “The older the workforce gets, the more age discrimination claims come. 16,585 out of 86,000 cases received in Texas last year were regarding some form of age discrimination.”

This represents a 20% increase in claims since 2004. Section 21 of the Texas Labor Code, as well as the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, protects individuals who are at least forty years old from facing employment discrimination based on age. In addition, charges of racial discrimination in the workplace are at their highest levels nationally since 1994. With the diverse population that resides in Texas, this issue is one that needs to be of concern to all employers. And, with layoffs and office closures continuing to occur in the wake of the current recession, you can be certain that disgruntled employees will be looking for legal reasons to protect their jobs or promotions when paychecks are on the line.

What can you expect if an employee does seek legal action against you? A complaint will be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged wrongdoing. If mediation is available, the EEOC may present this option to both parties as a first step. Mediation is free and the resulting settlements are confidential. If an investigation is determined to be necessary, someone from EEOC will be assigned to the case and embark upon a study of the case that usually takes at least six months.

The EEOC then will send the employee a “right to sue” letter, which indicates that the employee either has a cause for a complaint, no cause for further action, or insufficient evidence to proceed further. Regardless of the decision reached by the EEOC investigator, the employee still has the right to sue you in federal or state court for up to ninety days after receiving the “right to sue” letter. Be prepared for the possibility that an employee who is unhappy with his situation will pursue his or her case to the fullest extent possible.

It is in your best interest to hire an employment attorney as soon as you receive notice that an investigation concerning possible discrimination at your workplace is underway. An experienced lawyer will assist you in the important process of being fully compliant with the request for materials. Your attorney also will be your advocate in presenting the best possible argument in your defense and ensure that all relevant state and federal laws are being applied on your behalf. If you are facing a complaint concerning employment discrimination or wrongful termination, please place a call to an attorney today.

Tony Bertolino is a managing partner of Bertolino LLP, a law firm with offices in Austin, Houston, and San Antonio. Bertolino LLP has attorneys who specialize in the area of business litigation and can assist with issues surrounding employment. Please contact Bertolino LLP to learn how you can be assisted with your legal needs as an employer.

Author: Tony Bertolino
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Low Cost, Quick Turn PCB Prototype

The law firm of Louis H. Watson, Jr., P.A. confirms that a race discrimination lawsuit has been filed against the Mississippi State Senate. Court documents show that Janice Brown filed a race discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the Mississippi State Senate on November 2, 2011. According to the complaint, Ms. Brown claims that she had been employed with the Mississippi State Senate in various staff positions for approximately fifteen (15) years. On May 25, 2010, Ms. Brown was called into the Secretary of the Senate’s office, and was informed that she was being terminated because her services were no longer needed. Later that day Ms. Brown filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging she had been terminated based on her race, which is black.

Court documents show that the Mississippi State Senate informed the EEOC that it terminated Ms. Brown as part of a reduction in force, and that she was selected as Senators and other co-workers had allegedly complained that Ms. Brown either refused or was resistant to perform her job duties. However, during the EEOC’s investigation none of the Senators or co-workers, who had allegedly complained of Ms. Brown’s job performance, corroborated the Mississippi State Senate’s claims during their interviews with the EEOC investigator. The EEOC investigation also found that less experienced and less senior white staff members were retained while Ms. Brown, who is black, was terminated. On August 10, 2011, at the conclusion of the EEOC’s investigation it issued a determination letter that found it was reasonable to believe that Ms. Brown was selected for lay off because of her race. Plaintiff’s counsel Nick Norris stated, “From the evidence we have seen so far, it appears that the Mississippi Senate based its decision to terminate Ms. Brown on her race rather than legitimate business reasons like seniority, experience, or performance.”

The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The case is Janice Brown v. Mississippi State Senate, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-678-WHB-LRA.

###

New York, New York (PRWEB) October 17, 2011

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a number of New York employment discrimination lawyers have seen an increase in age discrimination complaints filed since the economic downturn.

In early 2011, the EEOC reported that private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide hit an unprecedented level of 99,922 during fiscal year 2010.

Age discrimination is an equal opportunity problem. Members of all races, genders industries or regions can be affected, said David Perecman, a New York employment discrimination lawyer with over 30 years of experience handling employment discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace claims in New York.

This year, age discrimination complaints are still being filed. Recently, an age discrimination lawsuit (Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-11732-DJC) was filed by the EEOC against Texas Roadhouse restaurants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Allegedly, the chain of more than 350 eateries rejected older job applicants because of their age and practiced age discrimination in hiring front of the house employees.

According to the employment discrimination lawsuit, the age discrimination in the workplace was “nationwide” and stretched back at least to January 2007.

New York employment discrimination lawyers understand Texas Roadhouse emphasized youth. According to the complaint, Texas Roadhouse allegedly instructed its managers to hire younger job applicants and all of the images of employees in its employment manuals were of young people.

Some employers believe they have an image to maintain but this vision does not override or supersede the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, said employment discrimination lawyer Perecman.

Individuals who believe they may have been treated unfairly because of their age, should contact an experienced New York employment discrimination lawyer. Lawyers at The Perecman Firm are knowledgeable of New York and federal legislation that protects people of all ages, races, and gender.

About David Perecman and The Perecman Firm, PLLC:

For the past 30 years, the New York civil rights violation lawyers at The Perecman Firm, PLLC have handled all types of workplace discrimination and employment discrimination claims in New York including gender discrimination and race discrimination. David Perecman, founder of the Firm, is a Board Director and the past Secretary and Treasurer of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association (NYSTLA) and a chair of its Labor Law Committee. Mr. Perecman’s achievements have brought him recognition as an Honoree in the National Law Journal’s Hall of Fame, in New York Magazine’s “The Best Lawyers in America” and The New York Times Magazine “New York Super Lawyers, Metro Edition” for the years 2007-2010.

The Firm has recovered millions of dollars for its clients. Among the more recent victories, Mr. Perecman won a $ 15 million verdict** for a construction accident, a $ 5.35 million dollar verdict*** for an automobile accident, and a $ 40 million dollar structured settlement for medical malpractice****.

**later settled while on appeal for $ 7.940 million????

*** later settled for $ 3.5 million

**** total potential payout

“Lawyer Advertising”

“Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.”

###

Answer:

Tenure doesn’t matter unless you’re union. There are a lot of lazy people with tenure who shouldn’t be working.

Are you over 40? Do you suspect age discrimination? How was your work performance? What kind of reviews did you get? Were there any problems at work that you were asked to resolve and didn’t? Click here to download this free report for learning how to document problems at work. It will give you some idea for the things you need to collect.

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

If you feel you have an age discrimination claim, you should find a lawyer to get a consultation.

SmartRecruiters, the free recruiting software provider, announces the “Unemployed, Please Apply” campaign on its Zero Unemployment Movement Facebook page. Businesses are asked to take direct action in response to recent reports of discriminatory practices that target the unemployed, including those featured in national news. The message, “Unemployed Need Not Apply” has been explicitly stated in job advertisements, and is under investigation by the US Department of Labor, the EEOC and the National Employment Law Project.

The pledge campaign from SmartRecruiters asks businesses to commit to interview at least one unemployed candidate for every job opening by pledging on social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) through https://www.facebook.com/#!/zerounemployment?sk=app_249196291797196

Unfortunately, discrimination against the unemployed is a harsh reality for millions of Americans. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission calls the prescreening of unemployed candidates an “emerging practice.” In a recent survey, SmartRecruiters found that 82% of recruiters, hiring managers, and human resources professionals, report the existence of discrimination against the unemployment.

“The tolerance for discrimination against the unemployed deeply upsets me,” said SmartRecruiters CEO Jerome Ternynck. “There is an unwritten rule that unemployed candidates just aren’t qualified. Our survey revealed that 55% of recruiters and HR managers have ‘personally experienced resistance when presenting qualified yet unemployed candidates to clients/colleagues.’ Not only is this bad business, it’s also unfair and needs stop right now!”

“Because a person isn’t working, it doesn’t mean they don’t have skills,” said Bonnie Elsey, president of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, at Facebook’s announcement for their Social Jobs Partnership with the US Department of Labor, NACE, State Work Force, and Direct Employers.

Isabelle Englund-Geiger interviews unemployed candidates for every open position at her company, Benz Communications. She said, “Discarding currently-unemployed candidates is very short-sighted. If didn’t equally evaluate unemployed candidates, we would have missed out on many of our most successful hires, including our office manager, a senior-level bi-lingual writer and some of our top consultants.”

The SmartRecruiters survey also shows that many hiring managers are under misconception that 29% of unemployed job seekers are “unemployed for a reason” and 23% of unemployed job seekers are “probably not qualified.”

“I am very disturbed when I hear that employers don’t want to even look at resumes of people that have been out of work for 6 months or just (are) unemployed,” said the Depart of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis at Facebook’s Social Jobs Announcement Oct. 20. “It’s as though people have created this problem themselves, and that’s just not true.”

To help end discrimination against the unemployed, visit and pledge “Unemployed, Please Apply” at https://www.facebook.com/#!/zerounemployment?sk=app_249196291797196

About SmartRecruiters SmartRecruiters provides free recruiting software that makes hiring easy for thousands of businesses around the world. Leveraging the power of a free open Software as a Service (SaaS) platform and pervasive social networks, SmartRecruiters is democratizing access to top talent for the largest hiring segment – the over 99% of businesses that employ less than 2,500 people. In April 2011, SmartRecruiters launched the Zero Unemployment Movement to support the company’s purpose of eradicating unemployment globally. SmartRecruiters, based in San Francisco CA, was founded in 2010 by Jerome Ternynck, a recognized recruiting thought leader and pioneer of the recruiting software industry.

To schedule an interview with Jerome?Ternynck the founder of Zero Unemployment and learn more about the Zero Unemployment Movement, please contact Jessica Miller-Merrell at 405.293.2564 or via email at blogging4jobs(at)me(dot)com.

This press release was distributed through PR Web by Human Resources Marketer (HR Marketer: http://www.HRmarketer.com) on behalf of the company listed above.

###