Tyson Foods Inc. Agrees to Pay $1.5 Million for Hiring Discrimination

Posted on September 28, 2006 by Christopher McKinney
Tyson Foods Inc. has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle allegations that the company discriminated against women and minorities in hiring, the Labor Department announced Wednesday. The allegations of hiring discrimination involved six facilities in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The allegations emerged during government compliance evaluations conducted from 2002 through 2004.

Tyson has also agreed to correct discriminatory practices and to conduct extensive monitoring measures for two years to make sure that all hiring practices fully comply with the law, according to the DOL.

The suit followed OFCCP previous findings that Tyson discriminated against 1354 rejected female applicants for entry-level laborer positions at three Tyson chicken processing plants in Van Buren, Clarksville and Berryville, Arkansas. The agency also found that Tyson discriminated against 998 rejected minority applicants for entry-level laborer positions at chicken processing plants in Grannis, Ark. and Broken Bow, Okla., and discriminated against 225 rejected minority applicants for long haul driver positions at Tyson's long haul terminal in Springdale, Ark.

Here is the DOL Press Release

Tags:

California Court: Noncompetes in Employment Contracts Impermissible

Posted on September 21, 2006 by Christopher McKinney
The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles issued a significant opinion a few weeks ago, finding that noncompete agreements in California employment contracts are impermissible. The decision makes clear that such agreements are generally invalid and employees cannot be compelled to sign them as a condition of employment (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, No. B178246 (Cal.App. 2 Dist./Div. 3) (Aug. 30, 2006)).

In so holding, the three-judge panel stated that such agreements violate California's public policy in favor of protecting employee mobility. The court went on to state that "noncompetition agreements burden a terminated employee with the task of guessing, at his or her peril, whether a court might find particular restrictions sufficiently narrow or overly broad."Hat tip to HR Lori for the link.

Tags:

The State of Working America Report: Working Families Working More

Posted on September 18, 2006 by Christopher McKinney

The Economic Policy Institute recently released its advance edition of the State of Working America 2006/2007 report. The report presents a wide variety of data on family incomes, taxes, wages, unemployment, wealth, and poverty -- data that enables the book's authors to closely examine the impact of the economy on the living standards of the American people. One troubling statistic in the report: married parents' combined work hours are up 18 percent, with married, middle-income moms adding the equivalent of three months of full-time work to their annual schedules in the past 25 years. Unfortunately, the extra work is not necessarily generating extra income - according to the report, while productivity grew 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, median family income turned down 2.9 percent. Which means people are working more for less.

Hat tip to Grant Griffiths for the link.

Tags:

More Termination Issues

Posted on September 7, 2006 by Christopher McKinney
Posting will be light this week and next as actual work will be keeping me busy and largely out of the office. I did run accross this article from CNN/Money's website today however that touches on the subject of our RadioShack entry last week. It ticks off some of the dumbest (but actual) company tactics for terminating employees that it says are "ripped straight from The Corporate Guide to Crazy."The article also contains a comment section where they have asked the general public for their termination horror stories. As of the posting of this entry, there were 52 horror stories recorded already. Better check it and see if your company is listed among them.Hat tip to LaborProf Blog for the link to the article.
Tags:

Great Labor Day Reading

Posted on September 1, 2006 by Christopher McKinney

Heading out for the long Labor Day weekend but I have to point you to an excellent article from my friend Michael Maslanka in the up-coming Texas Lawyer. The article, entitled "Post-Burlington Northern Employment Procedures," is an excellent resource for any in-house counsel or hr director who wants to help their company navigate the increasingly dangerous waters of retaliation claims.

My favorite tip from the article is Michael's list of audit questions that should be used to analyze corporate actions that might be considered to be retaliatory. He suggests HR or in-house counsel investigate the issues with the following questions in mind:

* What's the temporal proximity? In other words, did the action come right after the complaint or the participation? Is it based on factors that existed before or after the complaint?* Who is the decision maker? Is the person against whom the complaint is lodged also the person who made the decision to take the employment action?* What's the reason for the action? A good way to get at the truth is to ask this question: What is the factual basis for the decision? Can the supervisor articulate it objectively, clearly and specifically?* Was the decision consistent with prior company actions? How have employees in similarly situated situations been treated?* Did the supervisor provide the chance to improve? Did the employee have reasonable notice that the action might occur, and, if possible, an opportunity to correct any behavior or situation that led to the action? This is key. Jurors (and judges for that matter) intuitively frame the issue as whether the employee had knowledge of the problem at hand and control over avoiding what happened.* Was the action fair? The word "fair" is like someone knowing when he's in love. Yes, it's feelings, but feelings often are better decision-making criteria than facts.

Excellent audit questions. You can find the article here.

Tags:

Questionable HR Management Award: RadioShack

Posted on September 1, 2006 by Christopher McKinney

RadioShack sure is getting a lot of coverage in the press this week -- all of it bad. The company followed through on its previously announced plans to cut about 400 jobs, but it has been catching a lot of flack about its method of notifying laid-off employees by e-mail.Employees at the Fort Worth headquarters received an e-mail Tuesday morning telling them they were being dismissed immediately:

"The workforce reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately your position is one that has been eliminated."

Layoffs are never any fun. Unfortunately, by failing to think the matter through and treat employees as they would wish to be treated during such a difficult event, RadioShack has created a PR nightmare for themselves at a time when they certainly didn't need it. Here is just a smattering: Houston Chronicle, USA Today, Associated Press, Television, Cable.
So congratulations to RadioShack! For ignoring the HR golden rule and turning what should have been a relatively quiet event into a public relations nightmare, we award them HR Lawyer's Blog's coveted Questionable HR Management Grand Prize Award!

Tags: