Just Business

Veterans Struggle to Find Work

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:54:00 +0000

Members of the armed services returning from active duty or completing military service are facing real challenges in the workplace. Despite critical legal protections offered by both the Massachusetts anti-discrimnation law, G.L. c. 151B, §(1)(D), and the Federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C.4311(a), returning veterans and others completing military service are struggling to find work or return to their jobs. Still others face reprisals from their employers when taking leave to complete military training requirements. Some job seekers report a dramatic increase in the number of employer views of their resume on Monster when they remove their "veteran preference" flag from their online profile.

Recent actions by the President and Congress demonstrate support for veterans. The President has proposed a Returning Heroes Tax Credit to encourage employers to hire more veterans and both houses of Congress recently passed the VOW to Hire Heroes Act which, among other provisions, strengthens USERRA by explicitly prohibiting harassment of veterans on the job. Once enacted, this law will go a long way toward overturning a bad decision in Carder v. Continental Airlines, 636 F.3d 172 (5th Cir., 2011), in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that service members do not have a claim for workplace harassment under USERRA. While much more needs to be done to help veterans and those returning from military service, these initiatives are a good start.

The Center for Jobs & Justice was formed to help job seekers and employees fight for justice.

Because job discrimination isn't

Just Business

Income Inequality & Unemployment

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:49:00 +0000

Recent studies by the Congressional Budget Office and others show that income inequality in the United States is growing. More wealth is now concentrated among the top 1 percent of taxpayers than at any time since the start of the Great Depression. While thousands protest this disparity at Occupy Wall Street encampments around the country, there has been little discussion of the role that the concentration of wealth plays in the growing rate of unemployment.

Tax breaks for the wealthy, as advocated by the Republican Presidential candidates and their brethren in Congress, do not create jobs. Otherwise, the wealthy would create more than 1 million new jobs for every $50 billion they receive in tax breaks. CEO compensation is now nearly 400 times that of an average worker, a 10-fold increase in the disparity since 1960. The more jobs they eliminate or ship overseas, the higher their compensation.

The debate over the income concentration among the top 1 percent should focus on the issue of jobs. Instead of giving tax breaks to those who don't need them in the hope that it will result in job creation, the government should tie its tax policy to job creation. If Congress gave employers a tax credit equal to 50 percent of the salary for the first year of every new job created, we would see a dramatic drop in unemployment, home foreclosures and student loan defaults. This could be paid for imposing a luxury tax on companies whose highly compensated employees earn more than a 200 percent of their average worker salaries.

Now who could disagree with that.

Disaster Response

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:30:00 +0000

Hurricane Irene has come and gone. As we clean up and pick up the pieces from the storm, let's pause for a moment and remember another storm that hit Louisiana six years ago today. Katrina killed more that 1,800 people and caused an estimated $81 billion in property damage. Countless families lost their homes, jobs, and sense of security. We all remember the government's inadequate response to this disaster that decimated the South.

Six years later, we are confronted by another disaster. The national unemployment rate is currently at 9.1 percent not including those working part-time involuntarily and those who have become discouraged. Including those groups, the unemployment rate is 16.1 percent. Factor in such characteristics as race, age and disability, and the magnitude of the storm is easily a Category 3.

Much like the government's response to Katrina, its response to our economic disaster has been similarly feeble. The government is all too willing to spend trillions on Wall Street bailouts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and tax cuts for those who don't need them, but when it comes to job creation, the unemployed are told to fend for themselves.

So what should the government do? For starters, both private and public employers should prioritize hiring unemployed job seekers rather than discriminating against them. The government needs to set an example by doing so itself and create incentives for industry to do likewise.

The gathering storm is upon us and we need a meaningful response to the disaster.

Job Recruiters: Friend or Foe?

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:45:00 +0000

You've lost or need to leave your job. You've networked your network. You've looked for jobs on every website you can think of. You've applied for every job that you're even remotely qualified for. What about recruiters? Maybe they can help you. After all, so many ads direct applications to a job placement firm. In the legal field, more than half of the attorney ads are placed by recruiters.

But suppose you happen to be over 40. Will the recruiter even send your resume to the employer, or will you be screened out because you're too old, too skilled, or just don't fit what their client is looking for. Many job seekers perceive that recruiters are yet another obstacle they must overcome to find a position. I have even heard of one situation where a recruiter admitted that their client insisted that they were only interested in a younger worker for a position.

The Massachusetts anti-discrimination law, G.L. c. 151B, makes it unlawful for both employers and employment agencies to discriminate against a job applicant on the basis of their age. Regardless of whether job recruiters are injecting their own bias into the screening process or responding to the instructions of their client, recruiters face significant liability for these unlawful practices.

While job recruiters can play an important role in helping open the job market for those needing to find work, they need to level the playing field so that all those who are qualified have a fair shot.

