Discrimination, Harassment Claims Against Señor Frog’s Execs

Introduction

Señor Frog’s, a popular chain of Mexican restaurants in tourist areas, is facing a lawsuit filed by a group of nine claimants who allege that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that top executives at the company not only condoned such behavior, but participated in it. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The claimants allege that they were subjected to repeated and flagrant harassment, discrimination, and assault while working at Señor Frog’s. They claim that the harassment occurred at the hands of management personnel, including top executives, and that the company failed to take appropriate action to address the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a complaint against the company alleging violations of federal law.

The Allegations

According to the EEOC filing, the harassment and discriminatory practices at Señor Frog’s were widespread and involved top executives at the company. The allegations include sexual harassment, age discrimination, and retaliation against employees who spoke out against the abusive behavior.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit seeks compensation for the harm caused to the claimants as a result of the harassment and discrimination they experienced at Señor Frog’s. The claimants are also seeking an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in such behavior in the future, as well as expanded employee training and oversight.

Reaction

The lawsuit has drawn attention to the issue of harassment and discrimination in the restaurant industry and the responsibility of employers to address and prevent such behavior. It serves as a reminder that all employees have the right to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination, regardless of their position or industry.

Preventing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace by establishing clear policies and procedures, conducting training and education programs for employees, and creating a culture of respect and accountability. Managers and supervisors must also be trained on how to recognize and address instances of harassment and discrimination and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Señor Frog’s highlights the serious and harmful impact of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Employers have a responsibility to create a safe and respectful work environment, and failure to do so can result in legal action. It is important that companies take proactive steps to prevent and address harassment and discrimination, ensuring that all employees are treated with dignity and respect.

Señor Frog’s, a chain of Mexican restaurants associated with party-heavy tourist areas, is being sued by a group of nine claimants who say that they were subjected to flagrant and repeated harassment and discrimination. According to the claimants, harassment and discriminatory practices occurred at the highest levels of the company. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing accused the restaurant owner and top executives of encouraging and even actively participating in harassment and assaults.

According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, during the time period from June 2007 to December 2008, at least nine employees of the Waikiki Señor Frog’s restaurant were verbally and physically harassed.

The young women involved in the lawsuit were all in their teens or twenties at the time that the alleged harassment occurred. The complaint alleges that management would encourage underage employees to drink with them, and that they would also imply that they were getting the women drunk in order to have sex with them.

Managers at the Señor Frog’s branch were also accused of making demands for body shots to be served using the bodies of female bartenders or customers. Some of these managers also are accused of having sex with customers during their shift, in front of female employees working under them.

Verbal harassment accusations were extensive, and included allegations that the restaurant’s owner told one employee that the way she moved in a skirt caused him to become aroused. Sexual advances and demands for sexual intercourse were frequent according to the complaint.

In addition to harassing employees, the EEOC alleges that Señor Frog’s subjected them to a continuing pattern of employment discrimination at all levels of hiring and promotion. Male bartenders were promoted into better positions with better hours even though more qualified female bartenders were being passed up, the complaint indicates.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the accusations against Señor Frog’s earlier in November, stating that the extent of the harassment, as well as the high status of the harassers in the company, was what made them take the case.

Ordinarily, in a case where the harassment went as far as the restaurant owner and restaurant group, the EEOC would file the complaint against the parent company as well as the individual Hawaii unit of Señor Frog’s. However, because the headquarters for the parent company of Señor Frog’s is located in Mexico, the EEOC has no jurisdiction and will not be able to sue the parent company in United States courts.

The harassment and discrimination experienced by the employees at Señor Frog’s is prohibited conduct according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This portion of the law made it a civil offense to discriminate against employees or create a hostile workplace environment through workplace harassment. The EEOC is seeking punitive damages, lost wages, compensatory damages, and front pay for the women affected by the alleged harassment and discrimination.

Source: eeoc.gov

Woman Sues Target After Being Fired While Pregnant

Introduction

A former employee of Target Corporation is suing the company for violating her rights under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The woman alleges that she was fired while pregnant, which is illegal under federal law. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The former employee worked at a Target store in Pennsylvania and was informed that her position was being eliminated shortly after informing her supervisor that she was pregnant. The employee claims that she was performing her job duties satisfactorily and had no prior disciplinary issues. She alleges that she was terminated solely because of her pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. The law requires employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other employees who have similar job requirements or limitations. The law also prohibits retaliation against employees who assert their rights under the PDA.

The Lawsuit

The former employee is suing Target for violating her rights under the PDA. She alleges that she was fired solely because of her pregnancy, which is illegal under federal law. Target sought summary judgment in the case, but the court denied the request, allowing the case to move forward to trial.

Expected Outcome

The case is expected to be decided at the trial level in 2013. If the former employee prevails, she may be awarded damages for the harm caused by Target’s discrimination and be reinstated in her former position. The case serves as a warning to employers that discrimination against pregnant employees is illegal and may result in legal action.

Preventing Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that their policies and practices are in compliance with federal law. Managers and supervisors should be trained on how to recognize and prevent pregnancy discrimination, and employees should be educated on their rights under the PDA. It is also important for employers to have a complaint process in place to address and investigate any allegations of discrimination.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Target serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with federal law regarding pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Employers must treat pregnant employees the same as any other employee and may not discriminate against them on the basis of their pregnancy. Failure to do so can result in legal action and harm to both the employer’s reputation and bottom line.

Claiming that the company violated her rights according to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a former employee is suing Target Corporation. Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that they would not grant summary judgment to Target. This ruling allows the case to go forward, and it is expected to be decided at the trial level sometime in 2013.

According to Christina Spigarelli’s attorneys, Spigarelli was employed by Target for approximately two years before she became pregnant and found out. At the time when she notified her employer that she had become pregnant, she had not faced any disciplinary action within the company for over 10 months. Prior to that, she had been disciplined at one time for apprehending a shoplifting suspect in a way that violated the company’s protocols for asset protection and loss prevention.

However, her announcement of her pregnancy seemed to change how her supervisor treated her. She was given repeated warnings suddenly for violating parts of her job’s protocol—parts which she had not been accused of violating even once in the time before she announced her pregnancy. After the third of these violations was recorded within a two week period, Spigarelli says that her supervisor informed her that her employment had been terminated.

The violations being recorded weren’t just suspicious because of their timing. According to Spigarelli, her supervisor actually spoke with her about her pregnancy, and did so in an alarming way. The supervisor told her that “pregnancy hormones” made women into poor decision makers, and talked about experiences with other pregnant women that made her feel this way. These comments had the effect of making Spigarelli feel belittled for her pregnancy and delegitimized her authority in her department according to the complaint.

The supervisor told Spigarelli that pregnant women “get emotional and their hormones get all affected,” and that Spigarelli “was being too emotional and getting caught up into things.” The district court judge ruled that these comments, in combination with the suspicious timing of the new conduct warnings, made summary judgment impossible in the case.

When being accused of discrimination under Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is not enough in courts for companies to simply give someone enough written warnings until they are forced to leave. If the courts determine that the relationship between a woman’s pregnancy and her termination were causal, then the company will be held liable for that discrimination even if they were able to indicate some other reason for the termination.

Employers are also not allowed, according to standards set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to “constructively terminate” an employee by creating a workplace environment that would make a reasonable person quit. The fact that the EEOC is now pursuing these cases for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace means that employers should be especially careful to make sure that pregnant women are being treated in accordance with the law.

Source: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov

Study Says Pay Gap Starts Early

Introduction

The American Association of University Women has recently released a study that suggests that the gender pay gap starts early in women’s careers, often before they even enter the workforce. This finding is significant as it highlights the need for action to address this issue at a young age.

Background on the Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap has been a contentious issue for decades, with women earning less than their male counterparts for doing the same job. It is a complex issue with many contributing factors, including discrimination, lack of access to education and training, and societal expectations.

Study Findings

The American Association of University Women’s study found that women’s earnings are impacted by a variety of factors early in their careers, including the major they choose in college, their first job out of college, and the amount of student debt they carry. Women’s earnings are also affected by the gender pay gap that exists in their chosen field.

Implications for Women in the Workforce

The findings of this study have significant implications for women in the workforce, suggesting that they are already at a disadvantage when they first start their careers. This means that the gender pay gap is not just a problem for women in mid-career or later, but is an issue that affects women from the beginning of their working lives.

Action Needed

In light of these findings, it is crucial that action is taken to address the gender pay gap. This includes efforts to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, increasing access to education and training, and supporting women in their careers. Employers can also take steps to ensure that they are paying their employees fairly and without regard to gender.

