labor lawAdivision of labor law center

The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon recently issued an executive order that bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The order applies to state agencies and public schools but does not apply to private employers.

The same executive order also bans discrimination based on veteran status.

There is no federal law that bans discrimination against gay or lesbian workers in private industry. Several states have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all employment, including New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois. However, Missouri does not have any state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Apparently the Governor felt that he needed to take the matter into his own hands, at least regarding discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals by state agencies.

In the executive order, the governor alluded to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that “all men are created equal” and strongly suggested that any law, regulation or judicial decision that permitted discrimination (more…)

In a move that is good news for federal contractors, a judge has decided that audits by the OFCCP or Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs are limited in scope.

In a landmark case involving the Frito-Lay plant in Dallas, Texas, the judge ruled that the OFCCP could not continue asking for more and more information to audit. Instead, the original audit scheduling letter set limits on the documents the government agency was allowed access to. Frito-Lay is the corporation headquartered in Dallas that produces potato chips, corn chips and other snack foods. They provide 59% of nationwide sales of snack chips.  

Initially, in July 2007, the OFCCP requested applications, affirmative action plans and other documents related to hiring at the Dallas plant for 2006 through June 2007. According to OFCCP, those documents showed a pattern of adverse impact (more…)

Effective July 1, 2010 a new Oregon law limits how an employer may use an employee’s credit history. The new law prohibits discrimination against employees with bad credit history. The law applies to any employment action including hiring, promotion, demotion, termination, retaliation, etc.

Use of a credit report to select applicants has become a thorny issue in the past two years, as many competent employees have been laid off and unable to pay their bills. Others were caught in an upside-down mortgage when the real estate bubble burst, and in extreme cases have had a home foreclosure or declared bankruptcy. The law was passed because Oregon legislators believe that depriving these people of jobs is not in the state’s best interest.

Under federal regulations, an employer can consider a worker’s credit history when making hiring decisions for positions of responsibility, usually assumed to mean for management positions. The assumption is that someone with a poor credit history displays bad judgment in his or her personal life, and would not be any better at handling the employer’s money.

An Oregon employer can still check credit history if (more…)

Employees in Rhode Island now have 3 years to file a suit under the state Civil Rights Act, instead of one. Earlier this year, the General Assembly overrode a July 2009 veto from Governor Donald Carcieri, to revise the statute.

Rhode Island prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, color, age, disability or country of origin. The very broad Rhode Island Civil Rights Act simply entitles individuals to “enjoy equal benefits of the law.” This is usually interpreted to mean protection from employment discrimination and retaliation, among other rights. Until recently, this law had no statute of limitations on lawsuits.

A second law, the Fair Employment Practices Act or FEPA, specifically includes a one-year statute of limitations. In 2007, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in Horn v. Southern Union that the two laws must be consistent. Therefore, the court imposed a one-year statute of limitations on the Civil Rights Act.

The state legislature decided that the one-year statute of limitations was too narrow, and specifically passed a law giving an employee (more…)

Employers in New York City have even greater liability for random acts by rouge managers, than in other parts of the country under a recent court ruling that makes it even more difficult for New York employers to defend against charges of illegal discrimination.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled in Zakrzewska v. the New School that simply having an anti-discrimination policy in place is not enough to prevent successful claims. In that suit, Dominika Zakrzewska alleges that she was sexually harassed while a student at The New School. In 2003, Zakrzewska began working in the school computer lab as a freshman. Her immediate supervisor, Kwang-Wen Pan, sent (more…)