www.humanresourcesjournal.com » Home

New York Tire Company Faces Charges of Sexual Discrimination in Hiring

karmstrong — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:36:43 +0000

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Mavis Discount Tire, a supplier of tires and automotive parts and services based in Millwood, NY. The suit alleges that the company refused to employ females for numerous available positions, in contrast to some of the applicants being more than qualified.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, since at least 2008, only a single woman has been employed in certain positions at Mavis Discount Tire, out of nearly 800 employees. These positions include the company’s store and service center jobs such as tire installers, mechanics, assistant managers, managers, and similar work. The EECO further claimed that, between 2008 and 2010, there were around 1,300 persons hired, and none of the applicants chosen were female. Allegedly, Mavis had failed to maintain applications, which the EEOC notes is a distinctly separate violation of federal law. But even of the applications made available, women with reportedly superior credentials and experience were not hired while men with fewer qualifications found employment.

Mavis’ alleged conduct seems to denote a routine process of discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII has a specific section for “unlawful employment practices.” It’s considered unlawful to fail or refuse to hire, or engage in any discriminatory acts against, a person based on gender, as well as race, color, religion or national origin. Likewise, an employer cannot “limit, segregate or classify” workers or applicants based on such conditions and consequently deprive a person of employment or unfavorably affect employment.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. An attempt to conciliate the matter with the potential for a pre-litigation settlement was apparently not successful. The suit is looking to recover past and future wages for the qualified female applicants rejected, instatement for the positions the women were denied, and injunctive relief (a court order that requires the company refrain from such practices in the future).

“The EEOC is uniquely positioned to challenge systematic hiring discrimination,” P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC, said in an EEOC press release. “Where necessary, we are prepared to use litigation to hold employers accountable for depriving qualified applicants of job opportunities, simply because of their sex.”

Anna M. Pohl, trial attorney in the New York District Office, added, “Women have been working in traditionally all-male fields like automotive services and sales for quite a while, but Mavis seems to be stuck in the past.” Another attorney working the case, Gillian L. Thomas, summarized the lawsuit by stating that “evidence of sex discrimination doesn’t get much starker than having just one woman employee out of eight hundred.”

Mavis Discount Tire additionally operates as Mavis Tire Supply Corporation and Mavis Tire NY and owns Cole Muffler, Inc. The company has approximately 110 facilities throughout the northeast. The EEOC’s New York District Office, in addition to New York, has jurisdiction over Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and portions of New Jersey.

Employees Arriving Late More Often, with More Excuses

karmstrong — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:41:10 +0000

Arriving late at work is bound to happen to everyone at some point. It generally isn’t a concern for your boss so long as it’s not a frequent occurrence or your excuse is believable. A recently study published by CareerBuilder at the company’s website showed that employees are not afraid to stroll in a little late on a regular basis, nor are they short with colorful reasons as to why they’re tardy.

According to the report, 16 percent of employees said that they’re late to work once a week or more, while 27 percent come in late at least monthly. Flexible work schedules and corresponding start times have made many employers more lenient, but repeatedly coming in late to work can still have dire consequences. Over a third of the employers surveyed stated that they have fire a worker for tardiness.

“Punctuality, or lack thereof, can impact how your commitment, reliability and performance are perceived by your employer,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. “One of the best ways to make sure you get to work on time is to get organized and plan ahead. Lay out whatever you’ll need for the workday the night before, plan to be at the office early, account for expected commute delays and eliminate distractions in your morning routine.”

The cause most often cited in the survey for lateness was traffic, at 31 percent. Other excuses included lack of sleep (18%), bad weather (11%) and getting children to school or daycare (8%). Employers likewise blamed tardiness on such things as public transportation delays, pets, spouses, watching television and surfing the Internet.

Hiring managers also provided examples of some of the more preposterous excuses for being late. One employee said that the cat had the hiccups, while another believed that she had won the lottery, though, as it happened, she had not. The Today Show proved distracting for one worker, and an irate roommate cutting the cord to a phone charger – thereby preventing the phone from charging and its alarm going off – kept another employee from making it to work on time. Employees have also blamed the commute itself (it should count towards work hours), a fox (it stole the car keys), a personal call from the state governor (a legitimate excuse), and early hours (having no intention of arriving before 9:00 am, despite an 8:00 am start time). One worker’s excuse was having a leg stuck between the subway car and the platform, an excuse that was completely true, and another employee was late due to a job interview… with another firm.

The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of CareerBuilder between November 9 and December 5, 2011. A total of 7,780 full-time U.S. employees (not self-employed or government) and 3,023 hiring managers and HR professionals from various industries and company sizes participated in the survey.

Arkansas Mayor Sued by Former City Employee

vassallo — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:42:01 +0000

Bryant, Arkansas mayor Jill Dabbs has been sued by the city’s former human resources director, Shayne King. King has been silent for the past year regarding her firing from city hall but has decided to tell her side of the story now. Dabbs has called the majority of King’s claims false even though King says we should let the court decide if they are false or not.

Randy Coger, a resident of Bryant, has shown support for Dabbs.

“She’s morally correct, she’s got a ton of patience, she’s a humble lady,” Coger said. Coger also said that Dabbs has helped to cut some of the fat in city hall during her tenure.

“She can’t sneeze without them blowing it out of proportion,” Coger said.

King filed a lawsuit against Dabbs, who fired King in January of 2011, that asks for $333,000 in damages. The lawsuit was also filed against the city of Bryant.

“She has been very vocal on several occasions about why she did not reappoint me, and unfortunately those things do not match,” King said.

The lawsuit filed against Dabbs and the city claims wrongful discharge and claims that the discharge occurred after King had a discussion with Dabbs about her salary. The lawsuit also claims that King was terminated after King did not meet a deadline of three days to have a background check performed for the interim police chief. Dabbs wanted the interim police chief in place by the time she took office.

“I feel like I made an extra effort between the election date and the beginning of the year to provide as much information as I could,” King said.

King claims that the effort included working during vacation time to prepare items for Dabbs’ first day on the job. The lawsuit filed also claims that Dabbs made slanderous comments about King in the media.

“I feel like it hampered my ability to find work,” King said.

King has found a new job but still wonders why she lost her old one that she held for more than 12 years with Bryant.

“My evaluations were all above average for each year that I was there,” King said.

Supporters of the mayor feel that this lawsuit is simply another attack on the mayor.

“They are just playing games, just trying to make the mayor look bad,” Coger said.

Dabbs has told various media outlets in the Bryant area that the conversation between her and King about her salary never occurred. Dabbs also said that King met the deadline for the background check on the interim police chief so she does not understand where that accusation comes from in the lawsuit.

The only thing Dabbs has said about the firing of King is that King “wasn’t a good fit for her administration.”

Napa Hires Top Candidate for City Position

vassallo — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:41:11 +0000

The Napa civil service system operated for nine months without having a permanent head but the city now has hired a permanent person for the job. Beginning on February 13, Nicole Bilich will become the city’s personnel director and civil service manager. She will oversee the civil service system that Napa voters created back in the 1960s. The former director, Veronica Hodge, resigned from the position resigned back in September after serving just five months in the position.

Hodge said that some reasons for her departure were problems with the human resources department for the city, which was created in the fall of 2010. Hodge claims that the new department superseded her duties and repeatedly violated the civil service system. She said this made it impossible to do her job to the best of her ability.

The chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Bill Jabin, said that the commission hopes Bilich will fit in well with the city but did say that time will tell.

“She has an extensive background in (human resources) and personnel,” Jabin said. “It seems like she’s going to get along well with everybody.”

Close to 25 people applied for the open position, with the top seven candidates interviewed by a committee that included city and county staff and a community member. The Civil Service Commission then interviewed the top three candidates for the job.

The commission was never told how the top three candidates were ranked by the interview committee. But, after the hire, the commission found out that the committee ranked Bilich as its top choice. Bilich works in Sacramento in the human resources industry. She said that she is excited to bring positive change to Napa while updating policies and processes.

Beginning in 2005, Bilich worked in human resources and the department of information technology for the city of Sacramento. She was promoted to run the city’s department of utilities in 2010. At that time she worked on a merger with one of the department’s divisions with another department within the city.

“I think (Bilich) has the skill set that will make her a good fit for this city,” said Paul Hicks, vice chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

The human resources director for Napa, Karyn Ezell, said that she had not met Bilich yet but was hopeful that she will perform well with the city and the position. Ezell said that Dave Falk, the interim personnel director, has been working for the past couple of months to define the director position.

“(Falk) took a lot of time to carefully define what the job entails and what is necessary for success,” Ezell said. “We’re really hopeful this is a good fit.”

Proposed Changes to Expand Coverage for Military FMLA

karmstrong — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:32:30 +0000

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced proposed changes to military FMLA (Family Medical and Leave Act). The DOL issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would expand family leave for those in the military, as well as instigate a special eligibility provision for airline flight crew employees.

The FMLA, signed into law in 1993, offers protection for employees taking leave for reasons related to family and medical. It allows such employees to remain covered under a group health plan during an absence from work. Twelve workweeks in a 12-month period are allotted for a birth or newborn child, placement of an employee with a child for adoption or foster and care for said child within one year, care for an immediate family with a health condition, the employee’s own care, and any exigency (urgent need) with relation to an active military family member. Twenty-six workweeks within 12 months are covered to allow an employee to care for a servicemember who’s ailing or injured.

The proposed changes would permit an employee to take leave during or following an immediate family member’s deployment for matters related to the person’s service (e.g., military briefings, financial or legal arrangements). The 26-workweek option would be extended to care for family members who are veterans with an illness or injury that occurred in the line of duty, including conditions that have arisen only after the veteran had left the service. The amount of time to spend with a family member while on rest or recuperation would likewise be extended, from five and up to 15 days. The FMLA coverage, which currently only covers the National Guard for qualification of exigency leave, would also extend to family members serving in the armed forces.

The proposed revision for airline flight crew employees would add a special hours of service eligibility requirement and specific alterations for calculating the amount of FMLA leave. The hours that crew members work are difficult to track, and the proposed changes are intended as a more accurate and simpler way in which to take the hours into account.

“Keeping the basic promise of America alive means ensuring that workers, from our servicemen and servicewomen who keep us safe at home to the flight crews who keep us safe in the skies, have the resources, support and opportunities they need and have rightfully earned,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis in a press release. “The proposed revisions… are an important step toward keeping that promise.”

Secretary Solis discussed the amendments at Joining Forces for Caregivers, an event held Monday, January 30th, in Washington, D.C. Also speaking were First Lady Michelle Obama and RyAnne Noss, wife and caregiver of an Army Ranger injured in Afghanistan. In reference to the DOL’s proposed FMLA changes, the First Lady stated that “these new rules will make a real difference for our military families in so many ways, and remember, these protections are simply a few of the many steps this administration has already taken on behalf of our caregivers.”

Forklift Operator Alleges Retaliation, Defamation

karmstrong — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:53:37 +0000

A forklift operator working at a warehouse in Mounds View, Minnesota, was fired for violating various company policies. His response? He sued his former employers for retaliation and a co-worker for defamation.

Back in September of 2008, the plaintiff, who is white, testified on behalf of a black worker whose employment was recently terminated. The company had fired the black employee for repeatedly failing to sign a forklift checkout sheet. The man filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination, claiming that other employees likewise did not sign the sheet but had not been similarly disciplined. The plaintiff, along with a couple of other workers, essentially confirmed this claim in depositions. The company subsequently settled with the employee. Afterwards the warehouse general manager spoke to the three workers who had provided testimony and a fourth employee. Two of the men were issued disciplinary warnings, neither of whom were the plaintiff.

A couple of months later, another worker had been authorized to begin and end his shifts one hour early. Some employees questioned the reasons for the shorter shifts, and the plaintiff complained to the general manager, who called the worker into his office. Following the meeting, the man went home and committed suicide.

One of the man’s friends began telling employees that the plaintiff’s complaint was “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” stating that he “was the reason for [the man’s] death.” In the presence of other workers, the plaintiff confronted the employee making the allegations and acted in a hostile manner, bumping into him and challenging the man to strike him. Continued aggressive conduct, witnessed by other workers, led the employee to file a written complaint against the plaintiff.

The company’s headquarters in Virginia sent an HR specialist to investigate. The specialist found an abundance of incidents of misconduct from the plaintiff, as alleged by fellow workers. These included: refusing to sign the company rules, yelling at an HR employee in 2004, physically intimidating another worker, stopping his forklift and staring at the worker who’d made the previous comments, and other claims. The HR specialist recommended termination, and the plaintiff was fired in April of 2009. A grievance filed by his union was not pursued. He filed a lawsuit against the company and the general manager for retaliation and the worker whom he had challenged for defamation.

The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on both counts. On appeal, the plaintiff’s argument for retaliation was that his misconduct was a pretext for his testimony in 2008. The appeals court, however, stated that the man had failed to prove a causal connection between the testimony given and his termination. With respect to the defamation, no one had disputed the comments made against the plaintiff. The court believed that the man’s statements did not express “objectively verifiable facts.” In other words, they were clearly speculation and not intended to be factual or convey the belief that they were fact. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the company, the general manager and the employee in question.

Niagara Falls Has Four Top Ranking City Positions Vacant

vassallo — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:38:53 +0000

Niagara Falls Mayor Paul A. Dyster’s efforts to find the best and the brightest to fill the highest positions within the city through nationwide searches have failed multiple times.

