Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Hey I have a great idea to solve HR shortages. Hire an Intern.

 From the Jackson Lewis Law Firm

Employers may have their pick of applicants to fill paid and unpaid internship positions this fall. Internships traditionally are sought by college students to gain work experience, but the recession and the resulting loss of jobs have prompted people of all experience levels to apply for internships with companies in order to get their feet in the door. Employers, however, must be aware of the wage-hour laws' impact on such arrangements.

A survey conducted for CareerBuilder between May 18, 2010, and June 3, 2010, of more than 2,500 employers shows more than one-half (52%) of them saying they are likely to hire interns as full-time, permanent employees. The survey, released August 11, 2010, shows that almost one-quarter (23%) of employers are seeing experienced workers (defined as having more than 10 years of experience) and mature workers (defined as those age 50 or older) applying for internships at their organizations. Additionally, more than one-quarter (27%) of employers say they plan to hire interns during the rest of 2010.

Often, either inadvertently or by design, employers do not treat interns as employees. Instead, interns are frequently labeled trainees, assistants, or learners and receive little or no pay for the work they perform. Unless a job meets certain conditions, interns are considered employees and for-profit companies must pay them at least the minimum wage under federal and state laws.

Federal Criteria

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines an employee as "any individual employed by an employer." 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). The FLSA definition of employ includes "to suffer or permit to work." In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FLSA definition of employ does not make all persons employees who, without any express or implied compensation agreement, may work for their own advantage on the premises of another. Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148. The Court pointed to six criteria that characterize interns or trainees who need not be paid:

  • The training, even though it includes actual operation of the employer's facilities, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school;
  • The training is for the benefit of the trainees;
  • Trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
  • The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and, on occasion, the employer's operations may actually be impeded;
  • The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the training period; and
  • The employer and the trainee understand that trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

The U.S. Department of Labor consistently has applied these criteria in answering inquiries about the employment status of interns. Accordingly, whether or not interns at your organization are employees under the FLSA will depend upon all the circumstances of their activities. Provided the six criteria listed above are met, the Department of Labor says workers will not be considered employees if...

  • Educational or training programs are designed to provide them with professional experience in the furtherance of their education; and
  • The training is academically oriented for the benefit of the students.

Generally, employers must comply with all FLSA provisions and with state laws that are more restrictive in favor of the employee or require higher pay.

State Laws

State rules relating to the employee/unpaid-intern distinction vary. For example, to determine whether an intern is or is not an employee, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) applies the six Walling criteria (the DLSE uses "student" synonymously with "trainee").

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Minimum Wage Order No. 26 provides that students employed in a work experience study program are exempt from all of the Order's provisions, including the requirement to pay minimum wage. Consequently, the provisions of the FLSA apply to determinations whether a Colorado worker is an employee.

In Alaska, the Alaska Administrative Code allows for the employment of "student learners" (undefined in the law) at subminimum wages for fixed periods, subject to certain restrictions. An exemption from minimum wage is available when a student learner is enrolled in a course of study and training in a cooperative vocational training program under a recognized state or local educational authority or in a substantially similar program conducted by a private school. The employer and the student learner's school coordinator or principal must apply for the exemption from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Such a subminimum wage rate cannot be less than 75% of the state minimum wage. 8 AAC §15.125.

* * *

Employers who are planning to take on unpaid interns should become familiar with federal and state criteria for deciding whether a worker is an employee and take a hard look at how much productive work will be performed by their interns.

Whether labeled an intern, learner or employee, if a worker should have been paid but was not, the employer may find itself liable not only for wages, but also for overtime pay, employee benefits, meal and rest periods, and penalties.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

And the Beat Goes On

First we had Illinois passing legislation that prohibits the use of credit checks in most hiring decisions, now Massachusetts has passed and the Governor has signed into law an amendment to the Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute that requires employers to notify an employee within ten days of placing in the employee's personnel file any information that "is, has been used or may be used" to negatively affect an employee.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Ford and Harrison Legal Alert

On August 13, 2010, President Obama signed into law H.R. 6080 known as the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Border Security Act. This law became effective immediately and includes an increase of certain H-1B and L-1 application fees. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") will review H-1B and L-1 applications filed on or after August 14, 2010 for compliance with the new fees. If a company filed qualifying H-1B or L-1 applications after August 14, 2010 without the new fees, USCIS will hold the applications and issue a Request for Evidence ("RFE") to provide the employer an opportunity to submit the new fee or evidence that the employer is not obligated to pay it. If an employer believes it is not subject to the fee, it can provide USCIS evidence supporting that fact. Acceptable evidence would include a written attestation from the employer explaining why it is not subject to the new fee and any other additional information that supports the company's position. Further information is forthcoming, and USCIS is currently working on revising Form I-129 to conform to the law.

Who Must Pay the Additional Fee?

Affected employers are those who (1) employ 50 or more employees in the U.S.; and (2) 50% or more of the U.S. employees are H-1B or L-1 nonimmigrant workers. This is referred to as the "50-50 Rule."

Which Immigration Applications are Affected?

If you are a covered employer, you must pay the additional filing fee for initial and change of employer H-1B or L-1 applications. On the other hand, the additional fee does not apply to an H-1B or L-1 extension application filed by the same employer on behalf of an H-1B or L-1 employee for whom it previously filed an initial application.

How Does an Employer Calculate Whether it has 50% or More H-1B or L-1 Workers in the U.S?

For purposes of evaluating whether a company has a U.S. workforce that is comprised of 50% or more H-1B and L-1 workers, a company must include all part-time and full-time H-1B and L-1 workers (including workers authorized to work under an L-2 dependent Employment Authorization Document). This calculation must be done based on a company's numbers at the time of filing a qualifying initial or change of employer application.

How Much is the Additional Fee?

The additional fee for initial and change of employer H-1B applications is $2000. This fee must be paid on top of existing fees (i.e. USCIS processing fee, Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, ACWIA fee, and optional Premium Processing fee).

The additional fee for initial and change of employer L-1 applications is $2250. This fee must be paid on top of existing fees (i.e. USCIS processing fee, Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee, and optional Premium Processing fee).

If a company is subject to the new fee, it should issue a check in the appropriate amount made payable to the Department of Homeland Security and submit it with the application and other required fees.

If you have any questions regarding this issue or other business immigration issues, please contact the author of this Alert, Geetha Nadiminti, gnadiminti@fordharrison.com, any member of Ford & Harrison's Business Immigration practice group or the Ford & Harrison attorney with whom you usually work.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Monday, August 23, 2010

The clock is ticking

If you are required to complete them due to FTE base of more than 50 employees your 2010 VETS 100 and VETS 100A reports are due Spetember 30, Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

The clock is ticking

If you are required to complete them due to FTE base of more than 50 employees your Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:865872987; mso-list-template-ids:-1062698524;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Symbol;} @list l0:level2 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:o; mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @list l0:level3 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level4 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level5 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level6 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level7 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level8 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} @list l0:level9 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Wingdings;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} -->

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

DOL issues guidance on clothes under FLSA

DOL Addresses Meaning Of "Clothes" Under FLSA
08/18/2010
 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently clarified the definition of "clothes" under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Section 3(o) provides that time spent "changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday" is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to "the express terms or by custom or practice" under a collective bargaining agreement. The DOL now has concluded that this exemption "does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job."

Note: This article was published in the July/August 2010 issue of The Employment Law Authority.

Information received from Ogletree Deakins Law Firm


 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Is a Credit Check a Test for Employment Purposes?

by Eric Dunleavy, Ph.D., Senior Consultant, DCI Consulting Group

Earlier this month, OFCCP staff presented on a variety of EEO topics of interest to federal contractors at the National Industry Liaison Group (NILG) Conference. DCI staff attended an informative session from Dr. Richard Fischer, OFCCP Director of Testing Operations. The presentation was entitled ‘Enforcing Test Discrimination: Lessons Learned’, and there were a number of useful suggestions for navigating the landscape of employee selection in legally defensible ways.

One topic that caused some confusion concerned what types of employment processes fall into the category of ‘a test’ that can be challenged under an adverse impact theory of discrimination. Dr. Fischer’s handout defined a test as ‘any practice, method, procedure, process, device, etc. in any format (online, written, performance, etc.), used to assess candidates for a high stakes decision.’ This definition is generally consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procures (UGESP), which are the federal regulations on adverse impact measurement and methods for demonstrating that a selection procedure is job-related and legally defensible.

However, another handout noted that ‘Selection steps such as an employer reference check, medical or drug screening, criminal background check, credit check, verifying work history or investigation for a security clearance are not tests and need not be assessed for adverse impact.

This language caused some confusion about what steps in a selection process could be challenged by the agency under an adverse impact theory. Although in many situations the processes listed above are implemented post job offer, they could still produce substantial adverse impact against protected groups and affect overall applicant-to-hire adverse impact results. Some companies may implement similar steps pre-offer.

Regardless, the status of credit checks and similar tools has important implications for federal contractor compliance. Obviously, if the selection steps above are not of interest to OFCCP, there would be no need to conduct step analyses on the consequences of these tools. Further, if the selection steps above are not of interest to OFCCP, it would be reasonable to remove applicants that are eliminated at those steps from the overall applicant-to-hire adverse impact analysis, as opposed to considering those applicants as rejected. Interestingly, the status of applicants who failed credit checks was an issue of contention in the recent Administrative Law Judge ruling in favor of OFCCP against Bank of America. That ALJ ruled that those applicants who failed a credit check should be included in the adverse impact analyses.

This decision to not assess the adverse impact or job-relatedness of credit checks and similar tools was a surprise to DCI staff, because it was our understanding that courts and enforcement agencies have treated these types of tools as selection procedures that can be challenged under the UGESP. In fact, EEOC released an informal letter on credit checks in March 2010, reiterating that credit checks can be challenged under adverse impact theory, often have adverse impact against minority applicants, and may not be job-related for many jobs. The adverse impact and job-relatedness of credit checks and other screening tools were also an agenda topic at a commission meeting in 2007.

To clarify the status of credit checks and similar tools in EEO analyses, DCI staff communicated with senior officials at DOL. DOL officials stated that this was a typo on the handout and confirmed that credit checks, drug screens, background investigations, and the other tools listed above may be considered selection procedures under UGESP, and may be challenged by OFCCP if they produce adverse impact against a protected group. Thus, it may be reasonable to include applicants who failed a credit check in the adverse impact analyses, and a step analysis is in the realm of possibility.

