Outback Steakhouse has settled a class-action sex discrimination suit for $19m.  The suit, filed in 2003, alleges that Outback Steakhouse “denied women equal opportunities for advancement and discriminated against female workers in the terms and conditions of their employment.  Women were denied favorable job assignments, such as kitchen management experience, which is required for workers to be considered for higher-level, profit-sharing management positions, the EEOC maintained.”  Outback Steakhouse’s parent company, OSI Restaurant Partners, has denied all the allegations and stress that the settlement includes no finding of fault on Outback’s behalf.  Recently hired CEO Liz Smith stated she was pleased to resolve the “legacy issue” with the EEOC.  “There is no glass ceiling at OSI, and we do not tolerate discrimination in any form,” she added. “I have a profound commitment to ensuring not only equal, but very compelling and rewarding employment opportunities for all individuals.”

In order to address this issue further, the company has agreed to hire a consultant to analyze their current process, create a new position called “vice president of people”, as well as unveiling a new online application system for current workers seeking managerial jobs.  This new system will be available for employees to have direct access to apply and test for job openings across the country.  In addition to creating the vice president of people job, OSI spokesman Joe Kadow said they had enlarged its human resources staff and increased their role.

Cultures of discrimination can lead to very costly lawsuits as Outback Steakhouse learned the hard way.  There are many ways to help protect your company including have clear and effective policies and procedures in place for hiring, firing, promotions, and evaluations.  As the number one online provider of hr forms, documents, policies, laws, training, and education, HRSentry can help you.  Visit our homepage for more information on how you can reduce your risk today.

When most people think of religious discrimination the usual denial of accommodation by the employer comes to mind. A situation that arose with Kelly Services in California puts a different meaning to the term. In the recent case of Noyes v. Kelly Services, an employee was turned down for a promotion and filed a lawsuit charging reverse religious discrimination under the California and federal antibias laws. She claimed that she was discriminated against for not being part of the same faith that the manager belonged to. The woman claimed that after having applied for a promotion she was turned down in favor of someone who had been there six years less, and lacked the masters degree in business administration that the plaintiff held. As proof of this bias the plaintiff pointed to the last six promotions by the manager, five of which were members of the same faith.

The Courts found that:

(1) although Kelly Services argued that the promotion decision was consensus-based, the other managers couldn’t recall reaching a consensus, and one stated that the manager ultimately made the decision;

(2) His actions prevented full consideration of the woman for the job by the other managers;

(3) He favored Fellowship members and the co-worker in particular (for example, paying the co-worker a higher salary for the same job she held and frequently hiring Fellowship members as temporary contractors and giving them management jobs).

The case went to a jury which awarded the employee $647,000 for economic and noneconomic losses, in addition to a whopping $5.9 million in punitive damages.

Workplace favoritism can be an expensive issue, Here are some tactics for avoiding similar problems as seen on BLR.com:

• Have clear policies to govern how promotion and hiring decisions are made.
• Make sure the promotion selection process includes oversight and review by upper management and/or human resources.
• Provide training for managers on the policies and procedures governing promotions.

Get all your policies and desktop training for employees at HRSentry.

In a recent case the Supreme Court put more pressure on employers in age discrimination lawsuits by placing the burden of proof on them. In the past employees have had to prove that age discrimination took place, which led to the dismissal of Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. With this new ruling the courts have flipped the burden of proof onto employers, who now must prove that the age discrimination did not take place. What this essentially means is that managers must keep detailed documentation behind every firing to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.

With the workforce aging as baby-boomers near retirement, the issue of age discrimination is becoming increasingly prevalent. With this type of discrimination on the rise, employers need to address the situation before it becomes a problem. According to Aging Workforce News, “A Hewitt Associates survey of more than 140 mid-size and large employers has found that 55% have already evaluated the impact that potential retirements could have on their organization and 61% have developed or will develop special programs to retain targeted, near-retirement employees. Even though only 21% believe that phased retirement is critical to their company’s human resources strategy today, 61% believe so when looking ahead 5 years.”

To learn more about age discrimination, the impact on businesses, and what you can do about it visit the Department of Labor, AARP, or one of many events such as the Aging Workforce Summit.

In the United States workers compensation went into effect during the early 1900’s. During this time the legal system was experiencing significant growth which led to increased protection of employee rights. These employee rights laws started out very industry specific, with the manufacturing industry leading the way. As a result, states that supported high risk industries experienced the adoption of such laws earlier than those that relied on other industries such as agriculture. It is partly the industry specific nature of these laws that have made it a state law instead of federal law. By 1948 every state and US territory had adopted some form of workers compensation law and would continue to develop it as time went on.
State workers compensation laws have been developed with two things in mind. The first was to provide guaranteed coverage for the employee to ensure that they will have adequate means to live if they are injured on the job. The second purpose for the laws is to protect the employer from being suited and losing everything because of an injury. The idea is that the system provides a structured plan to support the injured employee without causing undue hardship to the employer.
To help reduce the cost for your organizations workers compensation coverage there are several action steps you can follow:


Action Steps: The best contacts and resources to help you get it done

In a letter to their members, SHRM voiced their opposition to a new bill being debated in the House titled the Paycheck Fairness Act. Acting as an update to the existing Equal Pay Act, the bill would create new mandates for employers as well as making it easier to suit for punitive damages. As a result of the nature of the bill, SHRM opposes the following aspects of the Paycheck Fairness Act:

* Promotes class action lawsuits against employers—The bill would require that employees “opt-out” of a gender discrimination class action, rather than the current law requirement that employees must give their written consent to join a class action. This will invariably increase the number of plaintiffs in class actions.

* Exposes employers to unlimited damages—The bill would lift the Equal Pay Act’s current limits on punitive and compensatory damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. Such damages would apply to even unintentional pay disparities. By exposing employers to potentially millions of dollars in damages, the bill would compel employers to settle wage discrimination claims, even in cases where no discrimination occurred.

* Restricts employer defenses—The bill would prohibit certain employer defenses for pay disparities. For example, the bill would eliminate an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living.

* Encourages salary disclosures—The bill would effectively encourage employees to publicize their co-workers’ salaries by preventing employers from retaliating against employees who disclose or discuss the wages of other employees.

SHRM went on to urge the public(especially employers) to write their Representative calling for them to vote “No” on this bill. SHRM further explains their position by stating that “SHRM opposes all forms of unlawful
discrimination in the workplace, and believes any intentional misconduct against employees in any sector should be promptly addressed and resolved. Accordingly, SHRM believes the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act would be an unnecessary expansion of the Equal Pay Act. It would limit an employer’s ability to determine compensation for its workforce, and it could potentially punish well-intentioned employers”

For more information on this bill visit GovTrack or the SHRM website.