Internships are an important part of on-the-job training for many college and high school students, and others wanting experience for a career shift, even years after graduation. Internships have proliferated in business, public relations, advertising, engineering, media, and other fields where “hands-on” experience can augment what was learned in a classroom. However, internships have become a way for some employers to exploit young students or recent graduates.

According to a recent survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, 62% of entry-level hires have had internships, as opposed to only 49% in 1997. “Today, an estimated one-third to one-half of the 1.5 million internships in the U.S. are unpaid.”

Under the United States Department of Labor’s Fair Labor Standards Act, there are six criteria that are to be considered in determining whether an employer may legally classify an employee as an unpaid intern:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operations of the facilities of the employers, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school.

2. The training is for the benefit of the student.

3. The student does not displace a regular employee, but works under the close observation of a regular employee or supervisor.

4. The employer provides the training and derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the student; and on occasion, the operations may actually be impeded by the training.

5. The student is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.

6. The employer and the student understand that the student is not entitled to wages for the time spent training.

Some students and recent graduates are so hungry for a job that they’re even willing to work for no money, though that practice is coming under scrutiny.  Diana Wang for example, is a recent graduate of Ohio State University, who filed a class-action lawsuit in February, alleging that her unpaid internship was actually a job for which she deserved compensation.  Whereas landing a good internship can be incredibly important to a job-seeker’s career trajectory, it is important that students/interns know the difference between a positive legitimate internship, and wage theft by an unscrupulous employer.

If you feel you may have fallen victim to such wage theft, please contact us.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though women are performing similar jobs as men, they will not climb the corporate scale, simply based upon their gender.  This is where sexism comes into play, and is unfortunately still prevalent today.  This isn’t a blind alley though, there are successful, highly-ranked women in the United States such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, and Jeanne Shaheen, U. S. Senator from New Hampshire, who have encouraged other women to fight for their rights.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has made a stand for women’s rights against gender equalization stating: “We must stop thinking about the sex of a person, and focus more about what is best for society. ”  Secretary Clinton has made the case that the inclusion of women is as a vital source of economic growth.  Secretary Clinton has espoused the “Participation Age — where every individual — no matter the gender — has the opportunity to be a contributing and valued member of the global marketplace — including strategies to remove barriers that have prevented women from being full participants in the economy and unlock their potential as drivers of economic growth.”

Traditionally, women were seen to be at home with their children, cooking, and cleaning, not working in a corporate environment.  Sadly,despite the dramatic entry of women into the workplace this myth continues to make sexism prevalent.  Discrimination based on gender should never be tolerated in the workplace, unfortunately, it is a reoccurring theme.

If you feel you have been discriminated against because of your gender in the workplace, please contact us.

Patricia is one of the 52 farm workers that Human Rights Watch interviewed for a new report released Wednesday, this is her story;

Patricia M. came to the U.S. from Mexico when she was 21-years-old, and found a job harvesting almonds. On her third day, the foreman took Patricia to a remote field, where she says he tied her hands with her bandanna to the grip above the truck door, he then got on top of her, stripped her naked, and raped her.  Due to the fear of losing her job, Patricia kept silent, and continued to work at the same farm, “I was afraid they would put me in jail,” she said. “I was afraid they would send me back to Mexico, because I was illegal,” she states. Patricia soon found out she was pregnant, and it was then, she sought help from a social service agency.

Undocumented Immigrants are protected under the Federal and Florida law, which prohibit sexual harassment, and are entitled to workplace protection under U.S. law.   In the report, Human Rights Watch states that it appears that the federal government’s interest in deporting undocumented workers often outweighs its desire to protect them from abuse. Human Rights Watch calls for strengthened legal protections for immigrant farmworkers, not only for the safety of the undocumented workers, but also to seek prosecution of those who perpetrate such abuse.

If you feel like you have been sexually harassed, please contact us.

Their boss would call them “grandpas,” “old farts,”and “old bastards.”  So when the eight Texas dockworkers, who all are at least 50 years old, were fired on August 27, 2007 and replaced with younger hires, they thought something discriminatory might be going on.

According to the EEOC, the Company claimed that this was solely a “reduction in force,” however the managers had been tasked with preparing a list of the men to be terminated.  The Company also changed its attendance and disciplinary policy so that the men, who had not had more than a few disciplinary write-ups, were suddenly put on corrective action and eligible for termination under the new policy.

