Bending iPhone6’s? Derek Jeter’s last home game in Yankee pinstripes? Attorney General Eric Holder to resign?

Bah!

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the one stealing the headlines yesterday — err, doing something that I decided to be most blogworthy.

Details on two historic lawsuits after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Wouldn’t it be great if two employment lawyers, one representing employees, another representing management, would discuss the employment-law implications of social media in the workplace on a Twitter chat? Then some other lawyers could chime in. And we’d have a moderator.

What’s the word I’m looking for? Dorky? A little. But no dorkier than what the rest of you dorks discuss on Twitter.

Well, anyway, we did all this yesterday. If you missed it, keep one eye open tonight; I’m coming for you in your sleep here it is!


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http':’https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+”://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”);

Earlier this year, the EEOC filed a federal lawsuit against CVS in which it claimed that drugstore chain “conditioned the receipt of severance benefits for certain employees on an overly broad severance agreement set forth in five pages of small print.” Specifically, the EEOC took issue with several common provisions that you guys probably use in your severance agreements:

  • a general release;
  • a non-disparagement obligation;
  • a confidentiality provision;
  • a covenant not to sue; or
  • a cooperation clause

But don’t go throwing your severance agreements in the trash just yet.

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

So, yesterday, it was all about some House Republicans introducing legislation to constrain the enforcement efforts of the EEOC. Then, I read this story from Ramsey Cox at TheHill.com. It seems some Senate Republicans are taking aim at the National Labor Relations Board.

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Halftime of the Eagles-Colts game. So, I only have 15 minutes to crank this one out. Here we go…

Two new bills in the House to watch.

1. The Litigation Oversight Act of 2014: This bill would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the EEOC Commissions to decide by “majority vote whether the Commission shall commence or intervene in litigation involving multiple plaintiffs, or an allegation of systemic discrimination or a pattern or practice of discrimination.”

I give this somewhere between between a snowball’s chance in hell and hell freezes over chance of passing.

2. The Certainty in Enforcement Act of 2014 would also amend Title VII to allow employers “to engage in an employment practice that is required by Federal, State, or local law, in an area such as, but not limited to, health care, childcare, in-home services, policing, security, education, finance, employee benefits, and fiduciary duties.” The intent here is to hamstring the EEOC from scrutinizing background checks of current and potential employees.

Like my daughter in a bumper car, this too shouldn’t get far.

Continue reading

Over the weekend, I read this CareerBuilder poll, which found that the majority of workers don’t aspire to leadership roles. Here are the numbers:

One in 5 workers (20 percent) feel his or her organization has a glass ceiling – an unseen barrier preventing women and minorities from reaching higher job levels.

However, when looking only at workers who aspire to management and senior management positions, the percentage increases to 24 percent and is even higher among females (33 percent), Hispanics (34 percent), African Americans (50 percent) and workers with disabilities (59 percent).

The kicker is that only 9% of white men think there is a glass ceiling for women and minorities at their organization. The disparity in perception is startling. The actual numbers aren’t any easier to swallow. According to this 2013 Forbes article, “only 1% of the nation’s Fortune 500 CEOs are black. Only 4% are women. And not a single one is openly gay.”

Does overt discrimination have something to do with it? I can’t point to a particular study, but I’d be foolish to say no. But, this more recent article from Jonathan Segal, highlights the effect of subtle bias on the relative lack of female and minority business leaders.

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading