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.

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.

Florida’s unemployed workers who are getting federal extended unemployment benefits can soon expect to get letters, if they haven’t already, stating that the additional financial help will come to an end because Florida is being cut off from the government help.

When Florida’s unemployment level reached nine percent (9%) in March, the improvement triggered an end to the state continuing receipt of federal extended benefits  which  is likely to mean a reduction in state benefits.

Prior to the changes effective  January 1, 2012, a person could qualify to receive up to fifty-one (51) weeks of unemployment benefits.  However, any person who applied after  January, 1, 2012 would only qualify for a maximum of twenty-three (23) weeks.

Talk about kicking someone when they’re down….

Lisa Holland worked as a data processing telecommunications technician.  In November of 2006, Ms. Holland informed her employer that she was pregnant. Several months later, she was transferred to the Help Desk.  Ms. Holland protested the demotion, and eventually she was transferred back to her previous position.  In June of 2007 Ms. Holland was terminated, and she proceeded to file a lawsuit.

The Court affirmed the correct standard in a Title VII discrimination case (implicitly finding that the Florida Civil Rights Act contains a cause of action for pregnancy discrimination). The Court then went on to find that a jury could find the Sheriff’s office discriminated against Ms. Holland by transferring her to a less prestigious position, even without a change in her pay.

If you feel that you have been discriminated against in the workplace, please contact us.

The American Arbitration Association has awarded a former Citicorp employee, $388,359.74 in back pay, as a result of unlawfully failing to pay her at the same level as her male peers.  While working for Citicorp, she performed the same job as her male predecessors yet earned roughly half as much in salary and bonuses.

The Claimant, filed her claim based on the Equal Pay Act, a federal law which requires that men and women in substantially similar positions receive equal compensation.  Equal Pay Act cases are less common than gender discrimination cases that are filed pursuant to Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

In addition to receiving the difference in pay between her compensation and that of her male peers, the employee was awarded an equal amount in liquidated damages.

If you believe you have a claim under the Equal Pay Act, please Contact Us.

AN EMPLOYER CANNOT:

Demand specific documents from a worker.
Example: In May 2011, OSC reached a settlement that provided for $45,760 in civil penalties from an employer that had a policy of requiring newly‐hired non‐U.S. citizen workers to
produce specific government‐issued documentation before they were permitted to begin work,
while U.S. citizen new hires were permitted to present their choice of documents to satisfy the
Form I‐9 process and to begin employment. For example, lawful permanent residents were not
permitted to begin work unless they presented “green” cards, even if they had presented valid
driver’s licenses and unrestricted social security cards.

Ask certain workers for more documents than needed to complete the Form I‐9.
Example: In October 2010, OSC reached a settlement with an employer that provided for
$257,000 in civil penalties after finding the employer engaged in a pattern and practice of
requiring naturalized U.S. citizen workers and non‐U.S. citizen workers to produce more
documents than required by law for the Form I‐9 process. Specifically, the employer demanded
that non‐U.S. citizens produce a List A document after having already presented List B and List C documents, while permitting native born U.S. citizens to choose which documents to present.

Reject valid work authorization documents from non‐U.S. citizens but accepts the same
documents from U.S. citizens.
Example: In June 2010, OSC reached a settlement providing for $8,586 in back pay to two non‐
U.S. citizen workers and $2,200 in civil penalties after finding the employer rejected their unrestricted Social Security cards and demanded to see additional documents to prove their
work eligibility, but routinely accepted Social Security cards presented by U.S. citizen workers.

Demand that lawful permanent residents present new “green cards” when theirs expire but does not ask U.S. citizens to produce new documents when theirs expire.
Example: In November 2010, OSC reached a settlement including $10,200 in civil penalties
against an employer that had a pattern and practice of requiring all lawful permanent resident
workers who presented green cards for the Form I‐9 to present renewed green cards when
their cards expired, but did not require U.S. citizen workers to present renewed documents
when their documents expired. Both lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens are always
work authorized, regardless of the expiration of their documentation.

Refuse to hire workers who sound or appear foreign.
Example: In April 2011, OSC reached a settlement providing for $18,550 in back pay to a non‐
U.S. citizen job applicant and $3,200 in civil penalties after finding the employer instituted a
policy of not hiring any immigrants, leading the employer’s human resources personnel to
reject all applicants who sounded or appeared foreign.

Only hires U.S. citizens (unless that policy is specifically required by law.)
Example: In May 2010, OSC reached a settlement providing for $7,100 in back pay to a non‐U.S.
citizen job applicant who was denied a job because he was not a U.S. citizen and who was then
retaliated against for reporting the employer’s refusal to hire him.

Hire workers on non‐immigrant visa’s, such as H‐2B or H‐2A workers, but rejects U.S. citizens and other work‐authorized individuals who apply for work.
Example: In May 2010, OSC reached a settlement providing for $11,173 in back pay to a U.S.
citizen after finding the employer discriminated against him by preferring H‐2B temporary visa
holders.

Hire undocumented workers instead of work‐authorized individuals.
Example: In November 2010, OSC issued a letter of resolution providing for $2,000 in back pay
to a lawful permanent resident who was discriminated against in favor of an undocumented
worker.

Fire work‐authorized workers for lying about their prior undocumented status, but does not fire other workers for lying about different aspects of their background.
Example: In May 2010, OSC issued letters of resolution after an employer agreed to provide a
total of $13,167 in back pay to several workers, resolving a case where the employer
terminated the workers for having misrepresented their authorization to work when they were
hired, despite the fact that they had since legalized their status and corrected their information with the company. OSC found that the company had not terminated other workers that
corrected false information regarding other aspects of their background.

AN EMPLOYER’S USE OF E‐VERIFY MAY ALSO BE DISCRIMINATORY ON THE BASIS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. DISCRIMINATION MAY OCCUR IF AN EMPLOYER:

Terminates or suspends employees for whom it receives TNC’s on a selective basis.
Example: A non‐U.S. citizen worker who receives a Tentative Non-confirmation (TNC) is
terminated or suspended during the resolution period while native‐born U.S. citizen workers
who receive TNC’s are allowed to work while they resolve their TNC’s.

Pre‐screens using E‐Verify on a selective basis.

Example: A non‐U.S. citizen job applicant is run through E‐Verify before he or she is hired and is denied a job when E‐Verify generates a TNC, but native‐born U.S. citizen job applicants are not  run through E‐Verify before hire.

Pre‐screens all applicants using E‐Verify but does not hire applicants for whom it receives TNC’s on a selective basis.
Example: A non‐U.S. citizen applicant who receives a TNC is not hired and/or not told that E‐Verify generated a TNC, while U.S. citizen applicants who receive TNC’s are hired and given an opportunity to resolve their TNC’s.

Selectively requires employees who receive TNC’s to provide additional documentation establishing their work authorization.
Example: Instead of, or in addition to, following the E‐Verify instructions, the employer
requests additional documentation establishing work eligibility from a non‐U.S. citizen worker for whom it receives a TNC but does not request additional information when native‐born U.S. citizen workers receive TNC’s.

Re‐runs employees through E‐Verify when re-verifying Employment Authorization Documents, and then terminates or suspends employees who receive TNC’s on a selective basis.
Example: Despite the instruction not to re‐run employees through E‐Verify at re-verification,
the employer does so and then terminates or suspends a non‐U.S. citizen worker for whom it  receives a TNC.

The Obama administration announced it plans to extend minimum wage and overtime protection to more than 2 million workers who provide In-home care to frail and disabled people.

These people from health and personal care aides give baths, dispense medicines, cook food and run errands – increasingly complex tasks in a fast-aging society.  Many work for private agencies funded through public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.  Since 1974, the workers have been lumped in with baby-sitters as a class of “companions” exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“As the home care business has changed over the years, the law hasn’t changed to keep up.”  President Barack Obama said in a statement, “Employers are allowed to pay these workers less than minimum wage with no overtime. That’s just wrong in this country.”

Projections show the home care labor force growing to about 4.3 million by 2018, more than K-12 teachers, public safety employees, fast-food and cashier workers.  The change, which does not require the consent of Congress, would take effect next year after a public comment period.  Its impact will vary from state to state and from employer to employer.

Florida had about 130,000 such workers in 2010, earning an average of $9.42 an hour, according to the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group.  The law would apply only to employees to companies, not to private arrangements.  Frank Stoker, president of Care Team Home Care of Tampa, welcomed the change.  His company already pays its workers $10 to $14 an hour with overtime, he said, but many of his competitors do not.  “This will take that unfair advantage out of this,” Stoker said.  “I don’t care who you are, you should be paid properly.”

 Source:  St. Petersburg Times

                  December 16, 2011