Conclusion

The study by the American Association of University Women highlights the need for action to address the gender pay gap, which starts early in women’s careers. It is crucial that efforts are made to eliminate discrimination and support women in their careers, as well as increasing access to education and training. Addressing the gender pay gap is not just a women’s issue, it is an issue that affects us all and requires a coordinated effort to solve.

The topic of a gender pay gap is hotly contested at the national political level. Recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act was championed by Democrats in the House and Senate, but was opposed by Republicans and eventually blocked. According to a recent study by the American Association of University Women, the pay gap is still a problem—and it starts earlier than most people think.

According to the AAUW’s study, women are paid significantly less than men as soon as one year after college graduation. While some opponents of paycheck fairness legislation have argued that this gap is due to a difference in professions for men and women, the study shows that this is not the case.

While in some professional fields—like education, math, biology, humanities, and healthcare—men and women were paid about the same, in others the difference was marked. While a male graduate of an engineering program can expect to make about $55,000 a year after graduation, his female counterpart would make around $48,500.

Similarly, male business majors earned about $7,000 more than female business majors, and another $7,000 gap in favor of men existed in the social sciences. The starkest contrast was in the field of computer and information sciences. Women in that field can expect to make just $39,000 a year after graduating from college. Men make over $51,000—a difference of $12,000 that studies indicate becomes even bigger as men and women continue in the workforce.

The study shows a difference in women’s wages that cannot be explained by maternity leave or childcare responsibilities. Because the survey was taken just a year after graduation, it is also not affected as much by differing requests for raises.

One of the most significant impacts of this pay difference, according to the AAUW, is that university educated women have more difficulty than men in paying their federal student loans. Women’s paychecks take a bigger hit from loans, and more women default on their student loans than men.

The fields that have the most significant pay difference for women are also the fields that tend to attract the fewest women, suggesting that institutional discrimination in salary and job advancement may be contributing to women’s lower rates of entry into those majors.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed into law in 2009, allows American women greater ability to sue employers who are paying people less based on their gender. This legislation has prompted a new look at creating new laws that can help women get a fair shake in the workplace.

Sources: eeoc.gov, aauw.org, house.gov

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Explained

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Explained:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a revolutionary piece of legislation in the United States that effectively outlawed egregious forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including all forms of segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 terminated unequal application in regards to voter registration requirements and all forms of racial segregation in schools, in the workplace and by facilities that offered services to the general public.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was initially enacted, the powers given to enforce the act were relatively weak; however, the authoritative abilities were later supplemented during the years following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Congress asserted its ability to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to legislate the stipulations of the legislation through different parts of the United States Constitution, primarily the ability to regulate interstate commerce under Article One, the duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and the duty to protect voting rights for all citizens under the Fifth Amendment.

Origins of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instituted by President John F. Kennedy during his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963, where he asked for legislation, which would give all Americans the right to be served in public facilities.

The bill’s origin emulated the Civil Rights Act of 1875; however, Kennedy’s agenda included provisions to ban all forms of discrimination in public areas while enabling the United States Attorney General to join in lawsuits against all state governments which operated or encouraged the formation of segregated schools.

Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. Although this provision required that all voting rules and procedures be uniform regardless of race, it did not eliminate literacy tests, which was the predominant method used to exclude African American voters.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in motels, hotels, theatres, restaurants and all other public accommodations which were engaged in interstate commerce.

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Outlawed state and municipal governments from barring access to public facilities based off an individual’s religion, gender, race, or ethnicity.

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provision that discouraged the desegregation of public schools and enabled the United States Attorney General to initiate suits to enforce said act.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prevented discrimination by government agencies who received federal funds. If an agency violates this particular provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will lose its federal funding.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This fundamental provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination by employers on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin, or religion.

What is the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racial segregation and outlawed most forms of discrimination in the workplace, schools, public facilities and separate requirements based on racialized distinctions, such as discriminatory voter registration requirements. The Civil Rights Act also clarified some of the rights of women.

Where does the authority lie in the federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The federal government derives the power to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act through:

– Article One, Section 8 – The interstate commerce clause as means of enforcing laws and regulations between two states.

– Fourteenth Amendment – federal duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law.

– Fifteenth Amendment – federal duty to protect voting rights.

What are the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The provisions of the Civil Rights Act include:

– Public accommodations may not discriminate against or segregate individuals based on race, ethnicity of gender.

o Public accommodations being any establishments that lease, rent or sell goods and provide services. Additionally if the establishment is public gathering place, educational institution, park or lodging enterprises.

– School systems may no longer segregate students

o Could face federal lawsuit for non-compliance

– A ban on racial discrimination in employment

– Protections for minority voters

These provisions are applied in the following order in the text of the Civil Rights Act

Title I – Rules and procedures regarding voting must be uniform for all races.

o This did not explicitly ban forms of traditional voter suppression, such as literacy tests

Title II – Public accommodations such as lodging, restaurants and theatres may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin

Title III – Explicitly prohibits state and local governments from discrimination based on race, religion color or national origin in public facilities

Title IV – Provides for the federal enforcement of desegregating public schools

Title V – Empowers the Civil Rights Commission to further investigate and act on allegations of discrimination

Title VI – Prohibits discrimination by federal agencies when providing services or administration. Violating agencies can lose funding and face judicial review

Title VII – Bans discrimination by employers on the basis of race, religion, color, sex or national origin. It also added for protections for individuals associated with other races, such as an interracial marriage.

o Protection did not apply to Communist organizations or persons with Communist affiliations

o Allows for limited discrimination on the part of the employer if they can conclusively prove that the employees’ gender would impair him or her from conducting the job properly.

Title VIII – Created a record of voter registration and date for use by the Commission on Civil Rights

Title IX – Moved civil rights trials with all white juries or segregationist judges to federal courts for a fair trial.

Title X – Establish Community Relations Services to investigate discrimination in community disputes

Title XI – Established harsher penalties for violating the Civil Rights Act

Civil Rights Act and gender

Due to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, several court cases prevented discrimination against women in the workplace. For instance, the Supreme Court rules that women with preschool age children could not be banned from employment unless the establishment maintained the same rules for male employees. Similarly, a lower federal court struck down an Ohio law that created a separate class of employment for women that placed limitations on the amount of lifting they could do and enforced mandatory lunch breaks. This made them less attractive as potential hires than male employees. Other cases ended gender-specific job postings and discriminatory tools such as height requirements that would have barred most women from certain professions.

Federal vs. States

The federal government, by nature of its role as the regulator of relations and commerce between states enforces anti-discrimination law on business establishments. Anti-discrimination precedent usually originates in federal courts overturning state decisions and laws. Immediately after the establishment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there arose several state challenges to the law, especially desegregation, which sometime meant the use of federal troops to enforce federal court decisions.

What is the legacy of the Civil Rights Act?

Today, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigates complaints of discrimination and violations of the rights of employees. This has gradually expanded to the rights of immigrants and guest workers as they face the newest wave of discrimination in the workplace. The US government recognizes potential forms of discrimination to include intimidation, threats of deportment, withholding of wages and violations of Acts that proceeded after the Civil Rights Act that guaranteed pregnancy leave, fair wages and protection for individuals with disabilities.

Timeline of Important Events and Cases

(1964) Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States

Supreme Court rules that the federal government can force businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Owner of the motel had argued that the federal government overstepped its authority and violated the 5th amendment that allowed him to operate his business as he pleased. He also claimed a violation of due process and “involuntary servitude” for being mandated to rent rooms to African Americans.

The court found that the refusal to rent accommodations to African American travels was a disruption to interstate commerce and the federal government maintained the right to regulate businesses, within reason, regardless of the 5th amendment

(1964) Katzenbach v. McClung

This case also applied to interstate commerce as much of the food purchased at McClung’s restaurant crossed state lines, due to the nearby highway. The Supreme Court upheld the right to the federal government to desegregate restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(1974) Griggs v. Duke Power Co

The Supreme Court ruled that restriction on promotions at the Duke Power Company were inherently biased toward African American workers and was not relevant to the position. The restrictions were found to be in place for the sole purpose of promoting white workers. The lack of rationale for restricting the promotion of employees with low IQ and no high school diploma as well as the requirement’s roots in racial segregation constituted a violation of equal protection. The courts determined that the requirements were unfair as African Americans had received inferior education up until desegregation only a few years earlier.

(1976) Washington v. Davis

This case dealt with two African Americans that had been rejected for positions in the Washington DC police department on the basis of a verbal skills assessment that overwhelmingly disqualified many African American applicants. The Court ruled against this claim noting the efforts of the police department to recruit minority officers, the proportion of white officers and African American officers and that while the test had been disqualifying potential applicants, it purpose was not discriminatory in nature. The court further ruled that:
“Racial discrimination by the state must contain two elements: a racially disproportionate impact and discriminatory motivation on the part of the state actor.”

(1982) Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal

Uniroyal found to have maintained segregated hiring and seniority system for women by the US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit. Led to a successful class-action lawsuit.

(1989) Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

Non-white workers brought suit against the employer for failing to promote non-white workers to management despite their strong presence in the labor jobs of the company. The Supreme Court ruled that when deciding if a company’s hiring was discriminatory, the available market for the type of labor must be assessed and not the racial composition of the company itself.

(2009) Ricci v. DeStefano

A group of firefighters brought suit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut for invalidating a test that would have earned them promotions. The city feared a disparate impact if the results of the test meant that all African American firefighters that took the test failed. The other firefighters claimed that this was a form of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled this a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Introduction

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is landmark legislation that is considered one of the most significant bills in American history. The Act made discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin illegal and helped to shape the civil rights movement. In this article, we will explain the key features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Background

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced in response to a growing civil rights movement in the United States. The bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. The Act is considered one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history and helped to establish the foundation for the modern civil rights movement.

Title I: Voting Rights

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory voting practices, including poll taxes and literacy tests, which were often used to prevent African Americans from voting. The Act also established federal oversight of elections in certain areas of the country.

Title II: Public Accommodations

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. This title of the Act applies to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and other public places.

Title III: Desegregation of Public Facilities

Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires desegregation of public facilities such as schools, parks, and libraries. This title of the Act aimed to end segregation in all public spaces and ensure equal access to public facilities for all Americans.

Title IV: School Desegregation

Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, which provided federal funding for schools to promote equal access to education for all students, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

Title VI: Federal Assistance

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding. This title of the Act applies to schools, hospitals, and other institutions that receive federal funding.

Title VII: Employment Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This title of the Act applies to employers with more than 15 employees and provides protections for employees from discrimination in hiring, firing, promotions, and other areas of employment.

Conclusion

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark piece of legislation that helped to shape the civil rights movement in the United States. The Act made discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin illegal and established important protections for individuals in areas such as voting, education, and employment. While there is still work to be done to achieve true equality in the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a major step forward in the fight for civil rights and social justice.

All You Need to Know About Civil Service

Civil Service Defined

The definition of the term Civil Service is considered to maintain two separate and individual meanings and implications. On one hand, Civil Service may refer to the hiring process latent within the realm of employment; on the other hand, Civil Service – in conjunction to departments of Civil Services – may represent the classification given to individuals employed by a government or ruling body.

Civil Service Hiring Practices

Employment practices with regard to the protocol set forth by a methodology of Civil Service are conducted in terms of designating and mandating the hiring of prospective governmental employees in conjunction with the implementation of an examination or test substantiating the ability latent within an applicant:

Civil Service exams institute the structuring of employment-based hierarchy with regard to both the grade of pay, as well as occupational responsibility in accordance to the results of individual Civil Service examinations; these examinations are oftentimes referred to through the usage of the catchall colloquialism ‘Civil Service Exams’

The subject matter present on Civil Service examinations is liable for adjustment as per the evolution of inherent job requirements and job responsibilities

What are Civil Services?

The definition of Civil Service that does not involve the merit-based substantiation of governmental employment is commonly classified in accordance with its corollary catchall term – Civil Services. The classification of Civil Services will typically vary on a locational basis; while certain governmental departments belonging to certain countries or nations may be classified as Civil Services, those same classifications may not be applicable in peripheral nations.

Civil Service in the United States of America

Although the specification of Civil Services varies on the basis of country and gubernatorial structure, employment classified as Civil Services positions within the United States are largely classified as governmental employees, which typically excludes the United States Military; however, some individuals may unofficially categorize certain classifications of the United States Military as Civil Services – the classification is rarely uniform. Yet, the following governmental departments within the United States of America are officially recognized as Civil Services:

Executive Civil Services

The President of the United States

The Whitehouse Staff

The National Security Administration

The Office of Drug Control Policy

The Office of Science and Technologies

The Office of Veteran Affairs

The Department of Defense

The Department of Homeland Security

The Department of Treasury

The Department of Justice

The Department of Commerce

The Department of Education

The Department of Labor

The State Department

The Department of Energy

The Department of Housing and Development

The Department of Health and Human Services

The Department of the Interior

Independent Civil Services

The United States Postal Service

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Central Intelligence Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Personnel Management

