Honolulu Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Discrimination

OurExperienceCounts.com Speaks Out On Age Discrimination

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:00:00 GMT

JEFF WINTERS - Guest Contributor

Last year there were 24,582 age discrimination cases received by the EEOC (The Federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission). The Employment Act of 1967 protects workers who are 40 and older from employment discrimination based on age. Most of these cases have stayed out of the headlines, but the impact to the lives of those affected was both real and life-changing. A couple of weeks ago, a headline read, “U.S. sues AT&T for age discrimination.” The really sad thing about this is that hardly anybody was surprised or shocked by this statement. The American economy long ago began to devalue the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Has it gotten to a point that 40 is now an acceptable age to be put out to pasture? Are we so obsessed with the trappings of youth that experience is considered overrated? As CEO of OurExperienceCounts.com, an online community dedicated to extend the careers of mature workers, I’m both angered and energized by the article. It would be naïve of me to believe that we will successfully change the realities of corporate America, but through educating both employers and employees, perhaps we can begin to make a difference. Viusit our website and learn more.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Age Discrimination Is Wrong - Victims Are Speaking up

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:09:24 GMT

Tes

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Proposal To Fix The Economy By Lowering Retirement Age To 55

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:56:53 GMT

Thom Hartmann has a proposal to fix the economy that is at first glance odd but on second thought makes some sense. His proposal to fix our economic woes? Lower the retirement age to 55. Mr. Hartmann (thom@thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program The Thom Hartmann Show. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?," "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It," and "Cracking The Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion." His newest book is Threshold: T he Crisis of Western Culture.

I am interested in Comments about this proposal. Why WON'T it work? What is wrong with it?

Here is the proposal:

1. Lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and

2. Increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).

But won't this bankrupt Social Security? I mean it has more people drawing benefits and the benefits are higher. If Social Security is really going broke won't this hasten the demise?

According to Hartmann it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States.

All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.

If enough Boomers left the job market, it would even flip the current dynamic of too-many-people-chasing-too-few-jobs upside down, and create a tight labor markets. Tight labor markets drive up wages.

And as wages go up, tax revenues – which are paying for Social Security (among other things) – would increase.

Additionally, these new-into-the-workforce people can then pay off student loans, buy new houses and cars, and otherwise drive the economy from the bottom up. Which will further increase tax revenues further strengthening the Social Security system.

Then he proposes to increase tax revenues by using a modified version of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 – which tightened the labor market and reduced unemployment by establishing the 40-hour work week – to include all hours worked by a person. And he suggests lowering the 40-hour maximum-workweek threshold to 35 hours (used by the Mitterrand government in France to successfully lower unemployment and stimulate the French economy). A final step would be to do what the rest of the developed world does and require by law that every worker get at least two to four weeks a year of paid vacation – further tightening the labor market.

In Uganda, Joseph Okwakoi called on Parliament and President Museveni to lower the age of retirement for government workers (the country’s largest employer) from the current 60 years of age to 55. This single act would instantly create about 15,000 job openings in the country, which could be filled by currently unemployed young people.

Hartmann points to history in support of his ideas:

This is the main reason why the labor movements of the 18th and 19th centuries fought so hard against child labor; they knew that if children were removed from the labor marketplace, then the supply of labor (the number of people available to work) would decrease and the price of labor (wages) would increase. And, sure enough, that’s exactly what happened – and it began the creation of a blue-collar middle class.

It’s also why the labor movement pushed for an 8-hour day and a 40-hour maximum workweek. By reducing the amount of labor available from each worker from the average 60 hours a week or so people were working before 1938, the labor market tightened up, increasing the number of people who could be employed and raising wages.

Hartmann points out that this is exactly the opposite of what the U.S. has done since Reagan.

Reagan drove down wages by busting unions (which tighten a labor marketplace); declared an amnesty for millions of then-illegal immigrant workers to increase the supply of labor and depress wages (particularly whacking the carpenters and other construction trades unions); and began the process (completed in a big way by Bill Clinton with NAFTA and GATT/WTO) of dismantling tariffs, taxes, and laws that made it expensive or illegal to export American jobs.

