Posts Tagged ‘employment discrimination’

Yet another discrimination settlement with a dealership, but this time for disability discrimination.

Monday, March 8th, 2010

The number of lawsuits, claims and settlements’ involving dealerships and the EEOC continues to grow in 2010.  Beyond gender and age discrimination employees must also ensure that they do not discriminate against individuals with real or perceived disabilities.   Just this month a dealership in Hawaii settled a claim that included a $32,500 payment to a job applicant and a three year consent decree to remedy alleged disability discrimination.   The consent decree requires that the dealership implement an internal policy, procedures and staff training to safeguard against disability discrimination. The car dealership must also submit annual reports to the EEOC to track future complaints of disability bias and requests for disability-related accommodations during the hiring process.

In its lawsuit (EEOC v. Valley Isle Motors, Ltd., Case No. CV09-0053 HG KSC), the EEOC asserted that the car dealership reneged on an offer to hire a job applicant as a salesperson only after a urine test revealed he was taking prescribed medication. Valley Isle Motors then erroneously perceived the applicant as too disabled to do the job despite normal medical test results and medical authorization to the contrary, the EEOC said.    The EEOC press release quoted Anna Y. Parks, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “Employers cannot make assumptions about a prospective employee’s ability to work… the ADA expressly prohibits that stereotypes of this nature weigh into the decision to hire or deny hire to an individual.” Timothy Riera, director of the EEOC’s Honolulu Local Office, added “Employers should heed the lesson learned by Valley Isle Motors and be mindful to judge a candidate by his or her qualifications, not some ill-informed presumption. Communication with prospective employees is the key in determining whether one’s actual or perceived condition will interfere with work. Businesses should take advantage of appropriate training opportunities that are available to learn how to appropriately engage in that interactive process.”

The bottom line is that employers cannot make an assumption about the candidate’s ability to perform the work and must make certain that all hiring practices are in  accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Here are five simple steps that will help toward ensuring that you are not discriminatory toward individuals with real or perceived disabilities.

1) Have a clear, complete and detailed job description for every position so that you can objectively judge a candidate’s ability to do the job against the actual requirements.

2) Confirm with a medical expert that the applicant can do the job with reasonable accommodations or that the perceived disability is even real.  A medical exam may be necessary and your expert should have experience in Occupational or Workplace Health.

3) Consider that individuals with disabilities often make high quality and loyal employees.  Tax credits may be available to assist companies with making reasonable accommodation and for hiring individuals with disabilities.

4) Take advantage of the tools and training available through your state or federal office of the Department of Labor including the excellent information on the EEOC website.  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm

5) Consult with qualified legal hiring prior to not hiring any individual with a disability.

Does Background Screening Really Reduce Risk?

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

  If you haven’t already reviewed your screening and hiring policies on applicants with criminal records put it on your “to do list” for 2010.   Highly published and expensive lawsuits related to negligent hiring make it seem that background screening is necessary step in your hiring process- but is it?   With experience both as a HR Director and working for a leading background screening vendor, my answer is maybe- it can be an important step and will reduce risk but only if done in accordance with best practices and within the state and federal regulations.  

 The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal courts will soon require evidence-based screening and hiring policies. Within the next 12 to 18 months, employers can expect to see the EEOC issue new guidelines that require empirical evidence for the “business necessity” defense in racial discrimination cases that arise from screening and hiring practices.  Employers will benefit from having clarity in what is permissible.  If you now use the common five-year, seven-year, 10-year or lifetime employment bars for people with criminal records you need to think about how you can validate this information and show business necessity for the specific employment bar.  Most screening vendors claim that criminal checks reduce workplace violence, theft and fraud, but  don’t have any meaningful empirical evidence- with the expected EEOC guidelines and recent lawsuits on discrimination based on background screening they should be working to produce this information over the next several months.   If you current vendor can’t help you will need to consider a new vendor.  Employers may also look to the work of social scientists such as Alfred Blumstein and Shawn Bushway.  Blumstein published a major study in 2009 that actuarially identifies the point at which an individual with a criminal record is at no greater risk of committing a crime than other individuals of the same age. 