The EEOC filed charges under the  Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 which prohibits discrimination in hiring, terms and conditions, or termination based upon a person’s age. It specifically defines a protected class of employees as those employees over the age of 40 years.

As a result, Central Freight Lines, Inc. not only agreed to pay the men almost half a million dollars, it also plans to create a written age-discrimination policy and train its managers in discrimination law.   The employees of Central Freight Lines stand to benefit, as many of them stay at the Company for a very long while.

If you feel like you have been discriminated against because of your age, please contact us.

Her face framed by a white scarf covering her head and hair Susann Bashir grew sad Friday afternoon recalling her final encounter with a former boss.

Ms. Bashir said she had already endured years of harassment by co-workers, and had started pursuing a religious discrimination case against her employer when her supervisor, during a routine meeting in his office, snatched her scarf and exposed her hair.  Ms. Bashir worked as a fiber optics network builder for more than ten years.  Ms. Bashir said she endured religious discrimination nearly every day of the last three years she worked in the Company’s downtown Kansas City office.

Ms. Bashir sued, and this week a Jackson County jury awarded Ms. Bashir $120,000.00 in lost wages, and $5 million in punitive damages against Southwestern Bell/AT&T.  However, Ms. Bashir will receive much less than $5 million, because Missouri law caps such awards at five times the actual damage amount, plus attorney’s fees.

AT&T said Friday, that it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal.

Ms. Bashir said she hopes her case will make other employers more sensitive and quicker to respond to complaints like hers.

“I hope others who get discriminated against won’t feel so vulnerable,” she said. “They will know they can speak up.”

The dissident investor, hedge fund Third Point LLC, first brought to light on Thursday, that Mr. Thompson didn’t earn a college degree in computer-science as stated on Yahoo’s website, and recent regulatory filing.  Yahoo acknowledged soon after, that Mr. Thompson has only an accounting degree, citing an “inadvertent error,” without providing further explanation.

The document said Mr. Thompson had a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer-science from Stonehill College.  On Thursday, Stonehill College, a small Catholic institution 30 miles south of Boston, said that the school’s computer-science program didn’t begin until the early 1980’s.  A statement confirmed that Mr. Thompson, a Boston native, received a “Bachelor’s of Science in Business Administration (Accounting)” on May 20, 1979.

Another example is Gregory Probert, who lost his job in 2008 as President and Chief Operating Officer of Herbalife Ltd. after acknowledging he claimed a fake Master’s degree in corporate filings.   Similarly, David Edmondson resigned in 2006 as Chief Executive of RadioShack Corp., after admitting he had inflated his educational background.

One of the reasons people lie on their resume is to get their dream job. You have the skills and the experience, so why not?

Lying on a resume or job application regarding one’s academic credentials is like planting a ticking time bomb that can explode at any time and destroy your employment as well as future job opportunities. It’s an easy call…-don’t do it!

The Agency points to sociological statistics that show that people of certain races and national origins, are disproportionately arrested and convicted of crimes. The EEOC report stated. “African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population. Assuming that current incarnation rates remain unchanged, about 1 in 17 white men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime; by contrast, this rate climbs to 1 in 6 for Hispanic men; and 1 in 3 for African American men.”

In light of this dynamic, last week the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance on employers’ use of criminal records to screen potential employees. It emphasizes past statements, in hopes of convincing courts to go further in their treatment of misbehaving employers. The EEOC has made clear for more than 20 years, is that it believes it is dangerous for an employer to automatically bar an applicant from consideration simply because of a past arrest, or conviction. “An employer’s use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions may, in some instances, violate the prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,” the EEOC report states.

This EEOC guidance  memorandum states :

There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way. Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.

Even if the employer believes that the applicant did engage in the conduct for which he or she was arrested, that information should be used in making a hiring decision employment only to the extent that it is evident that the applicant cannot be trusted to perform the duties of the position based upon the nature of the job, the nature and seriousness of the offense, and the length of time since it occurred.

This is also true for a conviction. Several state laws limit the use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any questions about arrest records, to those restricting the employer’s use of conviction data in making an employment decision.

The EEOC’s guidance, while important, does not present a comprehensive solution to the multiple barriers to employment facing people with criminal records.  Hopefully it will reaffirm to employers the EEOC’s position that selective and rational use of this information is required.

If you feel like you have been discriminated against, please contact us.

A study conducted at The University of Manchester and Monash University, Melbourne, was published in the International Journal of Obesity, examined whether a recently developed measure of anti-fat prejudice, the universal measure of bias (UMB), predicted actual obesity job discrimination.