Reagan also put into the chairmanship of the Fed Alan Greenspan, who openly declared that his most important job as chairman of the Fed was to prevent “wage inflation” – a term which he exclusively applied to working-class people. Greenspan is still preaching that now-discredited and anti-American philosophy he learned from Ayn Rand, in fact.

In September of 2007, in an interview on C-SPAN for Book TV, Greenspan said:

“We pay the highest skilled labor wages in the world. If we would open up our borders to skilled labor far more than we do, we would attract a very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would suppress the wage levels of the skilled, because the skilled are essentially being subsidized by the government, meaning our competition is being kept outside the country.”

Hartmann finds it shocking that people believe this rhetoric.His proposal to tighten up the labor market again and get out of what he calls "our insane trade treaties" and go back to protecting U.S. manufacturers with 1980 tariff levels..

Sixteen percent (16%) of the American workforce over 55 years old and so Hartmann is talking about big numbers. The most interesting number is zero as in zero unemployment.

I am intrigued by this innovative and historically based proposal. What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

AT&T Charged With Age Discrimination in Lawsuit By Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:32:49 GMT

The Washington Post (8/21, Whoriskey) reports, "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against AT&T on Thursday, alleging that the telecommunications giant is discriminating against older workers. The centerpiece of the suit is the charge that by company policy, AT&T will not rehire workers who have previously retired from the company." EEOC attorney Louis Graziano said, "To deny you the opportunity to work again doesn't make any sense, particularly if you have experience. ... The government doesn't prohibit you from having a policy that makes no sense, but if it adversely affects workers over 40, then it violates the law."

The New York Times /AP (8/21, B7) reports that AT&T's policy "led to a disproportionate number of older workers not having the same opportunity to apply for re-employment with the company as younger workers, which amounts to age discrimination," according to EEOC. The suit "claims that AT&T's policy excluded a class of workers from being re-employed because of their age, regardless of their qualifications." While AT&T spokesman Michael Coe refused to comment on the suit, he said, "I can tell you AT&T makes diversity and inclusion a top priority, and has received national recognition for its programs and performance."

CNNMoney.com (8/21) notes that the "complaint is seeking a permanent injunction preventing AT&T from discriminating against employees and job applicants 40 years old and older, the adoption of policies to prevent such discrimination, the payment of back wages, and the rehiring of employees who were discriminated against." The Wall Street Journal (8/21, B4, Bray, Cheng) also covered the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

High Court ruling makes proving age discrimination more difficult for employees.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:01:11 GMT

The AP (6/19) reports that in a 5-4 decision announced Thursday, the Supreme Court "has made it harder to prove discrimination on the basis of age, ruling against an employee in his mid-50s who says he was demoted because of his age." The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said "a worker has to prove that age was the key factor in an employment decision, even if there is some evidence that age played a role. In some other discrimination lawsuits, the burden of proof shifts to the employer once a worker shows there is some reason to believe a decision was made for improper reasons." Thomas wrote: "We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the 'but-for' cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in the decision."

The Wall Street Journal (6/19, Anderson) reports that the vote "fell along ideological lines with conservatives in the majority and the court's liberal block registering an angry dissent," and calls the ruling "a win for businesses that increasingly face age-discrimination lawsuits. But the ruling also drew an angry reaction from a top Senate Democrat on legal issues, who compared the ruling's outcome to an earlier worker-discrimination ruling Congress overturned with new law." In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens "accused the majority of engaging 'in an unabashed display of judicial lawmaking' that he said overturns earlier employment-discrimination precedent and disregards 1991 changes in federal civil-rights laws." Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito joined Thomas' opinion, while Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter joined Stevens' dissent.

The Los Angeles Times (6/19, Savage) reports, "Because workers claiming such discrimination almost certainly will not be present while their employers discuss laying them off or demoting them, analysts said, it will be extremely difficult to obtain hard evidence that age was the key factor. "

The Washington Times (6/19, Lobianco) reports, "Democratic lawmakers seized on Justice Stevens' dissent as constitutional lawyers predicted Congress would make a law to lower the courts new bar for age discrimination cases." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), said: "This overreaching by a narrow majority of the court will have a detrimental effect on all Americans and their families. In these difficult economic times, American workers need to be protected from discrimination."

The National Law Journal (6/19, Coyle) reports, "The practical effect of Thursday's decision, said lawyers for employees and employers, is to eliminate so-called mixed-motives cases under the ADEA -- cases in which age was one of several factors motivating the employer's action. The decision 'reads mixed-motives cases out of the age act,' said Lawrence Lorber, a partner in the Washington office of Proskauer Rose. 'It's a good decision for employers unless Congress opts to deal with it.'"

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama signs equal-pay bill into law.

Wayne Parsons — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:34:02 GMT

President Obama yesterday signed his first bill into law yesterday, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. USA Today (1/30, Jackson) reports the new law "makes it easier for workers to sue companies for pay discrimination and effectively reverses a 2007 Supreme Court decision that had given workers 180 days to file a lawsuit after the pay inequity allegedly first took place. ... In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4" that Lilly Ledbetter "had failed to file a discrimination suit against the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in a timely manner, citing a 180-day deadline. Earlier this month, the Democratic-run Congress voted largely along party lines to essentially reverse that ruling with a new law that extends the deadline every time a discriminatory pay check is issued."

You may have read earlier articles on this subject at Injury Board. Michael Phelan wrote an excellent review in "What is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?" and I also posted an earlier article "Labor bill may give workers tool to fight for higher pay." The importance of this case to women cannot be underestimated. Obama's action to quickly tell industry that discrimination against women in the workplace will not be tolerated is a bench mark of a return to fairness in America. For the 8 years of the Bush Adminsitration we have seen more abuses of civil rights since the 1950's and it is important to working Americans that someone is stepping up for people. Lilly Ledbetter is a good place to start. Hopefully the message will be received in corporate boardrooms and at all businesses in America with the sentiment that patriotism in this countrry means treating all people equally and fairly.

The Washington Times (1/30, Bellantoni) reports the President called the bill "an important step, but 'only the beginning,' adding he wants to close pay gaps between men and women." Ledbetter "promised to keep fighting for the Paycheck Fairness Act and to 'make sure that women have equal pay for equal work.'" That bill "passed the House last session." It "would expand lawsuit damages, make it harder for businesses to justify pay disparities between employees, and mandate studies and voluntary guidelines for employers on the issue."

Lawyers USA (1/30) reports, "President Barack Obama signed his first bill into law this morning, enacting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will restart the statute of limitations for unequal pay employment bias claims with the issuance of every disproportionately low paycheck" which "overturns the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co." Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said, "Today's signing ceremony proves that elections make a real difference for real people. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will clearly help to end unfair discrimination in the workplace."

The New York Times (1/30, Stolberg) reports, "President Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, approving equal-pay legislation that he said would 'send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.'" NBC Nightly News (1/29, story 2, 2:40, Guthrie), ABC World News (1/29, story 3, 0:20, Gibson, the CBS Evening News (1/29, story 5, 0:55, Couric) also cover the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Supreme Court sides with employee on retaliation case.

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:02:24 GMT

The Washington Post (1/27, A2, Barnes) reports, "The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that a federal anti-discrimination law protects employees from retaliation when they cooperate with internal investigations of harassment," siding with "Vicky S. Crawford, who said she was fired from her longtime job in charge of payroll for the Nashville school system after she answered questions in an ongoing investigation into what the court termed the 'louche goings-on' involving a supervisor." This "ruling was the latest case in which the court has sided with employees who sue for retaliation, a position somewhat at odds with the pro-business label the court has received under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr."

The AP (1/27, Sherman) reports, "Workers who cooperate with their employers' internal investigations of discrimination may not be fired in retaliation for implicating colleagues or superiors, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday."

The Wall Street Journal (1/27, Bravin) reports, "The unanimous opinion was the third decision in four years protecting employees who oppose race or sex discrimination at work" and "underscores the court's rejection of technical arguments that could chill discrimination investigations." The New York Times (1/27, A21, Liptak) also covers the story.

Supreme Court issues pattern of rulings said to suggest collegiality. The Legal Times (1/27, Mauro) reports, "The unanimous rulings continue a recent pattern that may be moving the Court closer to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s stated goal of greater collegiality" and "so far this term, 10 of the 15 signed opinions have been unanimous, and the last eight decisions have been issued without dissents. Four rulings this term have been split 5-4, and one came out 6-3."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Labor bill may give workers tool to fight for higher pay.

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:09:48 GMT

The Wall Street Journal (1/24, Trottman, Maher) reported, "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for a woman whose attempt to sue Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for pay discrimination was blocked because she waited too long, is poised to be one of the first bills signed by President Barack Obama" and "if enacted, it could present a new tool for workers to fight for higher pay, and an array of challenges for businesses." Michael Eastman, executive director of labor policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "It will be more difficult for the employer to deal with the questionable claim." He added, "Right now, employers can more easily use the statute-of-limitations defense."

Oklahoman: Labor laws are early gift for trial lawyers. The Oklahoman (1/26) editorializes, "Two pieces of legislation speeding toward President Barack Obama's desk - one probably well-intentioned, the other wrong-headed - show the eagerness of Democrats to give an early gift to one of their key constituencies, America's trial lawyers." The Oklahoman says, "It's a potential bonanza for the trial bar. Imagine television ads - perhaps crowding out spots for personal injury cases or mesothelioma claims - by lawyers eager to pursue past discrimination claims. Imagine, too, the jury awards in the oldest cases, where claimants would argue a new violation occurred with each paycheck."

Employee Free Choice Act debate likely in new Congress. The Detroit Free Press (1/26, Gallagher) reports, "For labor unions, it's payback time" and "their vehicle is the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA" which "would make it easier to organize unions and force companies to submit to binding arbitration for first contracts with newly formed unions. Penalties for firing union backers would be significantly increased." However, "Corporations call the bill a budget buster and want it stopped. The debate is likely to be one of the first big battles in the new Congress."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

Obama Administration Planning To Overturn Supreme Court Decision On Discrimination Challenges

Wayne Parsons — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:59:16 GMT

The New York Times (1/5, A13, Pear) reports, "President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are planning swift action to overturn a Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for people to challenge discrimination in employment, education, housing and other fields." There have been cases where judges have "reversed themselves and ruled in favor of employers" in order to be in line with the Supreme Court decision. Obama has pledged to appoint judges who know "real folks'" struggles, and "describes the bill as part of a broader effort by his incoming administration to 'update the social contract,' reinvigorate civil rights and close the pay gap between men and women."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

The National Organization of Women (NOW) Endorses Obama

Wayne Parsons — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:59:57 GMT

Kim Gandy, chair of the political action committee for the national Organization of Women (NOW) reports that the organization has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket because of their support of civil justice issues affecting women. She said that “Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country. The NOW PAC reviewed Sen. Obama’s record and public statements on issues that disproportionately affect the women of this nation, and I spoke with him at length about his commitment to women’s equality.” Specifically NOW cites stances that Obama has taken that benefit women.

On pay equity Sen. Obama has co-sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation works towards ending wage discrimination against women. Women who were discriminated against in their paychecks were forced to sue within 180 days of the first discriminatory check or be forever barred from bringing a valid claim. This is a common trap that is used to make laws meaningless because few can act fast enough to implement the law.

And John McCain and his running mate Palin oppose the efforts of Lilly Ledbetter to stop pay discrimination against women. He supports a Republican filibuster of the bills that Obama and Biden support. For more on that issue there is a great interview with Lilly Ledbetter herself on Jezebel.

Obama also opposed the nominations of George Bush’s three ultra right wing justices to the Supreme Court. These justices had consistent histories of voting against the individual rights of women. The Bush appointees have slammed the courtroom shut to many valid claims for justice and this disproportionately affects women.

Daniel Webster once said that “justice is the most important thing to man on earth”. As powerful interests attempt to take away from people the greatest source of justice in the world, the citizen jury and the courtrooms in the United States, Obama and Biden have a record of standing up for the common man against these titans of industry and government corruption. Interested in women’s rights and civil justice issues in this presidential campaign? See more at the NOW Obama website: http://www.nowpacs.org/2008/obama/

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons