How long should the country offer unemployment benefits to the folks caught in the grip of the downturn? How long before those benefits, desperately needed by many, actually become a hurdle to people finding work?
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting article on this topic this week discussing this issue. Give it a read.
So what do you think? Given the state of the economy, how long should be keep extending benefits? Are we doing more harm than good or are we standing by our fellow Americans in a time of great trial? Would love to see your comments.
I am preparing for a trial next month in a case in which my client's employer fired her while she was out on maternity leave. So I have been spending some time this week reading and exploring the web to find out what people are thinking and talking about right now with regards to pregnancy and work.
Came across an interview with Sharon Lerner, the author of "The War on Moms." She has an interesting take on the state of maternity leave laws in the U.S. Her focus is not so much on the "choice" of continuing work or staying home after having a baby. Instead she focuses on the practical context in which most women have to make that choice: economic pressure, social expectations, etc. and she reaches the conclusion that many. . . or even most women don't feel like they have much of a choice at all.
President Barack Obama is using his recess appointment power to install 15 stalled nominees, including labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board and Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The recess appointment power, used with regularity by previous administrations, allows the nominees to serve through the end of 2011 without being confirmed by the Senate. Becker, picked for the NLRB, and Feldblum, for the EEOC, have faced especially heated opposition.
Also among the 15 nominees are Jacqueline Berrien, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, for chair of the EEOC; Seyfarth Shaw of counsel Victoria Lipnic for the EEOC; P. David Lopez, an EEOC supervisory trial attorney, for EEOC general counsel; and Buffalo, N.Y. labor lawyer Mark Pearce for the NLRB.
We previously discussed the journey of the Franken Amendment through the halls of Congress. (The Amendment would prohibit the award of DOD funds to any Federal contractor that forces its employees or independent contractors to submit to pre-dispute binding arbitration of Title VII and sexual-assault tort claims.)
This weekend, the amendment was signed into law by President Obama. This means that most military contractors will no longer be able to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts under a provision signed into law over the weekend.
The issue has been a high priority this year for trial lawyers and for consumer groups. When speaking candidly, most employment lawyers would agree that clauses mandating the use of arbitration deny employees an impartial hearing in open court. Supporters of forced arbitration argue that the process is both fair and efficient.
The open question is whether the passage of the Franken Amendment will lead to an effort next year by Congress to outlaw forced arbitration of civil rights claims throughout the private employment context.
Late last month, Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY), along with original cosponsors Hank Johnson (D-GA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), Michael Michaud (D-ME), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), introduced H.R. 4115, the Open Access to Courts Act of 2009. Although intended to accomplish the same purpose as the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009, S. 1504, introduced in the Senate - to overturn Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and to restore the Conley v. Gibson notice pleading standard, the language of this bill is different than S. 1504. Here is the language that H.R. 4115 would add to chapter 131 of title 28, United States Code:
Sec. 2078. Limitation on dismissal of complaints
(a) A court shall not dismiss a complaint under subdivision (b)(6), (c) or (e) of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. A court shall not dismiss a complaint under one of those subdivisions on the basis of a determination by the judge that the factual contents of the complaint do not show the plaintiff's claim to be plausible or are insufficient to warrant a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) govern according to their terms except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this section or by amendments made after such date to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pursuant to the procedures prescribed by the Judicial Conference under this chapter.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, chaired by Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA), followed up on the bill's introduction with a hearing on December 16, 2009.
One bill remains outstanding as a part of the final appropriations process for FY 2010 - the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriation - the bill to which the Franken Amendment was attached. The Franken Amendment would prohibit the award of DOD funds to any Federal contractor that forces its employees or independent contractors to submit to pre-dispute binding arbitration of Title VII and sexual-assault tort claims.
On Wednesday, December 16, 2009, very significant progress on DOD Appropriations - and on the Franken Amendment - was made. Most important, a somewhat revised Franken Amendment was included, as Section 8116, in the bill that emerged from the Conference Committee. The House has passed the conferenced bill, along with amendments relating to short-term extensions of unrelated bills. The bill is currently before the Senate for final action. It is expected that the Senate will concur with the House version.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is looking at getting an extra $23 million dollars to help tackle the growing backlog of cases at the at the agency.
According to the National Law Journal, the 2010 omnibus appropriations bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 10 and by the Senate on Dec. 13, would funnel those additional millions to the EEOC to help the agency get a handle on more than 70,000 unresolved discrimination complaints.
The article reports that the resource-starved EEOC recently saw a 35% jump in its backlog, from 54,970 cases in 2007 to 73,951 last year. The agency also saw a record number of discrimination complaints in 2008 — 95,402 — which was also a nearly 20% increase from 79,896 in 2007. Nearly two-thirds involved racial or gender discrimination.
Meanwhile, the agency has watched staffing levels shrink 25% in recent years under the last administration, from 2,850 in 2001 to 2,150 in 2008. Currently the agency is hiring 200 new investigators.
The EEOC has always had a chronic problem with not being adequately funded. While this new funding won't totally rectify the situation, the move should be welcomed by both employers and employees. Regardless of outcome, it is in everyone's best interest for EEOC investigations to be resolved in as short a time frame as possible.
The "Lion of the Senate" and long-time champion of American workers died late Tuesday night after a battle with brain cancer. Kennedy was a strong advocate for equal rights and workers' rights in the Senate for more than 45 years. His influence on, among other things, workplace civil rights issues will be missed. Rest in Peace.
The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy and Public Citizen have completed a National Study of Public Attitudes on Forced Arbitration. The release is no doubt an effort to support the Arbitration Fairness Act, which is currently in Congress.
The study is based on a major national survey on mandatory arbitration of employment and consumer claims conducted by Lake Research Partners.
The survey of 800 likely voters nationwide found that:
A solid majority of Americans (59%) opposes forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of employment and consumer contracts, including both men and women and majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
Similarly strong majorities (59%) support the Arbitration Fairness Act. Support for the Act also crosses traditional gender and political divides.
Even after voters hear arguments in favor of, and opposed to, forced arbitration, opposition to the practice holds firm. Just one-third of the electorate supports the practice.
Roughly three-quarters of Americans believe they can sue an employer or company should they be seriously harmed or have a major dispute arise - even if they are bound by forced arbitration terms.
Most Americans are unaware of the rights being taken away from them. Approximately two-thirds cannot remember seeing anything about forced arbitration in either Terms of Employment or Terms of Agreement for goods and services.
The Austin American Statesman is reporting today that the lure of $555 million in federal stimulus money for additional unemployment insurance has Texas legislators mulling whether to expand unemployment benefits to more workers.
To get the stimulus money, Texas would have to implement some key changes to state law — including modifying some eligibility requirements to include tens of thousands of low-wage workers. Such changes have been considered but not enacted in previous sessions.
"Unemployment is rising in Texas — the state unemployment rate was 6 percent in December, up from 4.2 percent a year ago. Benefits paid last week were more than double those paid the same time last year.
More laid-off workers also means that the trust fund that pays benefits is being depleted. The Texas Workforce Commission has projected a $750 million deficit that will require the commission next fall to raise taxes on employers and borrow money to refill the fund.
The federal money could lessen the need for new taxes on business, said state Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who is chairman of the Technology, Economic Development and Workforce Committee.
'Failure to adopt the policy changes ... would result in a higher burden on business taxpayers in the immediate and near term during the recession' than would expanding the benefits...."
Getting any of the federal money requires Texas to alter the work period used to determine unemployment eligibility and benefits to a worker's four most recent quarters of employment. The article states that twenty-one other states already use this method.
The current Texas system does not consider the most recent quarter of earnings and instead uses the previous four quarters. Advocates for low income workers argue that creates an artificial time frame that particularly affects low-wage workers who go in and out of the work force.
Amid the many issues of taxes and spending in the economic stimulus bill, you may have missed that it contains Section 1553, which is full of new protections for whistleblowers who work for state and local governments or who work for private contractors receiving monies under the bill.
The idea behind the provision is that whistleblower protections will improve accountability and transparency in the way the public's monies are spent. And there is support for this proposition. According to a recent article by the National Employment Lawyers' Association, PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently surveyed more than 5,000 corporations worldwide and found that whistleblowers, by far, were the most effective means for the initial detection of corporate fraud, besting internal auditors and law enforcement. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice recently reported that whistleblowers were responsible for returning over $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2008 alone.
Here are some of the provisions in the bill designed to ensure protections from reprisal when employees blow the whistle on government and corporate wrongdoing:
Protected disclosures include those "made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties" to any of a long list of officials, including to Members of Congress.
After exhaustion of administrative remedies or 210 days from the filing of a complaint, a de novo trial in federal district court to a jury is available.
Compensatory damages, as well as economic damages and injunctive relief, are authorized.
A showing that a disclosure was "a contributing factor" to the reprisal - including a showing by circumstantial evidence - is sufficient proof unless the employer shows "by clear and convincing evidence" that it would have taken the same action anyway.
Pre-dispute arbitration clauses are explicitly made unenforceable as to these disputes, with the exception of disputes arising under a collective bargaining agreement.
The one glaring absence from the bill is the lack of any protection for federal employees. Obviously, federal employees are uniquely positioned to observe and report on funds that are mishandled. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to protect the employees of recipients of stimulus spending, while not doing so for the federal employees who oversee that spending.
If you are looking for a copy of the entire stimulus bill, you can currently find it here.
President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter equal-pay bill into law today in front of cheering labor and women leaders. Standing beside him was the plaintiff in the discrimination lawsuit that eventually led to the passage of the law, Lilly Ledbetter.
Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.
Background
In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. During her years at the factory as a salaried worker, raises were given and denied based on evaluations and recommendations regarding worker performance, as is typical. All merit increases had to be substantiated by a formal evaluation. In March 1998, after she received an anonymous note Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company with regards to her being paid less than her male counterparts. In July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.
By a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Goodyear, holding that a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job, regardless of whether the employee even learns of the discriminatory decision during this short time frame.
Democrats, women's groups, labor groups, and even some Republicans ridiculed the Court's decision as obviously absurd. For all practical purposes it eliminated any remedy for gender-based pay discrimination in the United States. Some lower courts started to apply the same logic in other cases, ruling that disabled residents of an apartment complex had to sue to enforce ADA accessibility standards within 180 days of the building being built, even if they did not live there at the time.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
In 2007, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The bill became an issue in the 2008 Presidential election campaign, with Barack Obama supporting the bill, and John McCain opposed to it. The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, appeared in campaign ads for the Obama campaign and had a speaking role at the Democratic National Convention.
Today, the bill became law. The measure, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.
More Information
Here are some links to additional information, audio and video:
Barack Obama has nominated California Democratic Rep. Hilda Solis as his labor secretary. Solis, the daughter of two Hispanic immigrants, has been in Congress since 2000. She has never served on the House Education and Labor Committee. She currently serves on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Solis received her degrees from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and the University of Southern California and worked for two federal agencies in Washington, D.C. She was elected to the California State Assembly in 1992 and to the California State Senate in 1994. She was the first Hispanic woman to serve in the State Senate, and was re-elected there in 1998. She became known for her work toward environmental justice and was the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2000.
Solis is well-liked by labor. Service Employee International Union ("SEIU") President Andy Stern hailed the nomination of Solis:
"As someone who has pounded the pavement knocking on doors for Hilda Solis in her first upset campaign in California, I can tell you firsthand that this woman is about opening doors for millions of Americans who get up and go to work each day.
From the streets of Los Angeles where she marched with the janitors who were fighting for jobs with dignity that can support a family through SEIU's Justice for Janitors campaigns, to the halls of Congress where she has been an outspoken supporter of healthcare rights for all, a livable minimum wage, and workers' right to come together for a voice on the job, Hilda Solis has never backed down from the good fight to make the American Dream available to all."
You can find Congresswoman Solis' Homepage here. It has links to her statements and bills that she is attached to.
The Associated Press quoted Randy Johnson, vice president for labor issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with regard to what the response of business groups would be to her nomination: "There’s a new sheriff in town, but they’ll still have to deal with the business community, and they know it. We would hope she will continue to support programs that help educate employers about voluntary compliance with the law rather than pursue heavy-handed enforcement.”
The Family Medical Leave Act has undergone major changes for the first time in its 15-year history. (We posted previously about the amendments & the Department of Labor's new regulations here.) Some attorneys fear that these changes may cause a great deal of confusion and litigation.
This week issued new rules for the amendments, which take effect on Jan. 16. The new rules were a response to complaints by employers and employees alike. Employers have long argued that workers are abusing FMLA, especially in the area of intermittent leave. Employees counter that they're unfairly being denied FMLA, and, are often retaliated against for taking it.
The new rules address many of employer's long-standing issues with the FMLA and also address under which circumstances military families can take FMLA leave. However, some attorneys believe that the changes will still be problematic for employers.
As promised, here is additional information regarding what each of the presidential candidates plans to do with regard to workplace and HR issues. This information is taken directly from the candidates' respective campaign websites without any editing or alteration whatsoever.
John McCain
John McCain is calling for National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice. This Commission would bring together a bi-partisan set of leaders representing workers, small and large employers, labor, and academics. The Commission would make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs.
The Commission would examine the following issues that John McCain believes are important to workplace flexibility and choice:
Modernizing the nation’s labor laws so that they allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements
Ensuring that the nation’s labor laws don’t get in the way of working at home
Promoting telework so that workers can spend less time commuting
Making health more portable so that workers don’t lose their benefits when they switch jobs
Ensuring that workers can choose retirement plans that best suit their needs
Providing workers with more choice in job training assistance so that they can build the skills they need for new and better jobs
Barack Obama
Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.
Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.
Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children. Obama will include measures to maximize performance and effectiveness across grantees nationwide.
Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.
Barack Obama recently spoke at some length regarding his views regarding labor and workplace issues. The video of his remarks is included below. Leave a comment and tell us what you think.
P.S. I am looking for video of McCain addressing work-related issues and will post it up as soon as I find it.
As the number of people without health insurance continues to rise, many states and Congress have begun to focus on one of the biggest causes: the growing number of small business owners and their workers who are unable to afford coverage.
Congress, in response, is considering legislation that, among other steps, would make it significantly easier for small businesses to organize insurance-buying pools. Despite bipartisan backing in both the House and Senate, it is uncertain whether the bills can be passed in this, an election year. But proponents say the legislation would almost certainly be reintroduced next term.
A large, bipartisan group of senators signed on as co-sponsors of the ADA Amendments Act (S.3406) which was introduced August 1. The bill will strengthen the protections of the original Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990.
Sens. Tom Harkin, D. Iowa, and Orrin Hatch, R. Utah, led the effort to sign on 66 senators as co-sponsors of the bill. With so many co-sponsors, there is a good chance that the Senate leadership will bring the bill to the floor to a vote.
The House passed its version of the bill overwhelmingly (402-17) on June 25. Thus it is possible that it will be sent to the President on veto-proof majority votes from both the House and Senate.
In a statement, Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, praised the bill's introduction: "The ADA Amendments Act is the most significant civil rights bill of the 110th Congress. This act will correct narrow court interpretations that have restricted ADA coverage in the workplace, and taken away coverage for people with diabetes, epilepsy, serious heart conditions, mental disabilities, and even cancer."
She noted the cooperation and bipartisan spirit under which the Congress has considered the legislation: "In this era of partisan politics, the dramatic convergence of the business, disability and broader civil rights communities is a testament to the importance of this legislation to diverse constituencies as well as the power of coalition politics."
Sandy Finucane, vice president of the Epilepsy Foundation, agreed: "The introduction of this bill, with such broad bipartisan support, is a tribute to the hard work and conviction of Sens. Hatch and Harkin, who worked tirelessly to get it done. This is a major victory for the disability community."
The bill will overturn several Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed the interpretation of the ADA and substantially limited protections for millions of Americans.
For example, the Court ruled in the 1999 case Sutton v. United Airlines that individuals are not considered disabled if they are able to manage the symptoms of their impairments with medication or assistive devices. The new bill clarifies that disability should be determined without considering "mitigating measures."
Similarly, the bill requires that people whose disabilities occur only in episodes have their disabilities assessed when their symptoms are present – important for many disorders including depression and epilepsy.
The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. House has passed a major civil rights bill on Wednesday that would expand protections for people with disabilities and overturn several Supreme Court decisions issued in the last decade. We previously addressed this bill here.
The bill, which was approved 402 to 17, would make it easier for workers to prove discrimination. It would explicitly relax some stringent standards set by the court and says that disability is to be “construed broadly,” to cover more physical and mental impairments.
Perhaps the most important change contained in the bill is a fundamental change in what by definition would qualify as a protected disability. Under the bill, a less stringent standard, that an impairment qualifies as a disability if it “materially restricts” a major life activity like seeing, hearing, eating, walking, reading or thinking would replace the existing strict standard.
House Leaders are working on H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration Act, a bill that had prompted a lot of concern with the business associations.
Disability activists and business representatives have come together to agree on language that helps clarify the Americans with Disabilities Act, protects and strengthens the protections for the disabled — covering people who should be covered – while seeking to avoid the more onerous and expensive rules that employers fear.
According to Shopfloor.org, a coalition of groups who have worked on the issue sent a letter to the Hill yesterday outlining the compromise. A copy of the letter is available here. Key provisions it cites.
Coverage under the ADA - The proposal clarifies that Congress intended the ADA’s coverage to be broad, to cover anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability.
Definition of Disability - The proposal retains the requirement that an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity in order to be considered a disability and an individual must demonstrate that he or she is qualified for the job.
Protection for Mitigating Measures - The proposal would overturn several court decisions to provide that people with disabilities not lose their coverage under the ADA simply because their condition is treatable with medication or can be addressed with the help of assistive technology.
Regarded As - The proposal includes a “regarded as” prong as part of the definition of disability which covers situations where an employee is discriminated against because of his or her actual or perceived impairment. Moreover, the proposal makes it clear that accommodations do not need to be made to someone who is disabled solely because he or she is “regarded as” disabled.
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure intended to overturn a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination suits in a politically charged vote certain to be replayed in the presidential and Congressional campaigns.
By a vote of 56 to 42, the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 required to begin consideration of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost a case against the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company when the court found she not did file her complaint in time. Ms. Ledbetter had been paid as much as 40 percent less than her male counterparts doing the same job, according to her allies.
The Republican senators made it clear that they believe it is OK to discriminate against women on the basis of pay. We respectfully disagree.
The House voted Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision limiting the time that workers have to sue their employers for pay discrimination. The House voted 225-199 to restart the statute of limitations for pay discrimination lawsuits each time an employee gets a paycheck affected by sexism or racism, repudiating a decision by the high court's five most conservative justices.
The Bush administration has threatened to veto the legislation.
Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. House in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Ledbetter decision that said victims of pay discrimination lose their right to sue 180 days after the company's initial pay decision is made, even if the employee does not learn of the discriminatory treatment for years. Rep. George Miller is sponsoring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would expand the time in which a plaintiff has a legal right to sue for back pay.
