Slashdot Mirror

Here's the EEOC's official position-

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359505

A. Prohibited Conduct

Religious harassment in violation of Title VII occurs when employees are: (1) required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of employment (this type of âoequid pro quoâ harassment may also give rise to a disparate treatment or denial of accommodation claim in some circumstances),[71] or (2) subjected to unwelcome statements or conduct that is based on religion and is so severe or pervasive that the individual being harassed reasonably finds the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and there is a basis for holding the employer liable.[72]
1. Religious Coercion That Constitutes a Tangible Employment Action

That's less than 2 minutes googling. But somehow I still think hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent figuring that out...

Under title VII, they will lose. Unless the Supreme Court declares Title VII unconstitutional with respect to the 1st Amendment, of course, which they might since the new ones are a bunch of religious fundamentalists. The 1st Amendment does not give anyone a right to impose their religion on others as a condition of employment. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason other than the job qualifications, including age.

Actually is is only illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.

See here.

I don't think you're correct in regards to the ADEA. There may be other employment laws that are applicable, but the ADEA appears to only apply to individuals age 40 and older.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. The ADEA permits employers to favor older workers based on age even when doing so adversely affects a younger worker who is 40 or older.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html

(c) It shall be unlawful for a labor organization-
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his age;

In the USA, no laws are broken when discriminating on age without younger workers. Sorry. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html

They -absolutely- can refuse to hire you based on your political beliefs.

Incorrect. From http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation.

What you bring up would be valid ... if it only applied to people over 40 (AEDA, 1967: http://www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html ).

I'm not 40, but I'm much closer to that than 20. I would not be able to pass that interview cold if I took it today. Most people I know wouldn't be able to without refreshing their memory a bit. Therefore, it's not "Age Discrimination", is it? Unless your "protected class" is .. what? 2 weeks out of college to dead? How about folks that didn't go to college? Should that be a "protected class" as well because they never learned it in the first place?

It seems there's lots of folks who say that what they (google) are asking for in their interviews is "stupid" and "isn't what they should be asking". Well, that may well be but it's their process. If you want to work at Google, you'll need to cram a bit before the interview.

Perhaps they are looking for people who bother to take the time to bone up a bit before showing up to an interview instead of saying "I know how to look that up".

- Roach

This varies from state to state, but for federal law it is legal to fire anybody except for specific reasons, which you can find at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website. What this means in practice is that, if you want to fire somebody of a protected classification, you need another reason. Usually, this isn't too hard to drum up, which means that the law is not easy to enforce. It's still of some use.

Some states may have different laws. Some companies are up front about "at-will" employment, meaning that they reserve the right to fire you for any reason. That doesn't exempt them from appropriate state and federal laws, but it may make somebody a little more reluctant to file suit, and may possibly make some difference in court.

In at least some states, there's additional expenses (for unemployment insurance) if you go around firing people without thoroughly legitimate cause.

Of course, IANAL. If you're planning to run a business, and hire and fire people, you may want to talk to somebody who actually knows the law. Or you might want to accept legal advice from Slashdot, as seems to be current practice here.

Lawsuits in three... two... one...

-mcgrew ("On the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog")

For most executives..

What's your favorite on-the-job casual title?

Their secretary. Oh, sorry, "Personal Assistant".

Sounds illegal to me.

An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation that would cause an "undue hardship" to the employer. Generalized conclusions will not suffice to support a claim of undue hardship. Instead, undue hardship must be based on an individualized assessment of current circumstances that show that a specific reasonable accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense.(113) A determination of undue hardship should be based on several factors, including:

        * the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
        * the overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility;
        * the overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity);
        * the type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer;
        * the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility.

An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation that would cause an "undue hardship" to the employer. Generalized conclusions will not suffice to support a claim of undue hardship. Instead, undue hardship must be based on an individualized assessment of current circumstances that show that a specific reasonable accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense.(113) A determination of undue hardship should be based on several factors, including:

        * the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
        * the overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility;
        * the overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity);
        * the type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer;
        * the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility.

The minimum size is 15. However, that minimum applies the employment laws, not the accesibility part of the ADA. There is no minimum size for accessibility. There are tax credits for costs incurred by small businesses making things accessible though and the Act provides exceptions for taking on exceptions that could be overly expensive and harmful to the business.

there are anti-discrimination laws in the US, and yes, age IS one of the protected factors

The law itself discriminates based on age. Specifically, it only protects people 40 and above, so if you're younger, you can be discriminated against. In fact, this law used to protect only people 40-65 years old (meaning you could discriminate against retirees, but not people well along in their careers), but this was changed in 1986.

