Here is the latest issue of “This & That” Tuesday. I hope you find it to be informative and useful.

 

Announcements

You can always check out my website for upcoming speaking engagements that are guaranteed to be of value to business owners or for a list of topics that I can speak on at Chambers, Clubs, Business Associations, etc. More details about the events, topics and Human Resources 4U, in general, can be found on my website.

 

Two Companies Settle Immigration-Related Discrimination Claims

The Department of Justice recently reached agreements with two companies to resolve claims that they violated the antidiscrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

In one case, the department reached an agreement with an employment firm based in Salt Lake City. The department’s investigation confirmed allegations made by a work-authorized individual that the company had rejected his valid driver’s license and unrestricted Social Security card and required him to produce a Department of Homeland Security Employment Authorization Document (EAD) upon initial hire and when subsequently re-verifying his employment authorization. 

 

The department’s investigation further determined that the company’s documentary demands were based on the individual’s status as a non-U.S. citizen. The antidiscrimination provision of the INA prohibits employers from using discriminatory documentary policies, procedures, or requirements based on citizenship status or national origin when initially determining or subsequently re-verifying an employee’s authorization for employment.

 

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company has agreed to pay $9,157.50 in back pay to the victim and $1,200 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the antidiscrimination provision of the INA, and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year.  

 

In a separate investigation, the Justice Department reached an agreement with a clothing company to resolve allegations that the company rejected a work-authorized individual’s Department of Homeland Security-issued EAD and required her to produce a Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a “green card”) as a condition of employment. 

 

The individual, who was employment-authorized as an applicant for permanent residence, was unable to work following the rejection of her EAD. The antidiscrimination provision of the INA prohibits employers from discriminating in the employment eligibility verification process by demanding specific documents or rejecting acceptable documents based on citizenship status or national origin.

 

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, this company has agreed to pay $2,100 in back pay to the individual and $600 in civil penalties to the United States, undergo Justice Department training on the antidiscrimination provision of the INA, and be subject to monitoring of its employment eligibility verification practices for a period of one year.  

 

Oil and Gas Services Firm Pays $100,000 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit

A Texas-based company which provides oil/gas testing, measuring, surveying and analysis surveys, and oil and gas exploration and development, will pay a former employee $100,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

 

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that the company fired a clerk after she requested time off for medical treatment to address a miscarriage. A companion suit filed by the former employee accused a related company of pregnancy discrimination based on her termination.

 

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). Under the PDA, employers are prohibited from engaging in sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, including making employment decisions based on childbirth or any medical conditions affected by pregnancy. It is a violation of federal law to fire an employee because she became pregnant and then suffered complications.

After the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the company had violated the PDA, the agency attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

 

In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC received 30,356 charges of sex-based discrimination, of which 3,745 alleged pregnancy discrimination. In that year, the EEOC recovered $14.3 million in monetary benefits for pregnancy discrimination victims through settlements, plus more monetary benefits obtained through litigation.

 

Factoids

Good News!

• We are no longer the fattest country, Mexico has passed us up. 32.8% of Mexicans are obese while only 31.8% of Americans are.

Bad News!

• Poor health costs the U.S. about $84 billion in lost productivity a year

 

Job Satisfaction

• Only 43% of workers are very satisfied with their job.
• 68% of workers would be willing to take a pay cut for a job that would allow them to apply their personal interests to the workplace.
• 23% of workers would be willing to take a pay cut of 25% or more.
• 7% of workers would be willing to take a pay cut of 50%.
• 22% of workers leave their job to “have more freedom to pursue interests and passions that are personally meaningful at work.”

 

Quotes

“Do not follow where the path may lead . . . go, instead, where there is no path and leave a trail.”

~Ralph Waldo Emerson~