The court last month ruled in a 5-4 decision that Ledbetter, according to existing statutes, had to have filed her claim within 180 days of the first evidence of discrimination -- essentially the first paycheck in which she earned less than her male peers. Ledbetter didn't learn of her pay differential until years later.
The bill proposed by Miller would give workers the right to file claims within 180 days of the issuance of any discriminatory paycheck.
I've received a few questions about the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2007 ("CRTRA"), which is currently pending in Congress so I thought it appropriate to post some information about the bill, what it is designed to do and who supports it.
The CRTRA is meant to end certain types of taxation of damages received by those who have suffered unlawful discrimination or violations of employment rights. The bill was introduced in Congress by John Lewis (D-GA), who was joined by abipartisan group of original cosponsors, including Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH) and Ways & Means Committee Members Sander Levin (D-MI), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), and Phil English (R-PA). The bill number is H.R. 1540.
No one disputes that when employees face employment discrimination and other violations of their employment and civil rights, it is best if they avoid litigation by coming to amicable agreements with their employers. But too often, cases like this are difficult to settle because the cost of settlements is so high. A significant reason for the high cost is the excessive and unfair tax treatment of settlements and awards in employment rights cases.
Today there are two major sources of excessive and unfair taxes in such cases:
taxation of damages for noneconomic harm that employees suffer as a result of egregious, intentional harassment, retaliation, or similar workplace wrongs; and
taxation of lump-sum settlements or awards that compensate for lost back pay over a period of years at the artificially high marginal tax rates of the year of receipt.
These taxes drive up the cost of settlement of workplace-related cases for America's businesses, while at the same time reducing recoveries for victims of discrimination. They also create unfair and arbitrary distinctions among taxpayers. The CRTRA is designed to address these concerns. Here are some answers to some basic questions about the legislation:What Does the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act Do?The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act (CRTRA) solves these two problems by amending the tax code in the following two ways:
it eliminates noneconomic damages from gross income; and
it permits income averaging for back pay received in a lump sum.
How Will the CRTRA Help Employers?The CRTRA will significantly reduce the costs of employment- and civil rights-related litigation for companies. More cases will be settled before trial, and it will be less expensive for employers to settle them.How Will the CRTRA Help Employees?The CRTRA will help employees who have to sue to vindicate their rights by requiring that they pay tax only on the economic component of their awards. It will reduce the taxes employees pay on monies awarded as back-pay in lump sums by requiring that they pay tax at fair marginal rates. And it will make it easier to settle cases because employers will not have to pay as much to resolve meritorious claims.Who Supports The Legislation?Groups ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resources Management to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, The National Employment Lawyers Association and AARP have endorsed the legislation.
Christopher J. McKinney is board certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. His practice is dedicated to civil litigation matters, with a particular emphasis on cases involving state and federal employment laws. As a...More...
My good friend Mike Maslanka has an excellent post up on his Work Matters Blog this week discussing the Texas Supreme Court's granting review of Marsh USA Inc, et al.More...
We get a high volume of basic HR-related questions here at the HR Lawyer's Blog. So many, in fact, that we are sometimes not able to respond to eachMore...
Many employers and employees appear to still be unaware of the temporary COBRA premium reduction passed by Congress. Here is some background: As a part of the stimulus package, whichMore...
How can we help? Any information you provide is considered confidential to the greatest extent allowed by law and will not be shared outside of our firm.
out on maternity leave. So I have been spending some time this week reading and exploring the web to find out what people are thinking and talking about right now with regards to pregnancy and work. 
unemployment benefits to more workers.
local governments or who work for private contractors receiving monies under the bill..jpg)
the daughter of two Hispanic immigrants, has been in Congress since 2000. She has never served on the House Education and Labor Committee. She currently serves on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.