There were a number of useful takeaways from Dr. Fischer’s presentation, including the following:

- In the last 2 fiscal years, 44% of the tests reviewed by OFCCP experts were deemed discriminatory by the agency, either because there was no validity research, inadequate validity research, or because reasonable alternatives were available.

- The percentage of discriminatory tests has dropped since 2005

- In Fiscal Year 2009, 8% of OFCCP’s financial remedies collected in systemic discrimination cases came from testing cases.

- If an OFCCP audit focuses on a test that produces adverse impact, the agency does not need a copy of the test. Dr. Fischer was clear that the actual test is not useful for evaluating the validity of a test, and that the research showing the job-relatedness of the test is of primary interest to the agency.

- Interestingly, Dr. Fischer noted that there is no formal need for a bottom line adverse impact analysis to be statistically significant for the agency to focus on steps. Compliance officers may ask about steps in the selection process, and for selection step data, regardless of whether applicant-to-hire analyses show a statistically significant disparity. If any of those steps have impact, the contractor would be burdened with demonstrating job-relatedness.

- OFCCP experts have seen too much emphasis on face validity (i.e., that the test content looks like it is job related without any actual research) and not enough emphasis on actual validity research (evidence supporting that employers can make good inferences and decisions from tests).

- The Supreme Court ruling in Ricci v. Destefano has no direct implications for OFCCP enforcement, adverse impact analyses, the UGESP, or employment testing.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

OFCCP to rescind compensation standards

OFCCP PLANS TO RESCIND COMPENSATION STANDARDS

 

by David Cohen, President, DCI Consulting Group

During the recent National ILG Conference in Las Vegas, OFCCP Director Patricia Shiu announced that the administration would be rescinding the compensation standards and guidelines. The compensation standards and guidelines were released under the Bush Administration on June 16th 2006. For the first time, these standards codified and published OFCCP’s protocol for enforcing systemic compensation discrimination. This published guidance became an invaluable tool for federal contractors because it gave contractors insight into how OFCCP would monitor compliance efforts and identify the tools and understanding needed to proactively recognize and fix potential problem areas. With this knowledge, many contractors took advantage of the ability to “get ahead of the game” by being proactive and conducting analyses to identify “problems” before or in anticipation of an OFCCP compliance evaluation. In addition, it gave the agency’s compliance officers a set of objective standards that function as a roadmap for enforcement; these standards assured that both contractors and the agency were using the same playbook.

Now that the agency has publicly announced the rescinding of its compensation standards, the federal contractor community is once again left with an informational void on how its compensation systems and data will be evaluated. The agency has not announced what its proposed replacement to the standards will be, and it will most likely be months, if not years, before the agency publishes a set of new standards. In the interim, what are federal contractors to do?

It is important to understand the legal framework in which the agency operates before a contractor can make a decision on how to conduct its proactive analyses going forward. OFCCP evaluates compensation discrimination for gender and race/ethnicity under Executive Oder 11246. Under this order, OFCCP follows a Title VII standard for evaluating and enforcing discrimination. Under Title VII, there are two theories of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact. Historically, and as explained in the 2006 compensation standards, the OFCCP evaluates compensation discrimination under a disparate treatment theory. One can think about disparate treatment as having two manifestations: individual treatment and pattern or practice against a class. Both require evidence of intent. Under a pattern or practice theory, the plaintiff/government would have to show that “discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure, the regular rather than the unusual” (Teamsters v. United States, 1977). That is, merely showing that an employee is currently making less than another employee is not enough evidence to prove discrimination. In order for the OFCCP to prove a case of pay discrimination under this theory, the government would either have to prove that there was a discriminatory pay decision (see Ledbetter) or that there are statistically significant differences (two or more standard deviations) between protected classes in similarly situated employee groupings (SSEG) coupled with anecdotal evidence of discrimination. The anecdotal evidence does not necessarily have to be a “smoking gun”, but should show that either the company intentionally discriminated or that its compensation practices were not consistently applied from one group to another.

OFCCP’s compensation standards are written under a disparate treatment pattern or practice theory of discrimination and not a disparate impact theory. In the preamble to the standards, the OFCCP cites over 30 years of case law and ‘strong statistical principles’ to support its established requirements for demonstrating initial evidence of discrimination. These requirements include:


  • Job titles grouped into similarly situated employee groupings (SSEG);
  • Statistically significant differences in pay between protected classes after controlling for legitimate and non-discriminatory variables (multiple regression analysis), and;
  • Anecdotal evidence of discrimination to bring those statistics to life.

  • Once the OFCCP establishes the trifecta of evidence, they can move towards enforcement under a disparate treatment pattern or practice case of discrimination. Without those three criteria, OFCCP can move forward with its case only if they find strong evidence of intentional discrimination against a protected class member. This, however, would most likely be an individual treatment case versus a pattern or practice. Without statistical significance and/or evidence of intentional discrimination the OFCCP does not have a case. Why?

    Unbeknownst to some in the EEO community, the OFCCP does not enforce the Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963. Unlike disparate treatment, the EPA does not require a showing of intentional discrimination. The EPA requires that men and women (race/ethnicity is not covered) in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be ‘substantially equal’. In addition, unlike a pattern or practice case where statistical significance is required, any difference in salary between two people is potentially actionable. This type of analysis may be familiar to many federal contractors who have gone through an OFCCP compliance evaluation in recent years. This type of analysis is commonly referred to by OFCCP as a “cohort analysis”. Simply, the OFCCP looks within a job title and requires justification for situations where a female and/or minority employee is making less than a male or white employee (or vice-versa). Once identified, the OFCCP requires the contractor to articulate a rationale for why this individual has a lower salary than the comparator. However, because the OFCCP does not enforce the EPA, it cannot enforce an EPA violation unless it identifies and proves a discriminatory pay decision. Therefore, without evidence of intentional discrimination the OFCCP cannot move a case to enforcement.

    It is worth noting one other presentation from the NILG conference. Shortly after Pat Shiu announced the rescinding of the compensation standards, OFCCP director of statistical analyses, Dr. Javaid Kaiser, presented a workshop entitled “You Conducted your Comp Analysis: Now What?”. During this informative session, Dr. Kaiser talked about conducting a proactive compensation analysis as well as responding to the OFCCP’s secondary compensation data request (a.k.a. the 12 Factor Letter). Dr. Kaiser laid out his best practices strategy for dealing with OFCCP during a compliance evaluation as well as what contractors should do to be proactive. This included the development of similarly situated employee groupings (SSEGs) and multiple regression analysis to control for a majority of the legitimate non-discriminatory variables that drive pay. If statistical indicators are identified and the contractor cannot explain those differences, the contractor should look to take remedial action.

    This sound advice is exactly what is called for in the 2006 compensation standards and guidelines. The only thing missing from his presentation was the identification of anecdotal evidence. With the continued recommendation from OFCCP to develop SSEGs and conduct multiple regression analysis, contractors must wonder what it is that OFCCP is actually rescinding. Is it the requirement to obtain and demonstrate anecdotal evidence? Although not necessarily required under Title VII, case law suggests that judges are very skeptical of statistical evidence absent the anecdotal evidence that brings the statistics to life in a pattern or practice case. It is difficult to understand how OFCCP could ignore this requirement and still move to enforcement.

    With the impending rescission of the compensation standards, what should contractors do? It is important to note that, regardless of the status of the standards, OFCCP is still bound by the requirements of Title VII and relevant case law. Therefore, if OFCCP chooses to litigate and refers the matter for enforcement to the Solicitor of Labor’s Office (SOL, i.e., OFCCP’s attorneys) the SOL will have to rely on case law (most of which endorses SSEG development and multiple regression analysis) in order to litigate. With that in mind, it is likely a best practice strategy for contractors to “stay the course” and continue to conduct their proactive compensation analyses (under attorney-client privilege) using SSEGs and multiple regression analysis. This is the most effective way to identify and eliminate systemic discrimination in an organization, and is based on sound scientific and legal theory. In the meantime, it will be anybody’s guess on how OFCCP will evaluate and determine meaningful disparities in compliance reviews until new guidance and standards are published.

    I close this post with one final parting thought in light of recent EEO trends. Consider the following scenario. An OFCCP compliance officer conducts a compliance evaluation of a contractor’s compensation data and uses an arbitrary 2% (or $2,000) difference threshold to identify a “significant difference”, or uses a cohort analysis to identify individuals who are making less than a single comparator. OFCCP then requires the contractor to explain the identified difference. The contractor attempts to explain the difference but the OFCCP does not accept the stated reason. OFCCP moves to a Notice of Violation and recommends salary adjustments for the identified individuals. The contractor signs the conciliation agreement and makes the requested adjustment.

    The settlement is picked up by the press and both male and white employees read about the adjustments in the local paper. Feeling left out, both male and white employees who feel underpaid question the settlement and file a ‘reverse’ discrimination claim against the contractor that they were intentionally discriminated against in pay based on their race or sex because their salaries were not adjusted. Consider the fact that the salary adjustments may have been made:


  • Solely on the basis of race and sex (see 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Clause);
  • In spite of the fact that there was no established manifest imbalance (see Johnson v. Transportation Agency), and;
  • In spite of the fact that there was no strong basis in evidence of discrimination (i.e., no compelling evidence of actual disparities) (see Ricci v. Destafano and Rudebusch v. Hughes).

  • How would the judge rule? Making the requested adjustments under no real standard of enforcement could be a clear case of discrimination against group members that did not benefit from the pay adjustments.

    posted by DCI Consulting Group, Inc. @ 9:26 PM   0 comments

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    CNN releases the list of the 100 fastest growing companies

    1 Eldorado Gold
    2 Green Mountain Coffee Roasters
    3 Ebix
    4 salesforce.com
    5 KapStone Paper and Packaging
    6 SXC Health Solutions
    7 First Solar
    8 Pegasystems
    9 Bucyrus International
    10 HMS Holdings
    11 Priceline.Com
    12 Sohu.com
    13 Thoratec
    14 Almost Family
    15 Fuel Systems Solutions
    16 DG FastChannel
    17 Zhongpin
    18 Apple
    19 International Assets Holding
    20 Life Partners Holdings
    21 Intuitive Surgical
    22 Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
    23 China Automotive Systems
    24 NetScout Systems
    25 Allegiant Travel
    26 AsiaInfo Holdings
    27 Illumina
    28 China Fire & Security Group
    29 Medifast
    30 Amazon.com
    31 Cubist Pharmaceuticals
    32 Deckers Outdoor
    33 Research In Motion
    34 Celgene
    35 Multi-Fineline Electronix
    36 Valassis Communications
    37 Cognizant Technology Solutions
    38 Compass Minerals International
    39 ANSYS
    40 Olin
    41 Lincoln Educational Services
    42 Luminex
    43 FLIR Systems
    44 Cal-Maine Foods
    45 Sapient
    46 DeVry
    47 Amedisys
    48 LKQ
    49 New Oriental Education & Technology Group
    50 China Information Security Technology
    51 Netflix
    52 Vistaprint
    53 Credit Acceptance
    54 First Financial Bancorp
    55 Perrigo
    56 Elbit Systems
    57 Synaptics
    58 The Buckle
    59 ITC Holdings
    60 Chipotle Mexican Grill
    61 Coinstar
    62 China-Biotics
    63 Mindray Medical International
    64 F5 Networks
    65 Stifel Financial
    66 Dolby Laboratories
    67 Sturm Ruger & Co
    68 M & F Worldwide
    69 Trina Solar
    70 Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile
    71 Capella Education
    72 Atwood Oceanics
    73 MasterCard
    74 Strayer Education
    75 Ralcorp Holdings
    76 Open Text
    77 Sina
    78 True Religion Apparel
    79 Corinthian Colleges
    80 Fluor
    81 Community Health Systems
    82 Neogen
    83 Aegean Marine Petroleum Network
    84 GeoEye
    85 TransDigm Group
    86 SunPower
    87 EZCORP
    88 NCI
    89 Bio-Reference Laboratories
    90 Southside Bancshares
    91 Biogen Idec
    92 Aeropostale
    93 LHC Group
    94 PriceSmart
    95 ICON
    96 Catalyst Health Solutions
    97 ManTech International
    98 Gilead Sciences
    99 Panera Bread
    100 MetroPCS Communications

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Wednesday, August 18, 2010

    Daily Finance from AOL posts list of layoff kings

    In this morning's post on AOL, Douglas McIntyre posted a list of the layoff kings in this economy. These 25 companies have resulted in 700,000 jobs since 2007. The list is as follows:

    • General Motors 107,357 positions
    • Citigroup  73,056 positions
    • Hewlitt Packard 47,540 positions
    • Circuit City 41,495 positions
    • Merrill Lynch 40,650 positions
    • Verizon Wireless 39,000 positions
    • Pfizer 31,771 positions
    • Merck and Company 24,400 positions
    • Lehman Brothers 23,340 positions
    • Catepillar 23, 024 positions
    • JPMorgan Chase 21,316 positions
    • Starbucks 21,316 positions
    • AT & T 18,401 positions
    • Alcoa 17,655 positions
    • Dow Chemical 17.350 positions
    • DuPont 17,000 positions
    • Berkshire Hataway 16,900 positions
    • Ford Motor Company 15,912 positions
    • KB Toys 15,100 positions
    • US Postal Service 15,000 positions
    • DHL Express 14,900 positions
    • Speint Nextel 14,500 positions
    • Sun Microsystems 14,000 positions
    • Boeing 13,715 positions
    • Chrysler 13,672 positions

    Strategy: Looking for successes in this economy, look into the efforts of your local economic development  organizations around a relatively new term called economic gardening. These are companies with 10-99 employees with a five year track record that are growing in this economy. They might be candidates for your services.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010

    Relocation Announcement

    Sharklet Technologies has announced that it is relocating all its operations from Alachua, FL near Gainesville to Denver Metro ares. They already have operations in placve in Aurora, CO.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Should have learned in the first place

    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> Reprinted from the The Agurban - an Agracel Publication dated August 17, 2010

    We found the following encouraging news in USA Today last week. We have included excerpts here...

      Some manufacturing heads back to USA
     
    Faced with rising costs, General Electric is moving production of its new energy-efficient water heater halfway around the world. The country it's leaving? China. The one it's bringing 400 jobs and a newly renovated factory? The United States.

    A small but growing band of U.S. manufacturers - including giants such as General Electric, NCR, and Caterpillar- are turning the seemingly inexorable off-shoring movement on its head, bringing some production to the U.S. from far-flung locations such as China. Others that were buying components overseas are switching to U.S. suppliers.

    Ford Motor said Wednesday that it's bringing nearly 2,000 jobs to its U.S. plants by 2012 from suppliers, including those in Japan, Mexico and India.

    There are myriad reasons for the shifts, often called "onshoring" or "reshoring." Chinese wages and shipping costs have risen sharply in the past few years while U.S. salaries have stayed flat, or in some cases, fallen in the recession. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers have been frustrated by the sometimes poor quality of goods made by foreign contractors, theft of their intellectual property and long product-delivery cycles that make them less responsive to customer demand.

    Several cite the drawbacks of tying up valuable capital in huge overseas shipments, and want to bring assembly closer to engineers, suppliers and customers, concerns that mounted as makers slashed costs in the downturn. Others are simply weary of midnight phone calls - and multiple annual trips - to Asia.

    To be sure, examples of companies moving production to the U.S. are dwarfed by the many more still shuttering U.S. plants and moving to China, India or elsewhere. No one tracks such data, but one glaring, if imprecise, barometer is the U.S. trade deficit, which hit an 18-month high of $42.3 billion in May.

    Onshoring "is a trickle; it's not a flood," says Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, a trade group. "There's still more going out than coming in."

