Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 were filed in the Federal Register on Tuesday.

The Act requires parity between mental health or substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits with respect to financial requirements and treatment limitations under group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan.

Public comments are due by May 3.

[Federal Register]

An OFCCP ALJ has issued a recommended ruling that Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants for entry level positions in Charlotte, NC, in 1993 and from 2002 to 2005.

Next: A hearing to determine what remedies should be provided by the bank.

DOL Press release 02/02/2010:

Following US Labor Department investigation, administrative law judge finds Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants

WASHINGTON — A protracted case that started with a U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) investigation has resulted in an administrative law judge's (ALJ) recommended ruling that Bank of America discriminated against African-American job applicants for entry level positions in Charlotte, N.C., in 1993 and from 2002 to 2005.

"The Labor Department is committed to ensuring that all workers — including African-Americans — are treated fairly by federal contractors in decisions concerning hiring, promotion and compensation," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Further, contractors cannot use litigation as a means to obstruct OFCCP's ability to conduct its authorized investigations and pursue relief for victims of discrimination."

The ruling by ALJ Linda Chapman arises in a case that began in 1993 when OFCCP requested information from NationsBank (the bank's previous name) as part of a compliance review to determine if the bank, as a federal government contractor, treated its employees without discrimination as required by Executive Order 11246. After OFCCP advised the bank in 1995 of its findings of discrimination, the bank challenged — in federal court — OFCCP's authority to conduct the review as a violation of the bank's Fourth Amendment rights. After the challenge failed and Labor Department attorneys filed an administrative complaint, the bank pursued that challenge in the administrative forum. The department's Administrative Review Board ruled in 2003 that if the bank had consented to the review, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The ALJ subsequently held that the bank had, in fact, consented, and department attorneys were able to address the discrimination claims.

After that hearing, ALJ Chapman held that the bank intentionally discriminated against African-American clerical, administrative and teller applicants at its Charlotte facility. The ALJ also held that the bank's failure to retain records as required by law without justification did not lessen the statistical disparities found by OFCCP's expert. Chapman now will hold a hearing to determine what remedies should be provided by the bank. After the ALJ issues a recommended decision on a remedy, the case will proceed to the department's Administrative Review Board for a final agency decision.

OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), 38 U.S.C. 4212, that prohibit employment discrimination by federal contractors. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure that they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status. Information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development will award two winners of its Safety Poster and Video Contest a one-semester scholarship for up to 15 credits at any University of Alaska campus.

The Senate voted 60 to 37 on Thursday to confirm M. Patricia Smith, formerly New York State labor commissioner, to be Solicitor of the US Department of Labor.

EEOC claimed that a hotel refused to hire non-Chinese banquet servers because of their national origin.

EEOC also claimed that the hotel subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment.

The two suits have been settled for $500,000 and a three-year consent decree.

EEOC Press release 02/03/2010:

Landwin Management to Pay $500,000 for National Origin Bias and Sexual Harassment

EEOC Said Hotel Refused to Hire Non-Chinese Banquet Servers and Subjected Women to Verbal Abuse

LOS ANGELES – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of two lawsuits against Landwin Management, Inc., a San Gabriel, Calif.-based hotel operator, for $500,000 and significant remedial relief in cases alleging national origin discrimination and sexual harassment. Both suits were filed in September 2007 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the first lawsuit (Case No. CV 07-06169 SJO), the EEOC charged that non-Chinese banquet servers were rejected for hire based on their national origin when the San Gabriel Hilton severed its contract and hired Landwin Management to operate the establishment in April 2005. The EEOC said that all the non-Chinese banquet servers who previously worked for the hotel at the time, many of whom were Latino, were not hired back during the turnover and instead replaced with less qualified Chinese workers.

In the second suit (Case No. CV 07-05916 PA), the EEOC alleged that the San Gabriel Hilton subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment, including verbal sexual harassment by the housekeeping department supervisor, who referred to the women as “whores” and “prostitutes” in addition to other offensive language. The supervisor also allegedly reprimanded the female employees if they even spoke to men, and Landwin failed to respond to the employees’ complaints of harassment.

In addition to the $500,000 in monetary relief, a three-year consent decree settling the two lawsuits will also ensure that (1) Landwin will implement hiring and recruiting goals for Hispanic employees; (2) Landwin will revise its written policies on discrimination, sexual harassment and recruitment and hiring; (3) employees will receive annual training regarding discrimination, including national origin discrimination and sexual harassment; (4) Landwin will retain an EEO monitor / consultant named by the Commission to assist with recruiting, hiring, training, revision of policies and record-keeping procedures; and (5) the company will provide annual reports to the EEOC regarding its employment practices.

“The days when employers make decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions shaped by the race or national origin of their employees should be far behind us,” said Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Further, sexual harassment should no longer be tolerated in any workplace, and employers should never condone or overlook the mistreatment of vulnerable victims, such as monolingual Spanish-speaking women.”

EEOC Los Angeles District Director Olophius Perry added, “Employers must take appropriate corrective action when they receive harassment complaints. We hope that other employers take the lead of the San Gabriel Hilton and take proactive action to ensure EEO compliance. Businesses should take advantage of EEOC trainings that are available to encourage compliance and proactive prevention.”

The EEOC Training Institute provides a wide variety of training to assist employers in educating their managers and employees on the laws enforced by EEOC and how to prevent and correct discrimination in the workplace. More information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/field/washington/training.cfm.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

It took 15-year-old Charles Owens weeks before he finally opened up to his mom about a security guard at Woodland Hills Youth Development Center soliciting him for oral sex.

We've had numerous stories concerning some rather concerning trends in law enforcement, including the use of things like redlight cameras to increase revenue, not make things safer, as well as the fact that more data can often make it harder for law enforcement to keep people safe.

The Idaho Human Rights Commission unanimously backed a new partnership between the state's discrimination watchdog and the Department of Labor.

EEOC had alleged that Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA.

The case resulted in the largest ADA settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history: $6,200,000.

The funds are being paid out to 235 former employees.

EEOC Press release 02/05/2010:

Court Approves $6.2 Million Distribution in EEOC v. Sears Disability Settlement

235 Former Employees Terminated at End of Workers’ Compensation Leaves of Absence to Share Settlement Proceeds After Participating in Claims Process

CHICAGO – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced court approval of the distribution of a $6,200,000 compensation fund in the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) litigation between the EEOC and Sears, Roebuck & Co. The distribution is being carried out pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson on September 29, 2009. In its lawsuit against Sears, the EEOC had alleged that Sears maintained an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy and terminated employees instead of providing them with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, in violation of the ADA. The case resulted in the largest ADA settlement in a single lawsuit in EEOC history.

Under the terms of the decree, the EEOC provided claim forms to certain Sears employees who had been terminated under Sears’ workers’ compensation leave policy. The claimants were asked to report to the EEOC, among other things, the extent of their impairments, their ability to return to work at Sears, and whether Sears had made any attempt to return them to work. Based on these criteria, the EEOC found that 235 individuals were eligible to share in the settlement. The average award was approximately $26,300. More than twenty claimants were found to be ineligible by the EEOC. As with all EEOC litigation, none of the settlement fund will retained by the EEOC; all of it will be distributed.

“It is a satisfying day indeed when victims finally receive compensation for the wrongful discrimination they have endured,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is pleased and proud that we fought long and hard on this case to protect the rights of workers with disabilities, and that many Sears employees will now benefit from our law enforcement efforts.”

Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson said, “The Sears case has been a long haul, but now it’s over—this is it. The court has enjoined future discrimination by Sears and approved the amount of money each class member will receive for the particular discrimination he or she suffered. Their day for compensation is here, and as far as the EEOC is concerned, that makes it a good day for everyone involved.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Aaron DeCamp noted that, in addition to the disbursement of settlement funds, the EEOC is seeing positive effects from the consent decree. “As a result of the decree, we believe Sears has an improved workers’ compensation leave process, and it has posted notices regarding the decree. We know that employees have been seeing the notices because we’ve been receiving inquiries as a result. So we think it’s pretty clear that our lawsuit genuinely benefited the employees of Sears and strengthened the company’s human resources processes.”

The lawsuit, filed in November 2004, was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Wayne Anderson of the Northern District of Illinois and Magistrate Judge Susan Cox, and is captioned EEOC v. Sears Roebuck & Co., N.D. Ill. No. 04 C 7282. Judge Anderson entered the order approving the monetary distributions on February 4.

The EEOC litigation team included, in addition to Hendrickson and DeCamp, Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorneys Ethan Cohen, Deborah Hamilton and Laurie Elkin.

The EEOC Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

We've heard a lot in the past week about President Obama's proposed budget, unveiled after his State of the Union speech last Tuesday. Topic number one seems to be how the budget plan would affect the national deficit. Apparently of quite a bit less interest, judging by the limited press it's received, is the proposal to extend the COBRA subsidy through 2010.

It's been reported that the budget proposal would make the subsidy available to those who are involuntarily terminated from March 1, 2010, through the end of the year. These folks would be eligible for up to 12 months of subsidized health care continuation (employees who are involuntarily terminated up until the end of February 2010 are eligible for 15 months of the subsidy, based on the first extension, passed by Congress this past December).

Are people taking advantage of the subsidy? The answer is a resounding yes, according to a survey reported in Business Insurance. Large employers reported that more than twice as many laid off employees have opted to continue their health insurance through COBRA since the subsidy first became available.

If the subsidy extension passes, some state legislatures may have to get on the ball in a hurry. A number of states offer "mini-COBRA" laws, which typically provide the right to continue health insurance to those working for smaller employers (COBRA covers only those with at least 20 employees). These laws differ widely in the details, including what counts as a qualifying event and how long continuation coverage can last. But most of them have this in common: As long as former employees meet the other requirements for the subsidy (for example, they were involuntarily terminated and meet certain income restrictions), they are eligible for the COBRA subsidy, even if they are receiving continuation coverage through a state law rather than through COBRA.

To allow employees to take advantage of the subsidy, a number of states amended their laws -- for example, to give employees who originally passed up continuation coverage a second chance to elect coverage once the subsidy was available. However, some states tied their amendments explictly to the original time frame for which the subsidy was available, and so might have to take legislative action to make sure employees of smaller employers are still eligible if the subsidy is extended.

It's interesting to me that, at a time when health care reform has been described as "on life support," unconscious," or in terms of some other unfortunate medical metaphor, the COBRA subsidy -- which is, after all, government-funded health insurance -- enjoys wide popularity, inside and outside of Cognress.    

EEOC claimed that a hotel company fired a banquet manager because of his sex and because he complained that a female co-worker was not disciplined for the same purported infraction.

The company agreed to pay compensation to the employee for losses he sustained, and to rehire him at one of its hotel properties.

EEOC Press release 02/03/2010:

Columbia Sussex Settles EEOC Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit

Baton Rouge Sheraton Hotel Fired Employee Because of Gender and As Retaliation for Complaining, Federal Agency Said

HOUSTON — Columbia Sussex Corporation, which owns and operates hotel properties across the United States, has agreed to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The settlement resolves the charge of a former banquet manager, Richard Knight, who claimed that Columbia Sussex fired him from its Sheraton Hotel in Baton Rouge, La., because of his sex, male, and because he complained that a female co-worker was not disciplined for the same purported infraction.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Columbia Sussex terminated Knight because he complained about the general manager’s better treatment of Knight’s female co-worker during a meeting. In that meeting, the general manager ultimately demanded that Knight go into his office without the presence of a human resource representative, but did not force Knight’s female co-worker to proceed without a representative. When Knight asked the general manager whether he was granting privileges to the female manager that he would not grant to Knight, the general manager replied that he could do whatever he wanted and then he immediately terminated Knight. The female manager was not disciplined.

