Latest News from CSA
Employer Tries to Make Age Discrimination Suit “Go Away”, Gets Hit with Retaliation Suit
Joyce Gannon of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette brings us the story of a case of alleged discrimination in
Pennsylvania.When Pittsburgh Glass Works took over management of auto glass production facilities in 2009, the company laid off around a hundred workers, and seven of these workers were men over age 50. The seven filed an EEOC complaint as well as a federal age discrimination lawsuit against PGW. They claimed that, despite their good performance and experience, they were fired in order to make room for minimally-trained younger workers.
One of these plaintiffs, Rudolph Karlo, was rehired months later through a subcontractor as a shift supervisor. At one point, a PGW manager suggested to Karlo that he could possibly secure a full-time position if he would just drop the age discrimination suit. Karlo refused to do so, and was fired again.
As a result, the jury involved in the case at the US District Court in Pittsburgh found that this action constituted retaliation, and PGW was ordered to pay twice the damages for lost wages.
Read the original article here.
Retirement Plan Tips From DCIIA
The Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association released a white paper last June examining employer practices concerning retirement plans.
The DCIIA found that employers are often hesitant to institute automatic enrollment and rate escalation out of fear of employees’ reactions or cost increases, but that these features are very effective at bringing employee savings rates closer to optimal levels of 10% to 15%.
They also discuss using techniques such as “stretch matching” to encourage increased contributions.
Read the full report here.
Proposed EEOC Guidance on Harassment
The EEOC issued a proposed enforcement guidance in January 2017 to “explain the legal standards for unlawful harassment and employer liability.” It is intended to help employers and employees recognize instances of harassment and respond appropriately. Harassment violates federal law only under the following conditions:
1. The conduct was based on the complainant’s legally protected status, or even the perception that they have such status. Protected statuses include race, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.
2. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
3. There is a basis for holding the employer liable for the hostile work environment.
To prevent incidences of harassment, the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace recommends that employers have clear policies against such conduct in writing, provide training on the matter, and establish “trusted and accessible complaint procedures” that employees feel safe initiating. Since a determination of harassment “depends on the specific facts of each case,” it is worth the time to peruse the example situations outlined in the guidance. The document is available for public comment until March 21st. To read the full text or provide input, please visit: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EEOC-2016-0009
CSA Update
If you’ve requested a background check from us recently, you may have noticed the new Ordering Certification that you must accept before placing the order. This agreement demonstrates commitment on behalf of both our agency and your office to maintain compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
By accepting the certification, you also agree to upload a copy of your candidate’s authorization for release of information to the Report Attachment section. Thank you for your attention to this requirement.