Connecticut Woman Files Genetic Discrimination Complaint against MXenergy

A 39-year-old Connecticut woman has just filed a genetic discrimination complaint against MXenergy, a natural gas and electric supplier, after allegedly being eased out of her job and then ultimately let go because of her genetic history.

According to Pamela Fink, she had a double mastectomy last year as a preventive measure against breast cancer.

She underwent surgery because she and her 2 sisters had a genetic test that showed that they carry the hereditary BRCA2 gene that makes them predisposed to breast cancer.

Her two sisters did get breast cancer but survived after a series of treatments.

After some biopsies and some scary false alarms, she decided to go under the knife.

Because of her good relationship with the company that has given her good reviews and merits of increases and promotions, she told her bosses about the genetic test and the surgery.

However, Fink said the company hired a consultant to do her job while she was recovering.

When she came back, she was asked to work under the consultant then was quickly eased out of her office and her duties.

Six weeks after she came back from her second injury, her job was already eliminated (only one in her department) and was escorted off the office.
MXenergy denied the allegations but made no further comment.

The charges are based under the new federal law, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act or Gina, which just took effect last November 2009.

The law prohibits discrimination based on the employee’s genetic information.

It also prevents employers from making employment decisions based on gender discrimination because it does not tell the employer about the current working capabilities of the employee.

In addition, if employers are allowed to use these to either hire or fire an employee, it will discourage a lot of Americans from taking advantage of genetic tests, which could pinpoint the health hazards that they could be facing in the future.

Post Title

→

Connecticut Woman Files Genetic Discrimination Complaint against MXenergy

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2010/05/connecticut-woman-files-genetic.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Police Chief Resigns Amidst Charges of Discrimination and Retaliation

Following the $30 million legal battle over the alleged discrimination and retaliation committed by the Montebello police chief against his officers, Police Chief Dan Weast resigned recently.

Last October, several police officers filed a complaint against Chief Weast, which claimed that he discriminated against qualified minority candidates and only promoted his friends as well as other officers who belonged to an “all-white” group called Mahan’s Marauders.

Morale has dropped low within the department and there was even a 90% vote of no confidence in the police chief issued by the Montebello Police Officers Association.

The suit filed by the officers against Weast is seeking $30 million in damages although the amount has been reduced to less than a quarter of it following talks over the settlement.

Following the same laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and disability, employers are likewise prohibited from retaliating against employees who have validly complained discriminatory practices or labor violations.

An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for:

• Filing a charge of discrimination
• Participating in a discrimination proceeding
• Opposing discrimination or unlawful practices
• Requesting accommodations related to employment discrimination
• Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory
• Threatening to file a charge of discrimination

There is retaliation against the employee who complained when he or she is subjected to adverse actions such as denial of promotion, termination, harassment, or even filing groundless cases against the employee to intimidate or coerce the employee into foregoing the action against the employer.

While $30 Million worth of damages may seem exorbitant, employers found guilty of discrimination and retaliation against their employees will be held liable for compensation which may include back pay, front pay, policy changes, actual damages, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages.

Post Title

→

Police Chief Resigns Amidst Charges of Discrimination and Retaliation

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/police-chief-resigns-amidst-charges-of.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Women sue for discrimination and harassment

Discrimination remains a challenging issue in this modern time. Employees continued to be discriminated against by reason of their race, gender, age and beliefs.

Employees also deal frequently with another serious work issue, harassment.

Employees who have to deal with acts of discrimination or harassment can file a case against their employers.

In one case, the supervisor of a furniture shop was sued for sexual harassment and discrimination suit. Plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to unlawful sexual and racial harassment sufficient to create hostile work conditions.

In California, employees can neither be sexually harassed nor discriminated against by their employers or superiors. The law requires equal treatment for all persons, regardless of gender. Harassment and discrimination are violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Similarly, under California law, a harassed or discriminated worker may file a suit against an oppressor, whether he is an employer or a colleague. If claim is valid and proven, plaintiff may be awarded damages. Be sure to employ an experienced employment lawyer for better and faster services.