“Participants viewed a series of resumes that had a small photo of the job applicant attached, and were asked to make ratings of the applicants suitability, starting salary, and employability,” said Dr. O’Brien.  “We used pictures of women pre-and post-bariatric surgery, and varied whether participants saw either a resume that had a picture of an obese female (BMI 38-41) attached, or the same female but in a normal weight range (BMI 22-24) following bariatric surgery.”

Dr. O’Brien said one interpretation of this finding might be that we feel better about our own bodies if we compare ourselves to, and discriminate against, fatter people.  “The results suggest that a belief in the superiority of some individuals over others is related to the perception that obese individuals deserve fewer privileges and opportunities, than non-fat individuals ,” he said.

Dr. O’Brien added that “there is a clear need to address obesity discrimination, particularly against females, who tend to bear the brunt of anti-fat prejudice.”

Such discrimination raises legal issues of disability discrimination.  Additionally, where there is a clear bias against females that are obese obvious gender discrimination issues arise.

If you feel like you have been discriminated against at your workplace, please contact us.

The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI), a Bellingham, Washington nonprofit organization, defines bullying as, repeated health-harming mistreatment of a target by one or more perpetrators, including verbal abuse and offensive non-verbal conduct.

A  2011 survey by CareerBuilder similarly found that 29% of workers age 55 and older said they had been bullied on the job, compared with 25% for the 35-44 age group.  The statistics show a disproportionate number of older workers reporting the problem, and it comes as no surprise to Rosemary Haefner, Vice President of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. “Mature workers are more likely to have an expertise, and more likely to have the confidence to come forward with their views.”

What does bullying look like?

Consider these recent stories from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

• Robert Coffman, a heating and air conditioning technician for the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, was 56 when hired. During his six-year employment, he endured taunts from his supervisors that he was too old to keep up, was too old to do his job, and was earning too much money. When Mr. Coffman complained, management did nothing. The bullying continued until Coffman felt forced to leave the job at age 62. In 2009 the City settled his claim of age-based harassment, and paid him $75,000.

• Mary Bassi, a waitress, in her 50’s in the summer of 2005 when a 30-something manager started referring to her as “old,” making negative comments about her age, and hiring younger women to work her shifts. Ms. Bassi was fired without explanation at the age of 56. In January 2011, the EEOC case was resolved, and the Club was forced to pay Ms. Bassi $60,000 for age discrimination and wrongful discharge.

Feeling bullied ? There is a way to fight back.

Here is how you can fight back against workplace abuse:

• Take care of you. Check and protect your physical and mental health first. Seek medical help if necessary.

• Write it down. “Keep track of what was said or done, and who was present,” Ms.Haefner says. “The more specifics you can provide, the stronger the case you can make for yourself when confronting the bully head on, or reporting the bully to a company authority.”  Look for internal company policies (for example, zero tolerance of harassment or violence) that may have been violated.

• Brace yourself. There may be retaliation ahead, and you should be prepared for it.

• Talk to an attorney.  If after reporting the abuse to someone in authority or human resources, and the abuse continues, you are retaliated against for reporting the abuse, or terminated, seek the advice of an experienced labor and employment attorney.

• Update your résumé. You may have to find a new job. It can’t hurt to start searching.

To read more on workplace bullying please visit; http://www.aarp.org/work/on-the-job/info-12-2011/work-bullying.html

An employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person’s gender identity, is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to an opinion issued on April 23, 2012 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The opinion, experts say, could dramatically alter the legal landscape for transgender workers across the Nation.

The opinion came in a decision delivered on Monday, April 23, to Mia Macy, a transgender woman, who claims she was denied employment with the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the Agency learned of her transition.  Ms. Macy said that the discrimination she faced after having gone through the background check for a job as a ballistics technician was abrupt. She had applied as a man before transitioning, and she states, ”Within three days after my background [check] was completed, they alerted the lab that Mia would be coming to work.”  Then, Ms. Macy was notified that the position was no longer available, due to federal budget constraints.   She later found out that another person had been hired for the position.  Ms. Macy relates that before she even knew about the other person being hired; she ”didn’t think something was right.”

The EEOC decision was issued without objection by the five-member bipartisan Commission, and will apply to all EEOC enforcement and litigation activities at the Commission, and in its fifty-three (53) field offices throughout the Country.  It will be binding in all federal agencies and departments.