The Small Business Administration

The Social Security Administration

United States Civil Service Commission

In 1883 – following the assassination of President James A. Garfield, which occurred at the hands of Charles Guiteau – legislative reform was enacted with regard to the appointment and hiring processes regarding Civil Service employment. Charles Guiteau was rejected from his attempt to be employed under a Civil Service position under the Presidency of James Garfield; in response, he shot and killed President Garfield as a means of punishment for his rejected application. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act enforced the following:

Civil Service examinations were required by all applicants

Civil Service employees were prohibited from the appointment, as well as the termination mandated by elected officials; the tactic was enacted in order to prevent similar recourse undertaken by Charles Guiteau

Proposed Ontario Leave Cut Leaves Lady Lawyers in Lurch

Introduction

Proposed changes to a parental leave program used by hundreds of attorneys in Ontario may leave pregnant attorneys with limited options for continuing their legal practice. The changes are being proposed as a cost-saving measure by the Ontario Law Society and have caused concern among many lawyers who rely on the program. Here’s what you need to know about the issue.

Background

The Law Society of Ontario introduced a parental leave assistance program for lawyers in 2017. The program, which provides financial assistance to lawyers going on parental leave, has been used by hundreds of attorneys, particularly women, to help them maintain their legal practice while caring for a new child. The proposed changes would see the funding for the program cut significantly, leaving many lawyers without the support they need.

Impact on Women Lawyers

Critics of the proposed changes argue that they will disproportionately impact women lawyers, who are more likely to take parental leave than their male counterparts. They assert that the changes will make it difficult for women to maintain their legal practice and return to work after having a child. Lawyers who have relied on the program in the past are concerned about how they will continue to practice law without the support provided by the program.

Cost-Saving Measures

The Law Society of Ontario has proposed the changes as a cost-saving measure to address a projected budget shortfall. The organization has stated that it will explore other options to support lawyers on parental leave, but critics argue that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on the legal profession, particularly for women lawyers.

Call for Action

As lawyers and advocates voice their concerns about the proposed changes, the Law Society of Ontario is expected to hold a debate on the issue this week. Lawyers are calling for the organization to reconsider the changes and to maintain the support provided by the parental leave program. They argue that the changes will not only have a negative impact on individual lawyers but will also harm the legal profession as a whole.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the parental leave assistance program in Ontario have caused concern among lawyers, particularly women, who rely on the support provided by the program. Critics argue that the changes will limit the options available to lawyers on parental leave and will have a negative impact on the legal profession. As the Law Society of Ontario debates the proposed changes, many are calling for the organization to maintain the support provided by the program and to explore other options to address budget concerns.

A cut to a parental leave program that hundreds of attorneys—most of them women—have depended on for three years may leave some pregnant attorneys without options for continuing their legal practice. The changes, proposed as a cost savings measure by the Ontario Law Society, will be debated later this week.

The Ontario Law Society licenses attorneys and provides services to attorneys in the Canadian province of Ontario the same way that state bar associations do in the United States. Three years ago, it began a pilot program to give parental leave to new parents who were trying to juggle their parental responsibilities with their professional ones.

The program, which cost about half a million dollars per year, was designed to supplement the income of attorneys taking parental leave as solo practitioners or while working for small firms. Larger firms often have ad hoc maternity leave policies or relatively new policies that allow attorneys to continue being paid for several months after giving birth. However, smaller firms generally cannot afford to give this kind of maternity benefit, and solo practitioners may lack the funds to simply not take clients for a few months while they recover from labor.

The province of Ontario does have special benefits that can pay up to $450 per week during parental leave, this is often not enough for attorneys to continue to pay office rents. If the $750 a week program through the Ontario Law Society is discontinued, the unemployment insurance $450 per week maximum may be the best that many solo practitioners and small firm attorneys can do.

Ontario’s law society chose to implement the parental leave program after noticing that while women made up 50 percent of the graduating class of Ontario’s law schools, after 8 years in the profession they were only 35 percent. Women at small firms, according to the law society, are likely to stop working when they are unable to go back to work for several months after giving birth, because they are unable to continue billing clients and lack family friendly flexibility.

Currently, people who are deriving benefits from the policy typically take about 12 weeks total of paid leave. While men are allowed to receive parental leave benefits, women have been far more likely to use the program and constitute the vast majority of its recipients to date.

In order to use the program, attorneys must demonstrate that they work at a firm with five lawyers or fewer, that they are becoming a birth or adoptive parent, and that they are unable to obtain any other type of paid leave. They must also stop doing any legal work during the time that they are receiving the parental leave benefit, in order to prevent attorneys from simply having the benefit paid out in addition to salary for several weeks.

Sources: lsuc.on.ca, theglobeandmail.com

Virginia May Stop Shackling Pregnant Women in Labor

Shackling in Prison

The use of restraints in prisons has long been a point of controversy, with many arguing that it is cruel and inhumane treatment that can cause long-lasting negative effects on inmates. The situation becomes even more delicate when it comes to pregnant women in labor who are being restrained or shackled.

Current Shackling Practices

Currently, in many prisons and jails, pregnant women are still being subjected to a variety of restraints, even during their labor and delivery. These restraints include leg shackles, waist chains, and handcuffs, which can cause physical discomfort and also potentially be harmful to the health of the mother and child.

A New Rule in Virginia

Recently, Virginia proposed a new rule that would ban the use of restraints on pregnant women during labor and delivery. If this rule is approved, women in Virginia prisons and jails will no longer be shackled during this vulnerable time in their lives. The proposal has been praised by many advocates for women’s rights and the humane treatment of prisoners.

The Debate Around the Issue

The use of restraints on pregnant women has been a point of debate for many years. Supporters of the use of restraints argue that it is a necessary measure to ensure the safety of prison staff and to prevent escapes. However, opponents argue that it is an inhumane and unnecessary practice that can cause serious harm to the mother and child.

The Positive Impact of the New Rule

If Virginia approves the new rule, it will be a significant step forward in the treatment of pregnant women in prisons and jails. It will help to ensure that these women are not subjected to unnecessary and potentially harmful restraints during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. It will also be a positive step forward in the fight for the humane treatment of prisoners, and in recognizing the unique needs of pregnant women.

Conclusion

The issue of shackling pregnant women in prisons is a serious one, and it is encouraging to see Virginia take steps to address it. If the new rule is approved, it will send a powerful message about the importance of treating prisoners with respect and dignity, and recognizing the unique needs of vulnerable populations. It is a reminder that even small steps can make a significant difference in the quality of life for those who are incarcerated.

Women who are pregnant or delivering a new baby will no longer be shackled or have waist chains applied, if Virginia approves a new set of rules for its prison systems. Currently, Virginia prisons and jails are using a wide variety of restraints for prisoners that may include leg shackles and waist chains in addition to handcuffs.

While some prisons and jails have used these restraints only for women who are attending doctor’s visits for prenatal care, others have been significantly more severe. Many women’s rights groups have been outraged by the fact that 33 states still allow women to be shackled even as they are giving birth, in spite of the safety risks this entails.

The new guidelines, if accepted, will require pregnant or birthing women to be unshackled at all times except for when they are being transported from one place to another. At any time when they are in the hospital giving birth, they would be unrestrained if the guidelines are implemented as they read now. Only handcuffs would be permitted for restraint of pregnant prisoners at times of transport.

According to opponents of restraints, restrained jail inmates are significantly more likely to miscarry. Because of the changes to a woman’s balance that occur during pregnancy and the fact that restraints make it more difficult to regain balance, pregnant women are also more likely to suffer from falls when they are restrained.

Even after a woman’s baby has been delivered, leg shackles can actually lead to a significantly higher risk of hemorrhage or blood clots. The new guidelines have been proposed by Virginia’s Board of Corrections in response to a request for a consistent policy on the shackling of laboring prisoners in the state’s jails.

The Virginia legislature may be voting on a state law that would supercede these rules and would also apply them not only to jails, but also to prisons. According to the proposed law, additional restraints could be used for a pregnant woman who posed a genuine flight risk. While this is rare—the vast majority of pregnant women will stay in the hospital even if they are completely unrestrained during labor—if additional restraints were needed, the sheriff’s office or prison official would have to explain why.

Sheriffs in Virginia have so far been opposed to both forms of the new guidelines. According to the sheriffs, giving information about the shackling of prisoners could potentially compromise their security procedures.

Most pregnant women in Virginia’s jails are serving sentences of less than one year for non-violent offenses. If the law proposed passes the Virginia legislature and is signed into effect by Virginia’s governor, it will become the 18th state to limit the extent to which pregnant prisoners may be shackled during labor and birth. Advocates of these laws point to evidence that shows that pregnant women are among the least likely prisoners to be violent toward prison guards or medical professionals.

1...4 56Page 6 of 6