|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Are You A Criminal Or A Deadbeat? Uncle Sam Wants You (As a Potential Class Member).Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - October 23, 2009 Employers that prohibit or limit the hire of persons with felony convictions may be unknowingly in the cross hairs of the EEOC for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) on the theory that failing to hire felons has a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics. The EEOC is currently in the process of revising its regulations regarding felony convictions. Report Link A HOBSON’S CHOICE: HIGH COURT SHARPLY LIMITS EMPLOYERS’ OPTIONS FOR AVOIDING BIAS CLAIMS.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - July 17, 2009 When a group of White firefighters came out on top in a promotional exam, a Connecticut Fire Department became worried about possible racial bias in the exam. Report Link 'RICCI' AND A HARD PLACE.Shaw Valenza LLP - July 13, 2009 When is it lawful under anti-discrimination laws for an employer to intentionally discriminate against members of one protected class, to avoid a disparate impact claim by individuals in another protected group? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that question in Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 DJDAR 9567 (June 29, 2009). The court's decision explains the interplay between two branches of anti-discrimination laws: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Report Link Ricci v. DeSteffano: Talk about A Rock And A Hard Place: Employers Required To Pick Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 13, 2009 On June 29, 2009, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, issued the long-awaited decision in Ricci v. DeSteffano, a "reverse race discrimination" case arising out of the City of New Haven, Connecticut's Civil Service Board's ("CSB") decision not to use the results of promotional examinations. The Court held that CSB engaged in disparate treatment race discrimination against white firefighters when it decided not to certify test results showing a disparate impact on certain firefighters of color.1 In making its decision, the CSB considered evidence that the selection process may not have been job-related and consistent with business necessity and that an alternative employment practice having less of a disparate impact and serving its legitimate business needs could have been utilized. Report Link Supreme Court Holds that an Employer Cannot Make a Race-Based Decision to Avoid Possible Title VII Adverse Impact Claims Unless there is a Strong Basis in Evidence of Disparate Impact Liability.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - July 10, 2009 In Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 WL 1835138 (June 29, 2009), a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court held that the city of New Haven, Connecticut unlawfully discriminated against top-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters by rejecting the results of a promotion-qualifying exam to avoid a possible claim from black candidates who had not tested as well. In so doing, the court ruled that "before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in fact to believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action." Report Link US Supreme Court Rules For White Firefighters In Race Bias Case.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - July 06, 2009 Is there such a thing as “reverse” race discrimination in the workplace? Yes. “Reverse discrimination” is not term found statutory prohibitions against job discrimination, but it is commonly understood to mean giving preference to minority employees at the expense of Caucasian employees. With few exceptions, discriminating against white employees is no less illegal than discriminating against minority employees. Report Link In an Action Alleging Unlawful Employment Practice Based on Disparate Impact in Violation of Title VII, the Plaintiff Bears the Burden of Proving Acceptable Alternative Business Practices.Phelps Dunbar LLP - June 20, 2006 In the recent decision of IBEW v. Mississippi Power and
Light, 442 F.3rd 313 (5th Cir. 2006), two unions, along with
two of their individual African-American members, filed
suit against Mississippi Power and Light (“MP&L”) alleging
that MP&L had engaged in employment practices with a
racially disparate impact in violation of Title VII.
|
Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds