Today, we will have a lesson on the differences between “direct” and “circumstantial” evidence of discrimination. Continue reading
It wasn’t long ago that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission noticed a spike in reports of mistreatment and harassment of Asian Americans and other people of Asian descent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Continue reading
You (soft) served up one pun too many, Eric.
Geez! I might have blown my chance at drafting press releases for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Then again, anything is popsicle when you’re the cream of the crop.
Welcome back to “Amy Coney Barrett Week” at The Employer Handbook.
I’m devoting five blog posts to some of her most significant employment law decisions so that, maybe, we can read the tea leaves to see how she may rule from the Supreme Court bench if the Senate confirms her nomination.
On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC believes that the use of criminal record history and other background checks can have a disparate impact by disproportionately screening out certain minorities without any business-related need.
Remember yesterday’s post?
If not, then out of concern for you, I suggest that you see a doctor. Because after all, we’re talking about a post from just one day ago.
Either way, to get you back up to speed, yesterday I blogged about an employer that was required to pay $100K to a worker it fired for making racist Facebook posts. That was because an arbitrator concluded that the employer knew about the employee’s racist behavior online but did nothing about it for several months until the media reported it.