With respect to paid interns, coverage will turn on whether the employer controls the means and manner of the intern’s work performance. There are a number of factors that come into play here, including: (1) whether the work is performed on the employer’s premises; (2) the employer’s authority to assign projects and set working hours; and (3) the employer’s authority to fire the intern. … [Read more...] about Are Your Summer Interns Covered By Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws?
Federal anti discrimination law
The court’s holding makes sense in light of the anti-retaliation provisions of antidiscrimination laws themselves. These provisions are designed to protect classes of individuals from improper retaliation when an employee performs some form of protected activity, such as filing a claim of discrimination against the employer or participating in an investigation. There are circumstances where a case similar to Allstate might trip these protections, for example where a company perceives a potential series of claims under antidiscrimination laws and therefore requires all employees to sign a waiver of claims or lose their jobs. That example is far closer than the Allstate case to a textbook definition of retaliation. Of course, the EEOC has already issued guidance on this subject, stating that protected rights of employees are non-waivable, as employers may not interfere in any way with the protected rights of employees. The EEOC has consistently maintained that these waivers are … [Read more...] about Is a Company’s Release of Claims a Form of Retaliation under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws? EEOC v. Allstate
As a law student, Mr. Blankenstein, whose division is responsible for investigating lenders suspected of racial discrimination, questioned the imposition of sanctions against students who used racial epithets against their African-American classmates, going so far as to spell out the word in the post. … [Read more...] about Federal Anti-Discrimination Official Under Fire for Racial Comments
(45 C.F.R. § 92.101(b)(1) and 80.3(b)(1)). Protected individuals include those with limited English proficiency, i.e., "an individual whose primary language for communication is not English and who has a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English." (45 C.F.R. § 92.4). For such persons, the new rules specifically require that covered entities "take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to each individual with limited English proficiency … likely to be encountered in its healthcare programs or activities." (45 C.F.R. § 92.201(a)). The reasonableness of the steps depends on the particular circumstances of each case, including the nature and importance of the healthcare program or activity and particular communication at issue. (45 C.F.R. § 92.201(b); 81 F.R. 31412). Additional factors may include, but are not limited to: … [Read more...] about Language Assistance for Non-English Speakers: New ACA Anti-Discrimination Rules
In Velazco v. Columbus Citizens Found., No. 14-842, 2015 WL 613035 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2015), the plaintiff brought age discrimination claims against his former employer under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the NYCHRL. In February 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims, finding that the plaintiff’s age was not a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s ADEA claim. However, it vacated the lower court’s dismissal of the NYCHRL claim, holding that the district court did not specify “whether the evidence was insufficient to support any causal link between age bias and plaintiff’s firing, as required by the NYCHRL … or whether the evidence was simply insufficient to support the but-for causation … [Read more...] about Second Circuit Reiterates: Bigger Hurdles For Employers Under Big Apple’s Anti-Discrimination Law