Contact us:
+1 (520) 226-8615
Email:
[email protected]
Employment Law
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Judicial Pecking Order
Federal Circuit States
1 ME, MA, NH, RI, Puerto Rico
2 NY, CT, VT
3 DE, NJ, PA, Virgin Islands
4 MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
5 LA, MS, TX
6 KY, MI, OH, TN\
7 IL, IN, WI
8 AR, IO, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD
9 AK, AZ, HI, CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
10 CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY
11 AL, FL, GA
D.C. District of Columbia
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Problem Scope
*in millions
Year | Complaints | % Unwarranted | Monetary Benefits* |
2013 | 93,727 | 81.9 | $372.1 |
2012 | 99,412 | 82.7 | $365.4 |
2011 | 99,947 | 82.0 | $364.7 |
2010 | 99,222 | 80.8 | $319.4 |
2009 | 93,277 | 79.7 | $294.2 |
2008 | 95,402 | 78.7 | $274.4 |
2007 | 82,792 | 78.1% | $290.6 |
2006 | 75,768 | 77.8 | $229.9 |
2005 | 75,428 | 78.6 | $276.1 |
2004 | 79,432 | 80.5 | $251.7 |
2003 | 81,300 | 80.0 | $269.0 |
2002 | 84,442 | 79.9 | $257.7 |
2000 | 79,896 | 78.8 | $245.7 |
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Potential Legal Problems
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Employee Complaint Process
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Alternative Dispute Resolution
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
EEOC Complaint Process
1. Alleged discriminatory act
a. 180 days for nondeferral states
b. 300 days for deferral states
3. Employer notified within 10 days
4. Investigation (goal is to complete in 120 days)
a. Reasonable cause found
1) attempt to reach agreement
2) if no agreement, EEOC can file suit
b. Reasonable cause not found
1) right to sue letter issued to employee
2) employee has 90 days to file suit
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Civil Rights Act – Title VII
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Title VII Court Ordered Remedies
Same as disparate impact +
Employees Limit
15-100 $ 50,000
101-200 $100,000
201-500 $200,000
>500 $300,000
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Employment Decisions
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Does requirement directly refer to member of federally protected class?
Has case law, state law, or local law expanded definition of protected class?
Does requirement have adverse impact?
Is requirement subterfuge for discrimination?
Is requirement job related?
Were alternatives with less adverse impact considered?
Probably
Legal
Probably
Illegal
Probably
Illegal
Probably
Illegal
Probably
Illegal
Probably
Legal
BFOQ?
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Does Requirement Directly Refer to a Member of a Federally Protected Class?
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Federally Protected Classes
Exercise 3.1
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Question | Answer | Reason |
A | Yes | Recently retired veterans are qualified veterans |
B | Yes | Religion (Civil Rights Act) |
C | Yes | Potential disability (ADA) |
D | No | Sexual preference is not a federally protected class |
E | Yes | Sex (Civil Rights Act) |
F | No | Only people over the age of 40 are protected |
G | Yes | National Origin (Civil Rights Act) |
H | Yes | Color (Civil Rights Act) |
I | No | Education level is not a federally protected class |
J | No | This is a grooming standard |
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Is the Requirement a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)?
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Is gender a BFOQ for Hooters?
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Has Local, State or Case Law Added Protected Classes?
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Does the Requirement Have Adverse Impact on Members of a Protected Class?
Occurs when the selection rate for one group is less than 80% of the rate for the highest scoring group
Male Female
Number of applicants 50 30
Number hired 20 10
Selection ratio .40 .33
.33/.40 = .83 > .80 (no adverse impact)
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Education Level
© 2016 Cengage Learning
*
Adverse Impact – Example 2
Male Female
Number of applicants 40 20
Number hired 20 4