There are four vacant positions within the city; community development director, fire chief, human resource director and NFC Development Corporation director. Dyster recently said that the city does not have any cash to conduct another national search.

“Which is good. I’m glad to hear that,” Council Chairman Sam Fruscione said. “I think we should promote from within.”

There is a long list of city employees hired by the mayor from out of town that did not work out at all. That list includes Fire Chief Roger Melchior from Florida. He was fired because he made inappropriate comments on a website and then lied about doing so. Another bad hire was Peter Kay from Ohio. Kay was fired after not making any progress as the city’s economic development director. From California, Ali Marzban was fired because he was an unlicensed city engineer.

“The only person that is of high quality, who was found in the nationwide search, is (Corporate Council) Craig Johnson from Tonawanda,” Fruscione said. “Otherwise, there’s nobody on the ship. It’s a disappointment. (Dyster’s) most successful employees are the ones that live in the city of Niagara Falls and work in the city of Niagara Falls. They should be given the first opportunity for advancement,” Fruscione said.

Fruscione also described Dyster as the following:

“This guy moves so slow that we continually have vacancies. It hampers progress for the city,” Fruscione said.

“The bottom line is it could be a smoother transition if they were to promote from within. What’s the point of working for the city for twenty years if you’re never going to get promoted?”

Fruscione said that Clara Dunn and Tom Tedesco should have the chance to climb the ladder in NFC because they are both qualified for the position and both are residents of Niagara Falls.

Fruscione said, “They said they are going to interview the applicants and make appointments.”

Bob Anderson, a city councilman, said, “The council doesn’t do the hiring. Dyster should be open with what we’re trying to do. It’s behind closed doors. We can’t put a gun to their heads and force them to hire people. We’re not privy to the (application and hiring process). How are you going to replace that knowledge? They’re going to try to circumvent it with dollars. Sad. Scary.”

City councilman Glenn Choolokian said, “The sad part is that the council has no part in it. We have qualified people right in the departments themselves. They should be promoted from within.”

“In Human Resources, you have a qualified person with over 25 years of experience filling the position. That person could be hired. In Community Development, same thing: There are qualified people with a lot of years in. They should be looking right there. In Economic Development’s NFC, you have two employees there who have been there for years. Both of those are well respected in the community, they should not be looking any further than those. For fire chief, the Niagara Falls Fire Department is probably one of the best in Western New York. There are so many qualified people already in the department. Nobody knows the city or the Fire Department like the workers in the Fire Department. There are so many guys that should be promoted. No out-of-towners. The council is definitely for promoting from within,” Choolokian said.

Abilene Women Find Employers Treat Pregnancies with Support

vassallo — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:02:54 +0000

Pregnancy-based discrimination was outlawed back in 1978 by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Prior to the enactment of the law, employers would fire women employees who became pregnant or force them to take unpaid leave, according to the National Partnership for Woman & Families.

Malcolm Coco, a professor of human resource management at Abilene Christian University, said that the majority of companies are working to accommodate women in the final months of their pregnancy nowadays. Coco said that should a doctor recommend that a woman not perform any heavy lifting will now be followed by companies.

“Most companies would be very agreeable to making those accommodations,” Coco said.

Abilene treats pregnancy similar to any other medical condition.

“We just would treat it as a qualifying medical situation and work with the employee to determine if there are any needs or limitations associated with the pregnancy,” said Ronnie Kidd, the city’s managing director for administration.

The National Partnership for Woman & Families’ director for workplace fairness, Sarah Crawford, said that the current law is very clear when it comes to the treatment of pregnant workers.

“To the extent that employers provide light duty to similarly based workers, then that similar light duty should be offered to pregnant workers,” Crawford said.

Still, there are pregnant workers who complain about being treated unfairly. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the fiscal year 2011 received 5,797 complaints claiming pregnancy discrimination.

“It’s a lot beyond just firing a worker who is pregnant. Discrimination can take a more hidden form. A lot of women are not hired, particularly when they are noticeably pregnant,” Crawford said.

Crawford also said that some employers that are considering a new hire “make assumptions about a worker who is pregnant and whether she will be a good worker or whether she may have a need for leave, which may or may not be the case. One thing that probably needs to change is the perception that pregnancy will always limit a woman’s ability to do her job.”

An assistant professor of education at Hardin-Simmons University, Emily Dean, said that she did not encounter any problems with her employer while maintaining her regularly assigned teaching requirements. She described her supervisor as “really understanding for doctors’ appointments and those kinds of situations.”

Dean’s son Hayes was born five weeks early last year but that did not cause any problems with her employer even though she was unable to proctor final exams.