    In a June survey by MFG.com, 21% of North American manufacturers said they'd brought production into, or closer to, the continent in the past three months, up from 12% in the first quarter; 38% planned to research such a move in the next three months. Meanwhile, many U.S. makers that were planning to move abroad are rethinking their strategies.

    For decades, offshoring has dominated, driven by Chinese factory wages that were a tenth of U.S. pay. Imports make up about a third of all goods purchased in the USA, up from 10% in the early 1970s, according to the National Association of Manufacturers.

    U.S. manufacturing employment, after peaking at 19.4 million in 1978, is 11.6 million, though automation also contributed to sizable job losses. More than 2 million factory jobs were cut in the recession alone. Yet, the U.S. still had 21% of global manufacturing in 2008, more than any other nation.

    The tide may be easing, if not quite turning. Wages for Chinese factory workers, bolstered by recent strikes, have jumped 15% a year the past decade, but they're still a fraction of U.S. pay. Shipping costs are up about 71% the past four years as a result of higher oil prices and cutbacks in ships and containers in the slump, says IHS Global Insight.

    With the cost gap between the U.S. and other countries narrowing for other expenses, such as class-action lawsuits, making products in the USA is now about 22% higher than the average of nine of its largest trading partners, down from 32% in 2006.

    Once again, we are encouraged by this onshoring trend. Activity in our key markets continues to be very busy. We are cautiously optimistic about our country's manufacturing future.

    Strategy: We all need to understand that our primary responsibility to acquire and maintain customers. For many of the offshoring efforts the customer service level has decreased leaving customers irritated, mad, and turned off. I myself 9 out  of 10 ask whether the customer service representative I am dealing wiht is based in the US. If you can bring that workload back home and put people to work, keep customers happy and raise your bottom line through happy and engaged clients and employees.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Disability.gov Workplace Accommodations for Employers Update: Job Accommodations for People with Voice Disorders

    The guidelines for various disabilities can be found at http://www.disability.gov/employment/employing_people_with_disabilities/workp...&_supports/accommodations_for_specific_disabilities

     

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    What are they thinking?

    Almost every year since this blog began in 2006, somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, we have published Beloit College's Annual Mindet list. So as not to break my schedule here is the list ofr the class of 2014:

    The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2014

    Most students entering college for the first time this fall—the Class of 2014—were born in 1992.

    For these students, Benny Hill, Sam Kinison, Sam Walton, Bert Parks and Tony Perkins have always been dead.

    1. Few in the class know how to write in cursive.

    2. Email is just too slow, and they seldom if ever use snail mail.

    3. “Go West, Young College Grad” has always implied “and don’t stop until you get to Asia…and learn Chinese along the way.”

    4. Al Gore has always been animated.

    5. Los Angelinos have always been trying to get along.

    6. Buffy has always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other blood-suckers at Hemery High.

    7. “Caramel macchiato” and “venti half-caf vanilla latte” have always been street corner lingo.

    8. With increasing numbers of ramps, Braille signs, and handicapped parking spaces, the world has always been trying harder to accommodate people with disabilities.

    9. Had it remained operational, the villainous computer HAL could be their college classmate this fall, but they have a better chance of running into Miley Cyrus’s folks on Parents’ Weekend.

    10. A quarter of the class has at least one immigrant parent, and the immigration debate is not a big priority…unless it involves “real” aliens from another planet.

    11. John McEnroe has never played professional tennis.

    12. Clint Eastwood is better known as a sensitive director than as Dirty Harry.

    13. Parents and teachers feared that Beavis and Butt-head might be the voice of a lost generation.

    14. Doctor Kevorkian has never been licensed to practice medicine.

    15. Colorful lapel ribbons have always been worn to indicate support for a cause.

    16. Korean cars have always been a staple on American highways.

    17. Trading Chocolate the Moose for Patti the Platypus helped build their Beanie Baby collection.

    18. Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess.

    19. They never twisted the coiled handset wire aimlessly around their wrists while chatting on the phone.

    20. DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.

    21. Woody Allen, whose heart has wanted what it wanted, has always been with Soon-Yi Previn.

    22. Cross-burning has always been deemed protected speech.

    23. Leasing has always allowed the folks to upgrade their tastes in cars.

    24. “Cop Killer” by rapper Ice-T has never been available on a recording.

    25. Leno and Letterman have always been trading insults on opposing networks.

    26. Unless they found one in their grandparents’ closet, they have never seen a carousel of Kodachrome slides.

    27. Computers have never lacked a CD-ROM disk drive.

    28. They’ve never recognized that pointing to their wrists was a request for the time of day.

    29. Reggie Jackson has always been enshrined in Cooperstown.

    30. “Viewer Discretion” has always been an available warning on TV shows.

    31. The first computer they probably touched was an Apple II; it is now in a museum.

    32. Czechoslovakia has never existed.

    33. Second-hand smoke has always been an official carcinogen.

    34. “Assisted Living” has always been replacing nursing homes, while Hospice has always been an alternative to hospitals.

    35. Once they got through security, going to the airport has always resembled going to the mall.

    36. Adhesive strips have always been available in varying skin tones.

    37. Whatever their parents may have thought about the year they were born, Queen Elizabeth declared it an “Annus Horribilis.”

    38. Bud Selig has always been the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

    39. Pizza jockeys from Domino’s have never killed themselves to get your pizza there in under 30 minutes.

    40. There have always been HIV positive athletes in the Olympics.

    41. American companies have always done business in Vietnam.

    42. Potato has always ended in an “e” in New Jersey per vice presidential edict.

    43. Russians and Americans have always been living together in space.

    44. The dominance of television news by the three networks passed while they were still in their cribs.

    45. They have always had a chance to do community service with local and federal programs to earn money for college.

    46. Nirvana is on the classic oldies station.

    47. Children have always been trying to divorce their parents.

    48. Someone has always gotten married in space.

    49. While they were babbling in strollers, there was already a female Poet Laureate of the United States.

    50. Toothpaste tubes have always stood up on their caps.

    51.  Food has always been irradiated.

    52. There have always been women priests in the Anglican Church.

    53. J.R. Ewing has always been dead and gone. Hasn’t he? 

    54. The historic bridge at Mostar in Bosnia has always been a copy.

    55. Rock bands have always played at presidential inaugural parties.

    56. They may have assumed that parents’ complaints about Black Monday had to do with punk rockers from L.A., not Wall Street.

    57. A purple dinosaur has always supplanted Barney Google and Barney Fife. 

    58. Beethoven has always been a dog.

    59. By the time their folks might have noticed Coca Cola’s new Tab Clear, it was gone.

    60. Walmart has never sold handguns over the counter in the lower 48.

    61. Presidential appointees have always been required to be more precise about paying their nannies’ withholding tax, or else.

    62. Having hundreds of cable channels but nothing to watch has always been routine. 

    63. Their parents’ favorite TV sitcoms have always been showing up as movies.

    64. The U.S, Canada, and Mexico have always agreed to trade freely.

    65. They first met Michelangelo when he was just a computer virus.

    66. Galileo is forgiven and welcome back into the Roman Catholic Church.

    67. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always sat on the Supreme Court.

    68. They have never worried about a Russian missile strike on the U.S.

    69. The Post Office has always been going broke.

    70. The artist formerly known as Snoop Doggy Dogg has always been rapping.

    71. The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.

    72. One way or another, “It’s the economy, stupid” and always has been.

    73. Silicone-gel breast implants have always been regulated.

    74. They’ve always been able to blast off with the Sci-Fi Channel.

    75. Honda has always been a major competitor on Memorial Day at Indianapolis.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    The playing field continues to change

    Fisher and Phillips Law Firm has rleased the following notice for employers:

    New Law Restricts Ability Of Massachusetts Employers To Ask About Criminal Convictions

    Date: 8/16/2010

    On August 6, 2010, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law legislation which overhauls the Commonwealth's Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law. Currently, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law prohibits employers from asking questions of job applicants about arrests that do not result in convictions and convictions for certain misdemeanors, but allows questions about felony convictions and about misdemeanor convictions not protected from disclosure.

    Employers Prevented From Asking About Convictions On Initial Job Applications

    Effective November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers will not be permitted to ask any questions about an applicant's criminal record on an "initial written application form," including questions about the applicant's criminal charges, arrests, and incarceration. The only exceptions to this are for (1) positions for which a federal or state law or regulation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction; or (2) employers who are subject to an obligation under a federal or state law or regulation not to employ persons who have been convicted. It is unclear whether employers may still question applicants about felony and unprotected misdemeanor convictions later on in the application process (e.g., during an in-person interview). It also is unclear whether the new law requires employers to obtain information about a criminal offender's record only from the newly created Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, as opposed to third party vendors.

    Employers May Obtain Criminal History Under Certain Conditions

    Employers may still obtain a current or prospective employee's criminal history contained in the CORI database. However, an individual's CORI record will no longer include (1) felony convictions that have been closed for more than 10 years (i.e., the conviction occurred more than 10 years ago or, if the individual was incarcerated, the individual was released more than 10 years ago); or (2) misdemeanor convictions that have been closed for more than five years. In addition, a current or prospective employee will be able to obtain from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services a list of persons who requested his or her CORI record, the date of the requests, and the certified purpose of the requests. An employer who has lawfully obtained an employee's or prospective employee's CORI record may ask the individual about his or her criminal history and can decide to take adverse action against the employee or not hire the applicant based on the individual's criminal history, provided that the employer first gives the individual a copy of his or her CORI record.

    Additional Changes To Take Effect in 2012

    The following provisions become effective February 6, 2012:

    Employers who annually conduct five or more criminal background investigations must maintain a written criminal offender record information policy that states that the employer will (1) notify an applicant who is the subject of an investigation of the potential of an adverse decision based on the investigation; (2) provide a copy of the policy to the applicant and a copy of the criminal offender record information obtained as part of the investigation; and (3) provide information concerning the process for the applicant to correct his or her criminal record.

    The new law prohibits employers from maintaining a former employee's CORI record for more than seven years from the former employee's last date of employment, and prohibits employers from maintaining an unsuccessful applicant's CORI record for more than seven years from the date of the decision not to hire the candidate.

    Employers who make the employment decision within 90 days of receiving the CORI record and who verify the information in the CORI record will be shielded from liability for failure to hire based on erroneous information on a candidate's CORI record. Likewise, these same employers will be shielded from liability for negligent hiring based on their reliance on CORI records, even if these employers do no other research into the applicant's criminal history.

    For assistance in reviewing and revising your policies, procedures and application forms to comply with the new CORI legislation or for assistance with any hiring issue, please contact your local Fisher & Phillips attorney.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    The playing field continues to change

    Fisher and Phillips Law Firm has rleased the following notice for employers:

    New Law Restricts Ability Of Massachusetts Employers To Ask About Criminal Convictions

    Date: 8/16/2010

    On August 6, 2010, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law legislation which overhauls the Commonwealth's Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) law. Currently, the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law prohibits employers from asking questions of job applicants about arrests that do not result in convictions and convictions for certain misdemeanors, but allows questions about felony convictions and about misdemeanor convictions not protected from disclosure.

    Employers Prevented From Asking About Convictions On Initial Job Applications

    Effective November 4, 2010, Massachusetts employers will not be permitted to ask any questions about an applicant's criminal record on an "initial written application form," including questions about the applicant's criminal charges, arrests, and incarceration. The only exceptions to this are for (1) positions for which a federal or state law or regulation disqualifies an applicant based on a conviction; or (2) employers who are subject to an obligation under a federal or state law or regulation not to employ persons who have been convicted. It is unclear whether employers may still question applicants about felony and unprotected misdemeanor convictions later on in the application process (e.g., during an in-person interview). It also is unclear whether the new law requires employers to obtain information about a criminal offender's record only from the newly created Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, as opposed to third party vendors.

    Employers May Obtain Criminal History Under Certain Conditions

    Employers may still obtain a current or prospective employee's criminal history contained in the CORI database. However, an individual's CORI record will no longer include (1) felony convictions that have been closed for more than 10 years (i.e., the conviction occurred more than 10 years ago or, if the individual was incarcerated, the individual was released more than 10 years ago); or (2) misdemeanor convictions that have been closed for more than five years. In addition, a current or prospective employee will be able to obtain from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services a list of persons who requested his or her CORI record, the date of the requests, and the certified purpose of the requests. An employer who has lawfully obtained an employee's or prospective employee's CORI record may ask the individual about his or her criminal history and can decide to take adverse action against the employee or not hire the applicant based on the individual's criminal history, provided that the employer first gives the individual a copy of his or her CORI record.

    Additional Changes To Take Effect in 2012

    The following provisions become effective February 6, 2012:

    Employers who annually conduct five or more criminal background investigations must maintain a written criminal offender record information policy that states that the employer will (1) notify an applicant who is the subject of an investigation of the potential of an adverse decision based on the investigation; (2) provide a copy of the policy to the applicant and a copy of the criminal offender record information obtained as part of the investigation; and (3) provide information concerning the process for the applicant to correct his or her criminal record.

    The new law prohibits employers from maintaining a former employee's CORI record for more than seven years from the former employee's last date of employment, and prohibits employers from maintaining an unsuccessful applicant's CORI record for more than seven years from the date of the decision not to hire the candidate.

    Employers who make the employment decision within 90 days of receiving the CORI record and who verify the information in the CORI record will be shielded from liability for failure to hire based on erroneous information on a candidate's CORI record. Likewise, these same employers will be shielded from liability for negligent hiring based on their reliance on CORI records, even if these employers do no other research into the applicant's criminal history.

    For assistance in reviewing and revising your policies, procedures and application forms to comply with the new CORI legislation or for assistance with any hiring issue, please contact your local Fisher & Phillips attorney.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Monday, August 16, 2010

    Beware of what you say

    California Supreme Court Holds That Stray Remarks Made by Non-Decision Makers Can Be Considered in Age Bias Case
    08/06/2010
     

    On August 5, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Reid v. Google, Inc., an age discrimination case that was dismissed at the trial court level on summary judgment. The trial judge dismissed the case after finding that “stray remarks” by individuals who had no involvement with the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment were insufficient evidence of discrimination to send the case to trial. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s order granting the employer summary judgment and held that the stray remarks by the non-decision makers was admissible to prove his claim of discrimination. The California Supreme Court agreed and rejected the strict application of the “stray remarks doctrine” in California discrimination cases. Reid v. Google, Inc., No. S158965, California Supreme Court (August 5, 2010). 

    Taken from an alert from Ogletree and Deakins Attorneys

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

    Illinois joins other states in restricitng use of credit checks


    CHICAGO – August 10, 2010. Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill into law that prohibits Illinois employers from discriminating based on a job seeker or employee’s credit history. The new law will remove a significant barrier to employment for the growing segment of the population whose credit history has been affected by the historic national recession.

    “A job seeker’s ability to earn a decent living should not depend on how well they are weathering the greatest economic recession since the 1930s,” said Governor Quinn. “This law will stop employers from denying a job or promotion based on information that is not an indicator of a person’s character or ability to do a job well.”

    House Bill 4658, sponsored by Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) and Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), creates the Employee Credit Privacy Act. Under the act, Illinois’ employers may not use a person’s credit history to determine employment, recruiting, discharge or compensation.

    The new law forbids employers from inquiring about an applicant or employee’s credit history or obtaining a copy of their credit report. The law does not affect an employer’s ability to conduct a thorough background investigation that does not contain a credit history or report.

    Employers who violate the new law can be subject to civil liability for damages or injunctive relief.

    Under the new law, employers may access credit checks under limited circumstances, including positions that involve: bonding or security per state or federal law; unsupervised access to more than $2,500; signatory power over businesses assets of more than $100; management and control of the business; access to personal, financial or confidential information, trade secrets, or state or national security information.

    Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed