That may be sugar coating it a bit.
A county employee, who applied for a lateral transfer, and ultimately received that transfer, was able to convince two judges on a federal appellate court that the transfer was discriminatory.
That’s right. An employee may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested.
According to a recent study soon to appear in the Journal of Management, not only is Facebook a horrible predictor of how younger recruits will perform for your business — there is absolutely zero correlation between Facebook activity and job performance — but those who rely upon Facebook to help judge potential younger recruits, are more likely to disqualify African-American and Hispanic candidates, in favor of Caucasian Facebook users.
Kashmir Hill details the study here in a recent article on Forbes.
So, if failing to meaningfully distinguish between younger job candidates, while increasing your odds of being sued for disparate-impact discrimination appeals to you, well then, have at it hoss!
Back in September, 2013, I blogged here about a NY jury finding that a black plaintiff called the n-word — by her black boss — had been subjected to race discrimination.
Actually, her boss called her the n-word eight times!
“Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that’s 103 fewer times than the ‘N’-word was used in Django Unchained,” is what the defense’s closing argument sounded like, I imagine.
Yeah, I know. Shocker, right?
A prison guard for the Arkansas Department of Corrections drove 27 work-release inmates in a van to a parking lot next to a fried chicken joint. Rather than hit the drive thru, the prison guard left the 27 criminals in the van and went inside to place his order.
For what it’s worth, the prison guard testified that there were no other customers ahead of him in line. Further, the prison guard thought that his chicken stop did not violate any employer policy or rule.
It’s a story that first made news over the weekend and is quickly picking up steam, ironically, because of social media.
A customer at a Tennessee Red Lobster restaurant allegedly left a racist message on a receipt. An African American waitress subsequently posted the receipt to Facebook with the message:
“This is what I got as a tip last night…so happy to live in the proud southern states..God Bless America, land of the free and home of the low class racists of Tennessee”
A black employee who claimed that her boss, also black, called her the n-word eight times, had her day in court recently, as she put her race discrimination claims to a federal jury.
The defense argued that the use of the n-word here was culturally acceptable because both the “victim” and the “harasser” black. But, during closing argument, the plaintiff’s attorney told jurors, “When you use the word [the n-word] to an African-American, no matter how many alternative definitions that you may try to substitute with the [n-word], that is no different than calling a Hispanic by the worst possible word you can call a Hispanic, calling a homosexual male the worst possible word that you can call a homosexual male.”
The jury agreed with the plaintiff. Larry Neumeister at The Huffington Post reports here, that the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in punitive damages and $250,000 in compensatory damages.
On Friday, a federal court in Georgia dismissed all of the remaining discrimination counts against Paula Deen and her brother, Bubba, after the parties reported to the court that the two sides had settled.
The settlement terms are undisclosed.
In a statement emailed to The Associated Press, Ms. Deen’s publicist wrote:
Somewhere, I picture the folks at Merriam Webster franticly revising the definition of “Pyrrhic” to cross-reference a stick of butter Paula Deen.
Yesterday at The Employer Handbook, I discussed the EEOC losing a major battle in its war against background checks.
Today, it’s all about winning the battle, but losing the war.
Late last year, in this post, I highlighted the six issues that the United States Equal Employment Commission prioritized in its Strategic Enforcement Plan. Numero uno is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring.
Even before it released its Strategic Enforcement Plan, earlier in 2012, the EEOC telegraphed that it would closely scrutinize criminal background checks employers run on job applicants to determine whether they may disparately impact minorities.
But even before that, in 2009, the EEOC came out guns blazing, when it announced a lawsuit against Freeman (also known as the Freeman Companies), a nationwide convention, exhibition and corporate events marketing company. In it’s lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Freeman unlawfully “rejected job applicants based on their credit history and if they have had one or more of various types of criminal charges or convictions.”
Then I suggest “ghetto.”
Consider this your performance review ProTip for Tuesday, courtesy of this recent decision from a Texas federal court, in which an employer’s summary judgment motion was denied, and a Mexican-American plaintiff’s race and national origin discrimination claims will proceed to trial.
The smoking gun, it seems, was an affidavit from one of the plaintiff’s supervisors filed in support of the employer’s motion for summary judgment, in which the supervisor stated, “I advised Ms. Garza that this ‘ghetto-ness’ would no longer be tolerated, and that she would be terminated if it continued.” The plaintiff argued that this statement was direct evidence of discrimination against her. The defendant countered with the argument that “cases in which comments containing the word ‘ghetto’ have been viewed as facially discriminatory generally involve African American employees, while Garza is Hispanic.”
The Employer Handbook Blog