Sex discrimination and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (No. 07-701 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

In settlement of the case, Columbia Sussex agreed to pay compensation to Knight for losses he sustained, and to rehire him at one of its hotel properties. Columbia Sussex entered into a three-year consent decree, agreeing to annual training of personnel regarding sex discrimination and retaliation. Columbia Sussex also agreed not to rehire the official who had terminated Knight.

Knight commented on the settlement, “I am very grateful that the EEOC brought this case on my behalf. I love the hotel industry. My main goal was always to get my job back. I am excited to get back to work with Columbia Sussex in my chosen field.”

Jim Sacher, the EEOC’s regional attorney for the Houston District, which encompasses EEOC litigation in Louisiana, said, “This is a constructive outcome for the EEOC, Mr. Knight and for current and future employees of Columbia Sussex. The EEOC takes all claims of sex discrimination very seriously, including those where the victim is a man. The Commission also closely scrutinizes retaliation claims, because they fundamentally impact our ability to enforce the law, encourage a fair workplace and seek relief for victims.”

According to company information, Columbia Sussex, a privately held corporation, has approximately 70 hotels across the United States, the Caribbean and Canada, operating under brands such as Marriott, Hilton, Westin and Sheraton.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov .

The majority of public and private employees are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law that requires employers to pay employees the federal minimum wage and overtime compensation.

The latest unemployment rate of 9.7 percent is an unexpected jolt of good news. That's down from 10 percent in December and even lower than the 9.8 percent the Obama administration projects for the end of this year.

After the President re-nominated Craig Becker to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, the Senate HELP Committee voted 13-10 along party lines to approve his appointment.

A cloture vote was scheduled for Monday.

But Monday is a snow day in Washington DC, so look for the vote to happen on Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. EST.

The Republicans now have enough votes to block a cloture vote.

A clothing store company will pay $40,050 to settle an age discrimination suit brought by the EEOC. 

EEOC claimed that the company subjected a co-manager to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, including disparate discipline, and, ultimately, terminated her because of her age.

EEOCPress release 02/03/2010:

Charming Shoppes / Fashion Bug to Pay $40,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Suit

Federal Agency Charged Company Terminated Employee Because of Age

ATLANTA – Charming Shoppes, Inc., an Atlanta clothing store company, will pay $40,050 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Agency announced today.

In its lawsuit, filed on October 9, 2009, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (Case No.: 4:09-CV-00160-HLM-WEJ), the EEOC had charged that Charming Shoppes, doing business as Fashion Bug, subjected Angela Ray, a co-manager at the Rome, Ga., store, to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, including disparate discipline and, ultimately, terminated her because of her age.

Charming Shoppes also owns Lane Bryant, Catherine’s, Crosstown Traders and Petite Sophisticate and operates 26 stores in the Atlanta area.

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting, and posting of anti-discrimination notices. In the suit and consent decree, Charming Shoppes denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“We are pleased with the employer’s efforts to quickly resolve this dispute, while taking affirmative steps to remain in compliance with the law in the future,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta office. “Going forward, we believe Charming Shoppes is sincerely committed to avoiding these types of problems.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Here's a list of "Terminations, Reductions and Savings" in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget issued today by the White House.

The EEOC brought two suits against The Boeing Company, alleging gender-based harassment and retaliation involving three employees.

The suits were settled for $380,000, an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and retaliation, and other relief.

EEOC Press release 02/01/2010:

Boeing Settles Two EEOC Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuits for $380,000

PHOENIX -- Chicago-based The Boeing Company, an aerospace giant that manufactures military aircraft and commercial jetliners, has agreed to pay $380,000 and administer far-reaching injunctive measures to settle two lawsuits brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In one case, filed in 2005 (EEOC v. The Boeing Company, 05cv03034 PHX FJM), the EEOC brought sex discrimination and retaliation claims against Boeing on behalf of two female engineers at Boeing’s Mesa, Arizona facility. Antonia Castron complained of gender-based harassment, including sexist remarks, creating a hostile environment and, a few days later, she found herself transferred to a new unit that did not suit her skill set. Less than two months after the transfer, Boeing laid her off, purportedly because she could not perform as well as other engineers in her new unit.

“Instead of stopping the harassment or reprimanding the men who tormented me, they moved me to a unit that designed structures,” said Castron. “I was skilled at electrical engineering. That’s like asking a heart surgeon to do brain surgery. Then they evaluated me for layoff based on my ability to perform structural work. They set me up for layoff.”

The EEOC claimed that Boeing managers harbored discriminatory and retaliatory motives when it transferred and terminated Castron. Manufacturing engineer Renee Wrede twice complained of sex-based harassment, and twice Boeing’s internal investigators substantiated her complaints. Nonetheless, according to the EEOC, the company allowed her harassers to influence her layoff evaluations and reduce her scores. As a result, Wrede also received a layoff notice in October 2002. The EEOC’s investigation showed that Boeing manipulated evaluation scores used in its October 2002 reduction in force to justify the terminations of Wrede and Castron.

“An employer is only setting itself up for more trouble when it punishes a worker for exercising her right to complain about unlawful activity in the workplace,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The EEOC is always especially concerned when we uncover this kind of unlawful retaliation. It chills witnesses and victims from reporting illegal discrimination at work, and therefore interferes dangerously with the Commission’s law enforcement efforts.”

In an earlier lawsuit (EEOC v. The Boeing Company, CV-03-1210-PHX-PGR), the EEOC sought relief on behalf of Kelley Miles, a female mechanic at the Mesa facility, who works on the Apache helicopter that Boeing manufactures for the U.S. Army. The EEOC charged that Boeing allowed Miles’ co-workers to harass her on an ongoing basis due to her gender and allowed one or more managers to contribute to that harassment without taking appropriate steps to address the behavior. Much of the harassment directed at Miles was designed to make it more difficult for her to perform her job, the EEOC said. Male co-workers took Miles’ tools and either broke them, hid them, or changed the adjustments before returning them. Other harassment was sexual in nature. Miles reported this conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, but the company did nothing to address it. As a result, the harassment continued.

The suit also charged that Boeing retaliated against Miles for complaining about gender-based harassment. After Miles reported her co-workers’ conduct to Boeing’s Human Resources Department, a manager warned several of Miles’ co-workers to be careful of what they said to her because the manager had them on a list.

Boeing’s alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation.

The consent decrees reached between the parties provide for $380,000 in monetary relief for Castron, Wrede and Miles and an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and retaliation. Further, the EEOC obtained curative relief, such as training, to prevent Boeing from engaging in any further discrimination and retaliation.

“The right of an employee to oppose discrimination in the workplace is fundamental,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Employees should be able to report discrimination without fearing that their employers will make the situation worse by retaliating against them.”

Rayford Irvin, EEOC acting district director in Phoenix, added, “Covert attempts to mask discriminatory and retaliatory motives, such as Boeing employed, will fool no one.”

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

After the President re-nominated Craig Becker to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, the Senate HELP Committee voted 13-10 along party lines to approve his appointment.

A cloture vote is scheduled for Monday.

The Republicans now have enough votes to block a cloture vote.

EEOC claimed that Ivy Hall Assisted Living fired a female housekeeper rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside her home.

The suit was settled for $43,000 plus other relief.

EEOC Press release:

1-29-10

Ivy Hall Assisted Living Pays $43,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

EEOC Charged Female Employee Fired Because of Muslim Headdress

ATLANTA – Ivy Hall Assisted Living, LLC will pay $43,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The agency had charged that Ivy Hall discriminated against a female housekeeper by firing her rather than accommodating her religious belief that she wear a Muslim head scarf (hijab) outside her home. According to the EEOC’s suit, Ivy Hall insisted that, as a condition of her continued employment, Khadija Ahdaoui remove and refrain from wearing her hijab on the job.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that employers make an effort to accommodate employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC filed the suit on September 30, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No.: 1:08-CV-3067-BBM-SSC).

The consent decree settling the suit, in addition to the monetary relief of $43,000, includes provisions for equal employment opportunity training, reporting of any further religious discrimination complaints, and posting of an anti-discrimination notice. In the suit and consent decree, Ivy Hall denied any liability or wrongdoing.

“Title VII protects employees from having to make the choice Ms. Ahdaoui was forced to make between her religious beliefs and her employment,” said Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “The Commission is pleased that Ivy Hall committed itself to resolving this matter and to taking the necessary steps to ensure future compliance with the law.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Job losses during the Great Recession have been huge and they're about to get bigger.

EEOC sued Astea International, claiming it discharged a 47 year old vice president and replaced him with someone 15 years younger.

The parties entered a consent decree proving for payment of $175,000 and other relief.

EEOC Press release 02/02/2010:

Astea International Will Pay $175,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Global Software Company Fired 47-Year-Old VP Because of Age, Federal Agency Said

PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed and resolved an age discrimination lawsuit against Horsham, Pa.-based Astea International, Inc. for $175,000 in monetary relief and significant equitable relief.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Frank Fesnak satisfactorily performed his duties as vice president of strategic alliances but was fired because of his age, 47. The EEOC charged that after Fesnak was assigned to report to a different supervisor, the new supervisor made derogatory comments regarding older workers. Astea, a professional consulting services group, abruptly terminated Fesnak and hired someone 15 years younger to replace him, the EEOC said in its lawsuit, Civil Action No. 10-CV-286, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

In addition to the $175,000 in monetary relief to Fesnak, the two-year consent decree includes: injunctive relief prohibiting Astea from engaging in unlawful age discrimination; anti-discrimination training; and the posting of a notice about the settlement. Astea did not admit liability in the consent decree, which was approved by the court on Jan. 26.

“We are pleased that Astea worked with us so that we could file both the complaint and the consent decree resolving the lawsuit on the same day without the parties engaging in costly litigation,” said Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, which oversees Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and parts of New Jersey and Ohio. “In addition to providing satisfactory monetary relief, the consent decree contains important equitable relief to prevent future workplace problems, including training of all managers and employees at the corporate headquarters.”

In Fiscal Year 2009, age discrimination charges reached 22,778, the second-highest level ever. In July 2009, the EEOC held a public hearing on age discrimination and barriers to the employment of older workers. Additional information about the hearing can be found on the EEOC’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/7-15-09/index.cfm.

According to its web site, Astea International is a global provider of service management software solutions. Further information about the company is available on its web site, www.astea.com.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

EEOC claimed that a funeral chapel refused to allow an amputee who had successfully worked for the company for a year and nine months to continue working as a secretary once she required the use of a wheelchair.

The suit settled for $62,500 and other relief.

EEOC Press release 02/03/2010:

Attrell’s Funeral Chapels Pays $62,500 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

Amputee Fired Because of Disability, Federal Agency Charged

SEATTLE – A Newberg, Ore., funeral chapel will pay $62,500 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, Attrell’s Newberg Funeral Chapel violated federal law when it refused to allow Barbara Jackson, an amputee who had successfully worked for the company for a year and nine months, to continue working as a secretary once she required the use of a wheelchair. Attrell’s claimed that Jackson could not carry out the duties of the secretarial position if she could not walk, and noted that having an employee in a wheelchair might make their grieving clients feel bad. After Attrell’s fired her, Jackson suffered financial hardship due to difficulties in finding a comparable job, the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (EEOC and Jackson v. S.C.C., Inc., dba Attrell’s Newberg Funeral Chapel; cv-09-1009-HU) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement. After the EEOC filed the lawsuit on her behalf, Jackson retained private attorney Larry Linder and intervened in the case. Jackson’s charge of discrimination was investigated by EEOC investigator Rick Thomas.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Attrell’s agreed to implement anti-discrimination policies and procedures in its workplace. The company also agreed to provide training on the ADA and reasonable accommodations to all its management and non-management employees its Newberg facility. Attrell’s will also provide periodic reports to EEOC on its compliance with the terms of the consent decree.

“Attrell’s fired Ms. Jackson based on its own stereotypes about what a person who uses a wheelchair can and cannot do,” said A. Luis Lucero, Jr., director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Ms. Jackson was not even given the opportunity to demonstrate her abilities to carry out her work functions using a chair. Such stereotyping harms people with disabilities, but it also hurts employers because they lose out on talented and qualified employees.”

EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, “Let this be a lesson to other employers: You must engage in the interactive process with employees who request accommodations. Ms. Jackson’s request was reasonable. Allowing her to continue working from her wheelchair would have benefited Ms. Jackson, Attrell’s, and the many clients who benefited from Ms. Jackson’s kind and diligent manner in attending to funeral arrangements. Instead, Ms. Jackson has been unemployed for over a year and has had to endure humiliation.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC Seattle Field Office’s jurisdiction includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Further information about the EEOC including its guidance on employees with disabilities is available on its website at http://www.eeoc.gov.

February 04, 2010, 6:56 AM / As an advocate for the unemployed, I am compelled to respond to two recent letters in Everybody's Column, written by small business executives who condemned the New York State Department of Labor for its approach to employee issues.

Department of Justice claimed that a company denied a promotion to one of its employees because he was engaged in military service.

A settlement will provide the employee with $5,760 in backpay and interest.

DOJ Press release 02/04/2010:

Justice Department Settles Lawsuit Against MasTec Advanced Technologies to Enforce the Employment Rights of Army Reserve Member

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department announced today that it has reached a settlement in its lawsuit against MasTec Advanced Technologies on behalf of Eugene C. Burress, a U.S. Army Reserve member, alleging that MasTec willfully violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).

The settlement, embodied in a consent decree that must still be approved in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, calls for MasTec to provide Burress with $5,760 in backpay and interest.

The Justice Department’s complaint, filed in November 2009, alleges that in January 2008, Burress, then a field technician supervisor at MasTec’s Martinsburg, W.Va., office, was called to active duty in the U.S. Army and notified his supervisor of his upcoming military service. His supervisor previously had informed Burress that the site manager position at the office would be vacant soon and offered the position to Burress when it became available. Burress accepted. However, in October 2008, while Burress was engaged in military service, MasTec promoted another MasTec employee to site manager. Burress filed a complaint with the Labor Department’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, which investigated and attempted to resolve Burress’s USERRA complaint before referring it to the Justice Department for litigation.

"Members of our military make great sacrifices on behalf of our nation. Upon their return from active duty, they have the right to know they will not be denied a promotion because of their service," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

USERRA prohibits civilian employers from denying servicemembers promotions because of their membership in or obligations to perform service in the U.S. military, and also requires that servicemembers who leave their jobs to serve in the U.S. military be timely reemployed by their civilian employers in the same position, or in a comparable position to the position that they would have held had they not left to serve in the military.

The Civil Rights Division is committed to the vigorous enforcement of servicemembers’ rights under USERRA. Additional information about USERRA can be found on the Justice Department Web site at www.servicemembers.gov and www.justice.gov/crt/emp, as well as on the Labor Department’s website at www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm.

Governor David A. Paterson today announced the nomination of Colleen Crawford Gardner as Commissioner of Labor.

The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered nearly $40,000 in overtime pay for workers at an eastern Nebraska company.

The U.S. Department of Labor has secured nearly $62,000 in back overtime wages for 21 current and former health care workers of Davis Life Care Center Inc.

A first-time report on green-sector jobs in Pennsylvania could turn the spotlight again on state legislation to foster greater use of clean energy.