I saw protections of race, gender, color, etc., and also pregnancy. Could you point me in the right direction?

"Employees who don't play along are not laid off, but instead either quit or are terminated for cause. This dodges the legal issues (42 USC 2000e and the ADEA, see also http://www.eeoc.gov/ [eeoc.gov]), and avoids severence pay and contract issues."

Also, they wouldn't be able to collect on their unemployment insurance.

The architect of the HP division's change, Randy Mott, is regarded by Wall Street as a mastermind of operational efficiency based on his days as chief information officer at Wal-Mart Stores and Dell.

Heh. It's a cheap stealth layoff. Quite a few of the telecommuting workers won't go along with the change, and will find other work. Telecommuting IT employees tend to be more senior (both higher salary, and older). This both gives HP IT a dodge around US laws establishing protected-class workers (over age 40), and allows a fairly cheap staffing reduction:

By August, almost all of HP's IT employees will have to work in one of 25 designated offices during most of the week. With many thousands of HP IT employees scattered across 100 sites around the world -- from Palo Alto to Dornach, Germany -- the new rules require many to move. Those who don't will be out of work without severance pay, according to several employees affected by the changes.

Employees who don't play along are not laid off, but instead either quit or are terminated for cause. This dodges the legal issues (42 USC 2000e and the ADEA, see also http://www.eeoc.gov/), and avoids severence pay and contract issues.

Randy Mott is known as a real "fix it" guy in IT Management circles. This move will get him well on the way of accomplishing a streamilining of HP IT. (IT workers are probably well aware of what management streamlining means for them...)

I went to private high school for 4 years. I'm absolutely certain that the level of privacy that I wanted was not the same as what the school allowed for. What I don't know is whether or not the level of privacy afforded by the school is different from the level that my parents wanted for me.

However, in this case, it's clear that the parents are aligned with the kid in opposition to the level of intrusion the school is applying. Since it's the parents who pay, it's the parents that a private school will listen to. I don't think that private schools could get away with this kind of thing in opposition to the will of the parents and survive long.

As far as workplaces, there is federal law that prevents discrimination on some of the things you are worried about. With respect to the rest, remember who the customer is: the employer is the one who's paying. If the terms of your employment state that they can fire you for those things, then they can. You accepted the employement on those terms.

But employers have to be careful even without federal law. The most important and expensive part of almost every industry are human resources. Finding people and retaining people is hard. If a company is too unjudicious in their firing process, they will lose people that they don't want to lose. This will cause them to lose business.

I would suggest this: if you believe that private industry currently pays too little to its employees in the way of privacy, then that means that there is a market out there which you could tap into to provide that level of privacy to your employees. If the demand is high enough, you might even be able to offer them slightly less cash incentive in order to pay them higher rewards in employee privacy... maybe.

My point is that if you have a good idea to sell, you also have a great way to attract a LARGE number of talented employees away from your competition. Go do it! I guarantee that if incumbant company X starts losing all of their employees to you, they will change their employee privacy policies.

Try contacting http://www.eeoc.gov/.

The EEOC may be able to help you better understand the reasons why some employers may be allowed to discriminate against you. If you haven't already, you may want to look into if and when you could get the felony expunged from your record. There are definitely far fewer job options available to felons. As well as helping you understand your rights and limitations as a felon seeking employment, the EEOC may be able to suggest other government agencies that can help you find a job.

It's not an EEOC thing. It's a lazy thing. Everyone does this to eliminate the human contact.

"Fear not for they no not what they do. It's a REPUBLICAN thing."

Do you think they read the applications. Bull Shit? They go into a database to support whatever.

You want the job? Bug the manager. Everytime you walk in the store.

Otherwise, call the local news outlets. Make a big deal out of the issue. Stand up for yourself.

Sheep, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Else, file an EEOC complaint, it's free:

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing. html

Happy days :)

PS: record your applications entries on video tape as the database will not be available until after 2008.

It's not an EEOC thing. It's a lazy thing. Everyone does this to eliminate the human contact.

"Fear not for they no not what they do. It's a REPUBLICAN thing."

Do you think they read the applications. Bull Shit? They go into a database to support whatever.

You want the job? Bug the manager. Everytime you walk in the store.

Otherwise, call the local news outlets. Make a big deal out of the issue. Stand up for yourself.

Sheep, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Else, file an EEOC complaint, it's free:

http://www.eeoc.gov/

http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing. html

Happy days :)

PS: record your applications entries on video tape as the database will not be available until after 2008.

Creating a system where the blind could stock shelves is an undue hardship. You think distributors are going to start shipping Kroger's boxes of produce with braille printed for a low price?

So no, you're stretching and it doesn't apply in this situation. The kid needs to stop whining and find a job already.

How do you feel you weren't put on EQUAL grounds with other applicants for the position? They all had to use the crappy terminal, too, right? If they forced one group of applicants (say, black) to use the terminals, but gave another (say, white) the choice, THAT would be inequality.

Also, you question about whether it can be discriminatory to those of lower education. This boggles the mind. Do you not understand the difference between protected categories of discrimination and illegal discrimination? It's perfectly legal to discriminate based on education. That's so fundamental to applying for a job that I'm amazed I have to point it out. For example, if you are illiterate, you are SOL when it comes to filling out a paper application.

Anyway, here's something from the EEOC website (http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.h tml):

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

        * harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
        * retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
        * employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
        * denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.


Someone MIGHT be able to make a case for disability in this instance, but I doubt even that would stand up. The simple fact of the matter is that someone having a crappy hiring system that affects everyone equally is by definition NOT discriminatory.

What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
• the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
• the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
• Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
• Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
• the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html.

Cheers to this guy for surving cancer, but the article states in the footnote that the author is the owner of this business. He also continues to drone on about the employees obligation to his/her employer explains itself if you start from the bottom of the article.

If you are reading this article, I strongly suggest you read the following before listening to anything at all this guy has to offer, especially his request that you "look for another job". That is completely ludicrous.

Questions and Answers About Cancer in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Your claim is that the Equal Opportunity Act requires employers to hire less qualified workers if they are minorities, and that this explains why you weren't hired.

These claims are false. Please check for yourself.

What does hatred of women have to do with interracial marriages?

Furthermore, the US government has already "drawn the line" on what companies can't discriminate against through the passing of several laws. This page on the EEOC's website outlines it pretty well.

Well, since "right to work state" is a US concept and Mr. Hanff is in the UK, this is a rather bogus argument.

For the sake of discussion though, you are in fact wrong. There's this little thing called Title VII that rather blows away your "any reason or no reason" argument.

You need the advice of a solictor(sic). Especially if he is withholding pay, and damaging your reputation.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http://www.eeoc.gov/) keeps a list of employment lawyers in your local area.

While you're pondering that question, consider this - According to the EEOC web site, employers can indeed discriminate on a religious basis if they can prove undue burden in accomodating an employee's religious needs. This means that my employer can restrict my activities if, for example, I come to work with a handful of flyers for my church, pass them out to my coworkers, and another employee complains that my activities are interfering with their ability to work. If I fail to follow my employers wishes then they are free to fire me. I guess that what I'm saying is that it appears to me that the law gives a lot of discretion to the employer in these matters, and that anyone determined to fire someone can come up with virtually any excuse to do so. Is this an unreasonable conclusion?

According to that, some of the details that you gave aren't quite right, but the gist is consistent with what you've said.

Take that!!--all you disbelievers!

EEOC compliance requires you to abide by a set of beliefs about how you should conduct your private business. These beliefs are religious beliefs being imposed by the government on private associations. They are a state religion.

By the way..
Contrary to some common misconceptions, the following are still legal bases for discrimination in hiring and lending.

age (if under 40) sexual orientation odor clothing choice hairstyle choices in liesure activity sports team preference etc., etc., etc.,

That's not illegal in most states, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not illegal in any state. You can discriminate or fire someone (in most states) for any reason that isn't EXPLICITLY outlawed. And at the federal level, the only prohibited reasons are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age over 40, and disability.

If you have notified your employer of your diability and this has happened to you, go to the EEOC NOW!!

http://www.eeoc.gov/

The EEOC is the enforcers of the ADA. There are not any private lawyers that handle ADA cases, just the EEOC.

Your employer is more than likely screwed from what you've described above.

Find the contact information of the local office
in your area and get the ball rolling.

I'm going through a simialr situation with Microsoft at the moment and am working with the EEOC to right the wrongs MS has done. In my case MS is screwed because not only did they not provide any of my reasonable accomidations but they were supposed to help me with a job search after being on extended medical leave.

Nine times out of 10 companies haven't a clue how to make accomidations for the ADA. In my case, MS considered me different from the 'herd' ostrasized me, and forced me out.

Get a lawyer!

Read here.

Talk to a lawyer.

Do not ask Slashdot.

It makes me sad that you don't have any faith at all in the older generation. Some cultures revere the elderly for their vast life experience and knowledge. You seek to discredit this man prejudiciously. I want to believe that, physical limitations aside, age does not prevent anyone from doing anything. This is clearly a cerebral activity rather than a physical one and I do not put it automatically past anyone's skill to be able to do this.

And if you are and American Citizen I suggest you read this.

Shame on you.

If this is true, its discrimination. You can't discriminate in hiring because of age, race, sex, etc. There was a story similar to this recently (that I can't find), and the person that brought the suit didn't even apply for a job. The rumor was the restaurant didn't hire women. Not legal my friends.

I believe this could be considered discrimination, and companies are required to keep all resumes they receive on file.

This page on EEOC regulations looks like a good place to start looking. From my quick glance over the page, it looks like age, gender, religion, and medical disability are about the only things that are protected under the EEOC. Everything else looks to be fair game.

Also, as it pertains to keeping resumes on file; that would only apply if you actually receive the resume. If the mail server simply drops it, or bounces it back, I would say that you haven't received it, therefore, you don't have to file it.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, HTH, HAND, etc.

They aren't allowed to ask your age. Age discrimination (in the U.S.) is a violation of your rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

However, the burden of proof about whether your rights have been violated or not is on you. OTOH, it's not *that* hard. You can sue the company screwed you, and then gain access to their employment records through discovery, including the ages of their employees.

Any age discrimination against 'older' IT workers will *show* in their hiring patterns, particularly in companies that employ more than a few IT workers. Even in companies that have only 1 or 2, if they have a high enough turnover rate (which they would if they discriminate), you can look at the ages of *past* employees and how old they were when they were terminated.

Of course, you're going to need a lawyer, and this is going to probably cost a good chunk of money. But you can always go to one of the colleges nearby, many offer legal aid programs where you allow a legal intern to set your case up for you, and you only have to hire a lawyer for your day in court.

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Right on!

From US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

It always bother me that national origin is in there, but never nationality. Subtle you may say, but to me, it is not. Especially when you are well qualified but the company job posting clearly says Only US Citizen and Green Card holders entertained

From the same website:
Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.

Anybody know of any an example where this is the case and the company got into trouble?

The ADA has always said that employers must make "reasonable accommodations". That means that if a accommodation will cause "undue hardship" to the employer then the ADA does not apply. Reasons for undue hardship include "the nature and cost of the accommodation needed".

The ADA has always said that employers must make "reasonable accommodations". That means that if a accommodation will cause "undue hardship" to the employer then the ADA does not apply. Reasons for undue hardship include "the nature and cost of the accommodation needed".

There is no federal civil rights statute that makes age discrimination illegal

Wrong. How about "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967"? It's been amended a few times, but it's still US Law.

Age Discrimination is illegal. Mandatory Retirement is not necessarily Dicrimination, however. Read the thing (or skim it, it's long and dull).

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/adea.html
---

If you'd actually read the law you're talking about, you'd see that having a compulsory retirement age is not illegal. There are restrictions placed around it, but I feel fairly certain that they are within those restrictions.

Link to the actual law...

Quote: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit compulsory retirement of any employee who has attained 65 years of age and who, for the 2year period immediately before retirement, is employed in a bona fide executive or a high policymaking position, if such employee is entitled to an immediate nonforfeitable annual retirement benefit from a pension, profitsharing, savings, or deferred compensation plan, or any combination of such plans, of the employer of such employee, which equals, in the aggregate, at least $44,000."

There's much much more, but that's just one example..

---

From that page:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment -- including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.

They can even fire you for it in some cases. There are some cases where they cannot use the information against you. When discussing job benefits, working conditions, union organizing, or something along that line. Also, if you are speaking out against discrimination. Another is if you have filed a complaint of law, and the law prohibits retalition, and then they monitor you because you filed a complaint, then that is another form of retaliation (increased scrutiny, see the EEOC guidelines).