“I think if you’re in a more male dominated profession, it may not be as easy to navigate that situation,” Dean said.

The president of the local chapter of the American Postal Workers Union, Judy Glossup, claims that pregnant employees tend to work well into their pregnancies.

“Most of them worked pretty much as close to their due date as they can, and then most of them come back to work around six weeks after the birth,” Glossup said.

Walmart to Pay $275,000 for Not Accommodating Employee After Cancer Surgery

karmstrong — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:46:28 +0000

Popular retail store chain Walmart will be paying monetary compensation to settle a disability lawsuit. The settlement, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a former employee of the company, will also include nonmonetary relief.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit back in October of 2010. In the suit, Walmart was charged with a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee who had cancer surgery, rendering the man with a weakness in his right shoulder. The employee had worked at the company’s East Tennessee distribution center #6039 in Midway, TN, for 12 years. Following his surgery, he worked as a forklift driver. He submitted a request and asked that it not be a requirement for the man to cover a 20-minute break in the shipping department, as it would entail manual lifting. The request was denied, and the man’s employment was subsequently terminated. The company claimed that the firing was due to the employee being unable to perform functions deemed essential for the job.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greenville Division also alleged retaliation, claiming that the man was fired for complaining of the company’s refusal to accommodate his condition. Through its conciliation process, the EEOC initially tried reaching a pre-litigation settlement before filing suit.

Any company that denies reasonable accommodation or retaliates against a disabled employee violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This lawsuit was one of the first filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), signed into law in September of 2008. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify the definition of the term, “disability,” and to simplify the process of seeking protection under the ADA. According to the EEOC, the Act underlines that “the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA” and, for the most part, “not require extensive analysis.”

The settlement agreed upon by Walmart and the EEOC is an 18-month consent decree in which the company will be paying the former employee 275,000 dollars. The distribution center #6309 has also been enjoined (prohibited by law) from additional failures to provide reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, or follow procedures to properly handle such requests per the ADA and the ADAAA. The company will also provide anti-disability discrimination training to management staff, maintain records of accommodation requests and submit said records to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees concerning the lawsuit, with the inclusion of EEOC contact information. Walmart’s accommodation policy, available for all employees, has likewise been amended to address the accommodation issues.

In an EEOC press release, Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, said, “There is a solid body of federal law that clearly obligates employers to provide an employee with a reasonable accommodation unless it poses an undue hardship. The EEOC remains committed to vigorously enforcing the ADA and the ADAAA.”

Lawsuit Alleging Racial Discrimination and Retaliation

vassallo — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:50:45 +0000

A lawsuit has recently been made against the Sam Houston State University, claiming that the university is guilty of both racial discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuit was filed within the United States Court in the Southern District of Teas in the middle of January.

An African American woman, Angel Lamb is suing the university stating that they denied her of a raise or a promotion simply because she is African American. She believes that her race played a major role in the reason why she was never promoted and never received a raise. The former interim direct of the Human Resource department, David White, took his position within the HR department in the beginning of 2009. According to the lawsuit, this is when the racial discrimination first started. Lamb says that she even worked right under the HR Associate Director, Cynthia Bennett.

In the lawsuit, Lamb says, “After White’s promotion, White and Bennett targeted three black HR employees in an effort to get them to quit and ‘cleanse’ the HR department.” Lamb is currently working as an associate within this department and has been employed with the university for two decades.

In the lawsuit, Lamb claims that she often received reviews for her performance at her place of work until White received his promotions. She says after she received her promotion, she received a poor review of her job performance. This took place in February of 2009. The lawsuit says, “This poor review caused her to be denied for a raise, which the white employees at her level received.”

The lawsuit also states that this situation occurred once again in June of 2008 but that every single person received a raise aside from the black (African American) employees. Aside from filing racial discrimination against the university, she also claims that she received retaliation for making complaints about the problem to the supervisor.

In April of 2010, she filed a grievance about not receiving a promotion. After doing so, she received a warning from Bennett. The lawsuit states,”[Lamb] allegedly internally identified the name of a newly hired employee, although there is no known policy regarding this issue.” It also states, “This warning has since been used to further subjugate Lamb and ‘keep her in her place.’ The warning was held over Lamb’s head and she was frequently reminded that, ‘there is consideration of suspension without pay and it is currently under review.’”

Lamb is also suing for damages and the costs that have to do with the lawsuit, including lawyer fees. The university refused to comment and lawyers were not available for comment on the lawsuit either. When officials were asked, they were unaware of the current lawsuit that was taking place and could not comment.