 The bottom line is that employers should not use background screening as the only criteria for hiring or screening applicants.  Behavioral interviewing and assessment testing along with reference checking are also important tools.  If  you are using background screening having job-specific hiring policies and a case by case review of all background screening results is recommended- and don’t forget two time tested HR practices for mitigating risk:  proper supervision and effective performance management.

Join the conversation: Do you use background screening in your hiring process and do you believe it reduces the risk of a bad hire or a negligent hiring lawsuit? 

 

Yet another employment discrimination settlement for an Auto Dealership- Are You Next?

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Within the past 60 days three dealerships have reached big dollar settlements with the EEOC for races, age or gender discrimination. Most recently a dealership in Georgia paid out $140,000. With 250 new investigators and a perceived easy target in dealerships I won’t be surprised to see more of these claims in the coming months.  Dealerships seems to be a favorite target for the EEOC these days, and too many make it too easy.

Beyond the four simple steps I offered in an earlier blog “ $1.5 Employment Litigation Recipe” you should also consider EPLI (Employment Practices Liablity Insurance) coverage for your dealership.     Prevention is key- training, a nontolerance attitude and enforcement of policies to ensure that discrimination doesn’t happen or is swiftly dealt with at your dealership will signifcantly reduce your risk  but having EPLI provides peace of mind in the event of claim occur.

Sitting ducks- why do business not follow basic HR regulations?

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Last week the EEOC entered into a $1.5M settlement with a Colorado auto dealer, and then on Monday announced another $85,000 settlement with a dealership in Ohio. In both cases basic HR best practices and federal and state regulations were not followed. The question is why?  Is it a lack of understanding of the regulations or an inability to implement sound HR process?  With the plethora of HR software available it can’t be that the right tools aren’t accessible, so maybe HR is seen as a “nice to have” activity rather than a core function of the business.  Given the fines, penalties and loss of reputation when regulations are not followed HR compliance isn’t something you do because you are want to- it’s a critical function of your business.  Unless you want to be a sitting duck for an employment lawsuit, EEOC investigation or Wage and Hour violation put your HR compliance program in order now, you really can’t afford to wait.

Join the conversation- why  would a  businesses ignore HR best practices and HR compliance requirements?

A $1.5 million dollar employment litigation recipe

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Take 90 new Department of Labor Investigators, add aggressive enforcement of the law, stir in limited corporate oversight, and combine with intricate laws that can be difficult to understand.  Make sure there are no processes and systems that would force compliance of the law and HR best practices. Mixed together and you have a $1.5 million dollar settlement on your plate for age and gender discrimination as one Colorado auto dealership recently learned.

10 former employees of the dealership will split the $1.5 million dollar settlement.  The consent decree also requires the dealership to put discrimination training in place,  to post its anti-discrimination policy, to provide training about anti-discrimination laws to its employees and managers, and to make periodic reports to the EEOC.

“Sexual harassment and sex discrimination against women in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as the auto industry, are still unfortunate realities,” EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru said in a statement. “Likewise, older workers continue to experience age discrimination, despite their experience, productivity and qualifications.”

You can’t afford a recipe for disaster like this, and you should take a few simple steps to reduce your risk:

  1. Understand the law and your responsibilities as an employer.  There are numerous resources available including KPA’s free webinars presented by leading labor attorneys and HR professionals.
  2. Establish policies and training so all employees understand their rights and obligations.  Make sure you keep complete and accurate records.
  3. Consider using HR management software to automate and force compliance in the hiring, employee management and termination process. Yes it is an added expense in a tough economic climate for dealership – but the expense is a fraction of the cost of a discrimination or wage and hour violation lawsuit.

Join the conversation- how does your company prevent discrimination in the workplace?