Posted on May 13th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues | 
In the early days, Current Employment focused much of its attention on a stream of bizarre employment lawsuits and news stories that we’d constantly stumble across. (See, e.g., here, here and here.)
In fact, one of the chief inspirations for this blog was Gary Skoning‘s annual “Wacky Employment Cases” reports published in the National Law Journal.
For months, though, we’ve been busy with important legislation and constant economic changes that required seriousness and professionalism. That, and we had a complete lack of content. I can’t remember the last time a wacky story crossed my desk, and I was honestly starting to worry.
Then the ABA Journal drops a bomb like this:
The federal agency in charge of enforcing anti-discrimination laws has taken up the cause of a Texas strip club waitress allegedly illegally fired due to her age.
Some stories just write themselves.
According to the Houston Chronicle story cited by the Journal, 56-year-old Mary Brassi had worked for AHD Houston, which owned 5 area strip clubs (an impressive amount for any city), since 1993. She was earning near six figures waiting tables at a club called Cover Girls. She was popular with the customers. She sold a lot of drinks. But for all her success, according to the EEOC, she got called “old” by her bosses, and teased about menopause and Alzheimer’s. Then the club started bringing in “younger women” and giving them the prime shifts.
And then in 2006, they let her go. Just like that. Imagine – a 15-year veteran of the Houston live adult entertainment community, tossed out into the blaring sun and uncomfortable gravel parking lot like a best man who got too “handsy”. Wondering if she’d get to serve $13 bottles of beer to distracted drunk guys with expense accounts ever again.
Refusing to go down quietly, Brassi brought her case to the EEOC and the agency investigated. Last week, they filed suit on her behalf. And this, of course, is the moral of the story: it doesn’t matter who you are, or what your job is; you can always go to the EEOC for help. And it doesn’t matter what sort of business you’re in; if you employ people, the EEOC can always come knocking. That’s their job, after all.
Although, if recent events are any indication, the EEOC may be superseded by karma this time around. According to the Chronicle, Brassi (now 59) is waiting tables for a competitor.
As for Cover Girls? Burned to the ground. In 2007.
Posted on April 1st, 2009 by Charity Clemons | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues, The Financial Crisis |
On the contrary.
Amidst the gradual demise of this country’s economic infrastructure, legal and financial institutions have been faced with historic downsizing efforts. The public has been inundated with headlines foretelling salary cuts, layoffs, and disappearing pensions. As the dust begins to settle, it appears that these mass reductions are widening a gender gap that, up to now, had been slowly closing.
On March 16, Forbes magazine ran a cover article exposing claims made by Wall Street women that female employees have endured the brunt of downsizing efforts. According to the article, the financial services and insurance firms have cut approximately 260,000 jobs. An astounding 72% of these jobs belonged to women, even though women only constituted 64% of the workforce before the economic downturn.
Many of the ousted female professionals are seeking legal recourse and have recently filed charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Douglas Wigdor, who is featured in the Forbes article, currently represents a group of five former managers and rising young stars who claim they were victimized by the cuts. In the article, Mr. Wigdor describes the cuts as a case of “recessionary discrimination.”
Still, other women with cognizable claims against various financial institutions will not come forward. There is a concern that in doing so, they will be professionally exiled from the industry once the economy regains its footing. The Forbes article recounts a 2007 class action settlement, where female employees at Morgan Stanley were given the opportunity to opt-in:
Alice Hughes, a Morgan Stanley financial adviser in Dallas, talked with several women who declined to participate–and not because they planned to pursue separate claims. “It was just sheer fear,” she says, that even if they kept their jobs they might be excluded from benefits like getting a chunk of business when another broker left the firm. “They’re right,” says Hughes. Moreover, she claims, if they make trouble, “they will be blacklisted from working at any major firm.”
Posted on January 29th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues, Politics |
This morning, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. It was the first bill Obama has signed since taking office.
Joining him at the signing ceremony were, among others, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, First Lady Michelle Obama, and Lilly Ledbetter herself, who is seen on the video receiving the signatory pen.
The law is intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision, also bearing Ledbetter’s name, that plaintiffs in discrimination cases must bring their claims within 180 days from the initial discriminatory act. Under the newly-signed revision, claimants have 180 days since the most recent discriminatory act. This difference means that employees like Ledbetter, who worked for years without knowing she was being paid unequally, have 180 days from their last paycheck to file suit.
A couple of important notes about the Ledbetter Act:
- It is not limited to gender discrimination. The law changes the filing limitations in all major antidiscrimination statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts.
- It doesn’t change the amount a plaintiff can recover. That is still limited under most statutes to damages dating 2-years back from the date the claimant files a charge.
- The law is designed to be retroactive, applying to cases initiated anytime on or after May 28, 2007 (the day before the Supreme Court’s decision). What this means for the cases that have been dismissed in the interim, or for Ledbetter herself, in unclear. (Some have suggested that she wins nunc pro tunc. I’m not so sure.) Expect this point to be litigated agressively and soon.