Post Title

→

Women sue for discrimination and harassment

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2009/04/women-sue-for-discrimination-and.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Radical Changes of Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 is yet another controversial bill passed under the Obama Administration. This Act, when signed into law, would mean another victorious milestone for the employees.

The Act, otherwise known as the “card check”, would affect the employers in three major ways.

First, the Act eliminated voting by private balloting when organizing a union. The Act provides that if the majority of the employees authorized union organization, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.

Second, the Act also touched on how negotiations are undertaken between the employer and a newly organized union. It required a binding arbitration in case of disagreement. The arbitration panel shall decide the case for not more than 2 years. No appeal is recognized.

Third, the Act provided greater penalty in case of discrimination. Currently, the National Labor Relations Act provides that employees who are terminated for unionism would be entitled to back pay and reinstatement.

However, under the proposed bill, the employee would be entitled to damages or an amount triple the back pay and the employer would be subject to civil penalties up to $20, 000.

With the provisions of the bill, employers certainly would not take it sitting down. Employers, however, are urged to be prepared for the potential passage and effect of this bill.

Post Title

→

Radical Changes of Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/radical-changes-of-employee-free-choice.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Simple Advice for a Potential Serious Problem

Rules and regulations, no matter how absurd, have the force and effect of law. Strict compliance is expected upon every one. Otherwise, you will be faced with nasty consequences.

The author of the blog, “Free Government Advice from the EEOC, NLRB and the DOL”, made it a point to inform us of recent developments in the field of employment.

One of these developments includes the updated Compliance Manual section issued by EEOC expanding the meaning of religion in relation to discrimination.

The definition is so comprehensive that, to my mind, it includes anything that a person believes to be religious so long as it is “sincerely held”. The author failed to give his personal view on the matter but for me it is a bit to unfair on the part of the employers. All that an employee should prove is the sincere holding of a religious belief, which is difficult to determine, as it is subjective and dependent on ones state of mind.

Another thing is the guideline memorandum issued by NLRB General Counsel Ron Meissberg where demonstration regarding any employment issue is considered a “protected activity”. The memorandum mentioned three (3) ways on determining such activity.

I concurred with the author’s observation that this would just be the beginning of more immigration cases in the future. The immigrants will not take this sitting down.

Post Title

→

Simple Advice for a Potential Serious Problem

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2008/07/simple-advice-for-potential-serious.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

“Your Unconscious, Unexamined Bias”

The article, ”Can Employers Discriminate Unconsciously?” sheds light on the emerging issue of so-called unconscious bias. The discrimination issue was brought to public attention when colored workers of Wal-Mart and Walgreen filed a discrimination class suit against their employers.
Unconscious or implicit bias is a discriminatory offense, which stems from the assumptions and opinions some people make on others. According to a lawyer at the Center for Work, life Law in California, when these assumptions are unconscious and discriminatory, then it becomes a legal problem.
However, some people argued that there is no such thing as discriminatory bias. At the least, how can one be accused of being discriminatory of something he is unconscious of?
In my opinion, the issue of unconscious bias will generate a big debate on many other issues such as gender and race questions in the workplace. It is perfectly right when employees of WalMart complained that the hiring process of the management is flawed. Workers said managers often prefer white male trainees over the black applicants.
In Walgreen, when managers assigned colored workers to poor stores or stores in black neighborhoods, majority of the employees cried foul. The workers’ protest turned into the multi-million dollar discrimination class suit against Walgreen.
On the other hand, lawyers representing the employers said the accusation could turn into reverse discrimination as their complaints are all biased and based on assumptions.
How can management take an objective look at things?
Experts and lawyers said employers should train employees on how to spot and overcome their biases. In this way, one can determine and control each other’s bias.

Post Title

→

“Your Unconscious, Unexamined Bias”

Post URL

→

https://charlotte-lifesaboutthejourney.blogspot.com/2007/11/your-unconscious-unexamined-bias.html

Visit Charlotte Lifes About The Journey for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection