Employer Discrimination by Disparate Impact

Employer Discrimination by Disparate Impact by Robert J. Valli
{Read in 3:30 minutes}  In my last article, I discussed a pattern of discrimination in terms of the disparate impact on African Americans. But what does “disparate impact” mean?  In 1971 the Supreme Court adopted the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Court invalidated an employer’s requirement that applicants have a high school diploma and/or pass aptitude tests for hire and transfer into more desirable departments where prior to the enactment of Title VII the company had restricted blacks to labor positions. Specifically, the Court stated:

The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude [blacks] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited . . . Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation.Continue reading

Supervisor sues Omni hotels, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation when she reported it

A former supervisor with Omni Hotels & Resorts has filed suit against the Dallas-based company, alleging sexual harassment and saying the company broke federal laws governing equal pay.Continue reading

Wage Theft Prevention Act: Redundant Bureaucracy or Employer Protection?

No state in the Union has taken more steps to protect its workers and employees than the state of New York. However, critics say the state went too far with the Wage Theft Protection Act. This act caps off what some industry leaders—especially in construction—call an explosion of bureaucratic red tape that renders New York business unprofitable and untenable. The law’s proponents have commented that the new Wage Theft Protection Act may actually protect New York’s employers from horrific, small business-destroying lawsuits. Read on for the basics of the WTPA debate.
As of February 1, the act requires that workers be notified of their wages annually. The WTPA Pay Rate form must include how much the employee is paid and when, the name and address of the employer, and allowances. The new form must be provided in English, and the employee’s primary language, if applicable. New York’s Labor Department provides translations in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Polish, and Haitian Creole. Failure to comply will result in fines up to $50 weekly.
Businesses have complained that the new paperwork burden will cost the state’s industry millions, and that the law will do little to curb shady work practices. The Wage Theft Protection Act is essentially, say critics, bureaucracy without function. However, the law may provide advantages to employers.  For example, the WTPA may prevent lawsuits from employees that sue over pay disputes.  As paperwork is a key component in all legal proceedings, this paperwork functions to protect employers in the event a dispute over pay turns into litigation.
Only time will tell if the WTPA changes the way New York does business for the better. America’s economic turmoil has been felt deeply in New York State. Entrepreneurs most often call for deregulation, citing that decreased laws and streamlined businesses will turn NY’s economy around. However, most would agree that employees need protection as well, and the WTPA’s goal is to provide that.
As the Wage Theft Protection Act forces your employers into documenting information relating to your wages, you may become aware that your employer has not been paying you properly or depriving you of certain rights relating to your pay.  If you are involved in a wage dispute in New York, then you may benefit by speaking to an employment lawyer. An expert employment attorney can help you understand the complexities of New York workplace law as it relates to you and will vigorously fight for your right to fair pay. Do not let yourself be victimized. Call the law offices of Valli Kane & Vagnini. LLP now at (866) 441-2873 and get one of NY’s most experienced and accomplished employment attorneys on your side.

The Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 – Eliminating a Catch-22

law, jobs, unemployment, The Fair Employment Opportunity Act, NYC employment attorneys
NYC employment attorneys have pointed out that the Equal employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public hearing. A disturbing trend triggered this hearing. Several companies had been discriminating against job applicants who were unemployed. These job applicants had been excluded from any hiring consideration. Some even ran ads saying that a candidate would only be considered if employed. Ads would have statement like “Unemployed candidates will not be considered at all” or “No candidate will be considered by client if not currently employed, whatever the reason.” The same NYC employment attorneys also point that however disturbing and discriminatory this may seem, it is legal. At least for now.


The Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 is designed to prohibit employers and employment agencies from using unemployment as a sole factor to screen out or exclude job candidate.Employment, job, economy, job search, NYC employment attorneys
In this time of severe recession, many workers are merely victims of the economy. However, as NYC employment attorneys have noted, many employers hang on to the outmoded idea that unemployed people are somehow damaged, are poor workers and weak links.
Employers and staffing firms are not correcting this issue on their own. In fact, the NELP says that these firms are continuing to deny job openings to unemployed candidates.
This is a demoralizing double whammy to those who have lost a job and learn they will not be considered for new openings because they are not working. This old Catch 22 states that you have to have a job to get a job. The fact is there are currently highly qualified, skilled, experienced workers who cannot seem to get their foot in the door because they lost a job through no fault of their own. The NYC employment attorneys state that this makes no sense from a business standpoint.Employment, job, economy,
The Fair employment Opportunity Act of 2011 is designed to stop employers and employment agencies from discriminating against job candidates who are not working. The job search environment is already tough. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that there is one job opening for every five unemployed workers and the job crises has a long way to go.
 
The NYC employment attorneys are confident that this new legislation will eliminate the discriminatory practices that are making a long term unemployment problem even worse. Apparently, this legislation has strong support and, if enacted, unemployed job candidates should get a fairer shot at job openings.

Employment and the Expansion of Disability Claims

New York Employment AttorneyThe rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expand the protection granted employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These rules were authorized by the ADA Amendments (ADAA) and were passed by Congress in 2008. The results are a significant expansion of the number of individuals claiming ADA protection.
Americans with disabilities are a large and economically disadvantaged group. The goals of ADA mandates are similar to civil rights. One goal is to make sure people with disabilities have access to employment. In the past, employers traditionally shut out disabled people from employment. A second goal is to increase job opportunities for disabled. As a group, people with disabilities earn less than people without disabilities. Employers that will be affected. Employers that employ 15 or more employees who work for at least twenty calendar weeks within a year. The EEOC points out that tracking this can become rather complicated and recommends staying in close communication to ensure compliance. Broad is the protection. The ADAA has expanded the definition of “disability”. As a result, employees will have a much easier time when seeking the law’s protection.
Do I fall under this broad coverage? According to the EEOC, an individual with a disability is a person who:
Long Island Employment Attorney

  • Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
  • Has a record of such an impairment; or
  • Is regarded as having such an impairment.

The key is how limited you are in performing your major life activities. For example, doctors may have diagnosed you as being clinically depressed. However, you may not be qualified for coverage because you are not substantially limited in performing major life activities.
 What are my rights?If you are covered under the ADA, your employer must make “reasonable accommodations” as long it does not cause the employer “undue hardship”. Undue hardship for the employer means it would cause significant difficulty or expense. Reasonable accommodation can take many forms, but some common examples are included here:

  •  Part time and job sharing
  • Flexible schedules
  • Time off for doctor’s appointments, support groups and therapy
  • Flexible break time to meet individual needs
  • Additional leave time

Discrimination Attorney New York
 Filing a Charge. If you think an employer has discriminated against you because of your disability, you may file at the nearest EEOC office or find an experienced employment attorney. If you have no office in your area, it can usually be over the phone.

13 workers file discrimination lawsuit against Dallas water department

By RUDOLPH BUSH / The Dallas Morning News rbush@dallasnews.com
Published 17 December 2009 11:56 AM
Thirteen Dallas Water Utilities employees filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against City Hall on Wednesday, alleging a pattern of racial discrimination and retaliation dating back years.
The suit paints a picture of the city’s water department as a racially divided institution where discrimination is a normal practice.
Lead plaintiff Leroy White, a black electrician, said he has been subjected to racial slurs and drawings denigrating blacks as he was passed over for promotions for less qualified white employees.
White and the other plaintiffs said they have long been subjected to more work and higher scrutiny than white employees.
“It’s common practice. It’s just the way things are done in the water department,” White said.
In a statement, a city spokesman responded that City Hall has not acted unlawfully or tolerated discrimination.
“The city has not had an opportunity to review all of the allegations. However, many of the allegations concern specific incidents that are several years old, about which the city took corrective measures regarding these situations at the time the allegations were first reported,” the statement said.
The allegations portray a department where workers are segregated by race and where some white employees resort to threats, bribery and deceit to discredit complaints and keep the plaintiffs from being promoted.
Jay Ellwanger, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he and his clients met with Mayor Tom Leppert and City Manager Mary Suhm earlier this year.
Despite that meeting, nothing was done about his clients’ complaints, he said.
The plaintiffs include 11 blacks, one Hispanic and one Asian.
They are seeking unspecified monetary damages and a correction to the alleged discrimination in Water Utilities, Ellwanger said.
In addition to White, the plaintiffs include Terrence Marshall, Arturo Garza, Clement Bernard, Faye Jackson, James Yellowfish, Jewell Taylor, Kevin Gillum, Kevin McArthur, Marcus Greer, Micheal Roberts, Roderick Tolor and Thai Nguyen.