Preventing Unemployment Discrimination

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:00:00 +0000

Recent news reports about the difficulty that unemployed workers have in finding work come as no surprise. Some job advertisements openly state that unemployed individuals will not be considered for employment. The refusal to consider unemployed job applicants has profound social and economic consequence as countless experienced workers are effectively excluded from the job market or are lucky to find jobs at half their prior pay. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has identified this problem as an issue of concern, and federal and state legislation has been introduced to prohibit discrimination against unemployed individuals.

While it can be argued that discrimination against unemployed job applicants has a disparate impact on certain protected groups such as older workers or racial minorities who are experiencing higher levels of unemployment, such arguments are tenuous and the prospects for legislation to expand our civil rights laws to protect unemployed workers from discrimination are dim.

Ultimately, we need a more proactive approach to protect workers from unemployment in the first place. In the housing area, tenants in some states such as New Jersey are protected from eviction without good cause. Given that the consequences of unemployment can be just as severe as the consequence of eviction, workers deserve greater protection in order to preserve their employment in the first place.

Launching Justice

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Wed, 04 May 2011 09:05:00 +0000

I am pleased to announce the formation of the Center for Jobs & Justice LLC, a Massachusetts employment law practice. The Center is devoted to protecting the legal rights of job seekers and employees to obtain and retain employment without regard to their age, disability or other protected status. The Center for Jobs & Justice works to educate the public about workplace discrimination, investigates job discrimination complaints, and provides legal representation to job seekers and employees who have been subjected to discrimination. The Center also provides training to businesses on fair employment compliance.

In these difficult economic times, we all know colleagues, family members, friends or neighbors who have lost their jobs or are facing workplace challenges. Job seekers are rarely given any reason, much less a truthful reason, why they are not hired or promoted. Layoff and termination decisions sometimes appear to single out employees for differential treatment on the basis of their status as a member of a protected class. Older workers, disabled individuals, and military veterans too often face discrimination by employers who use subjective, inaccurate and biased considerations when making personnel decisions.

I have spent my career advocating for the rights of disadvantaged people who are simply looking to meet their basic needs and live with dignity. I plan to bring the same tenacity, creativity and zealousness to my advocacy at the Center for Jobs & Justice.

The Center for Jobs & Justice was formed to help job seekers and employees fight for justice.

Because job discrimination isn't Just Business.

Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.
Center for Jobs & Justice
www.just-biz.com
RNasdor@just-biz.com
(978) 295-9009

Resume Tip: Fight Age Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:31:00 +0000

We've all read articles about how older job seekers should omit their graduation dates and limit their experience on their resume to conceal their age. Sadly, discrimination against older job seekers is so commonplace that employers often don't even conceal their bias. A simple search of Monster and Craigslist job listings uncovers age bias through the use of phrases such as "recent college graduate" or "get started in your first career." Other ads list minimum/maximum experience requirements without any justification for disqualifying those with more experience. More subtly, some ads use phrases like "energetic and magnetic" to describe the ideal candidate, suggesting possible age bias. No employer would advertise for a position that disqualified those with disabilities or those contemplating having children. Not so with age bias.

Like other forms of job discrimination, age discrimination against older job seekers can be fought, and job postings that discourage older job applicants can provide compelling evidence of discrimination.

Supreme Court: Employers Liable for Supervisor Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:03:00 +0000

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court decided an important employment case involving discrimination against a member of the U.S. Army Reserves. This case has important implications for plaintiffs bringing employment discrimination claims and is likely to extend to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1974.

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the Court, unanamously held, in a decision written by Justice Scalia, that an employer may be liable for discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) where animus by the superviser was a motivating factor, even where the ultimate decisionmaker was not motivated by such bias.

While it remains to be seen how this case will affect other anti-discrimination laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the decision will make it easier for workers to show that they have be subject to employment discrimation where the ultimate decision was the intended result of a supervisor's recommendation. This decision should also make it easier for job applicants to argue that disciminatory hiring practices are attributable to the employer where the ultimate decisionmaker, although unaware of the animus toward the applicant, was influenced by the bias of others.

Scoops of Injustice

noreply@blogger.com (Robert A. Nasdor, Esq.) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:17:00 +0000

Cabot's Ice Cream, in West Newton, renowned for its delicious sundaes, shakes and cones, was caught serving up a new dish, but this one isn't so sweet. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has reached a settlement with Cabot's over its hiring practices that discriminated against older job applicants. The MCAD has revived an employment testing program, funded by the EEOC, that aims to document discriminatory hiring practices. While the MCAD should be applauded for its new testing initiative, the Commission should recognize that older workers deserve a fair shot at all jobs for which they qualify. After all, you can't pay a mortgage with ice cream or on a minimum wage salary.