Work/Life/Law 3.0

Factories in Juarez

2008-04-30T23:03:00.002-04:00

The final presentation got me thinking about this. I have actual been to a factory in Juarez, I went in the summer of 2006. Family friends of ours own a fairly large company and one of their headquarters is down in El Paso. I went down there to golf and they asked me if I wanted to visit their factory in Mexico and with this sparking my interest I said yes. When I visited this factory I could not believe my eyes. Now what I saw was nothing like what was talked about in class today but the siutation was dire.

There were 100's of people sit in dark damp rooms manually counting and recording different items. It was hot and there were very few windows, it was something I never thought I could experience in my life. Obviously I was in state of shock that people would work under theses conditions but something suprised me even more. Our family friends were so proud of their operation, they had only been in Juarez for a couple years and told us they were saving millions of dollars a year in labor. Of course the business person in me thought yes that is a great move but still the situation was not good at all. I asked how they could have people work in these conditions and their respons was go look at other factories and these people live like kings. This is was made me think of my experience in class. The people involved with these factories do not feel like they are doing anything wrong and until there is a legal ramification for what they do nothing will be changed. Like they said in class this issue has not been very public lately but it is a very real problem that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

And Scene!

2008-04-30T20:30:00.001-04:00

And so goes another semester of blogging on the Work/Life/Law Blog.

Have a good summer.

Affirmative Action

2008-04-28T18:41:00.003-04:00

I promise I will stop talking about Minority Programs, but I am really interested and curious to see what everyone thinks about them...especially if you disagree with them.

This sort of leads into my next comment about universities advertising that their campus is diverse. They demonstrate this by placing a group of students each being from a different ethnicity on the cover of their ads. (There was even a joke about this exact topic at Bear's Place: Comedy Caravan a few months ago.) Do you feel it is "bad" for non-diverse universities to advertise similar to that?

Back to IAT

2008-04-28T18:09:00.002-04:00

Looking back at the topics we discussed this semester, Implicit Associations Test (IAT) was the most interesting for me. Actually in my LAMP X333 class this semester, we had a group presentation over the book "Blink." I was hoping to post my Power Point from this presentation to this post to inform everyone of the additional information that our group found. However, I do not think attachments are possible on Blogger. If you know how to do that, please let me know.

Anyway, here are some of our findings:

1. What does the IAT mean? If you test poor, are you a bad person?
Absolutely not. It is important to note that our attitudes on certain topics operate on two levels. First, we have our conscious attitudes. This is what we choose to believe. Second, our attitude on an unconscious. Like a giant computer, our unconscious silently crunches all the data and it forms an opinion. This is what is coming out of the IAT.

2. Does this matter?
It is debated, but according to our L416 class discussions, it matters in interviews if your potential employer has biases that they are not aware of. Everyone has to critical and knowledgeable of social constructs and media influence.

3. What can we do about our unconscious discrimination?
a. We first have to be aware of our bias/prejudices/stereotypes.
b. Is it ethical or moral for an employer to be required to take the test?
c. Our impressions are generated by our experiences and our environment - which means we should change our impressions. It requires that we change our life. This is similar on how to make IU more diverse. Surround yourself with a culture your not familiar with. Put yourself in the minority in counter-bias situations. It is important to change the way you think!

Just to end with, I think it would be fantastic if an individual from another culture or another country took this test...just to see the differences they have. How di

Applying What We've Learned...

2008-04-27T20:19:00.001-04:00

I felt the fruits of my labor come into play the other day when I received a letter in the mail from my soon-to-be employer. It was a summary of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Luckily, I knew this act fairly well because it was part of my presentation for Surveillance in the US and UK. The FCRA basically promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies. It was pretty cool to be able to know what I was reading and be able to follow it all.

Another case similar to this was when I received my formal offer letter—which included the term “at-will employment”—something I wouldn’t have known about (or even heard of, for that matter!) had it not been for this class. As a result, I feel that we’ve all been lucky to take this class because the content is so practical to all of us. I’ve learned a ton of information about business law and applying it to real-world companies, and for this, I am grateful. I certainly feel like I am well-informed, and thus I can be more confident in the workforce.

G.I.N.A. passed in the Senate

2008-04-26T20:50:00.004-04:00

Hey everyone. Sorry I've been M.I.A. for so long; as I'm sure you all are aware, these last few weeks have been incredibly hectic to say the least. Anyway, as I was picking my roommates up from the bars late Thursday night/early Friday morning, NPR made me aware that the senate finally passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimnation Act! Whoo hoo! Now it is up to the House to take a final vote on it, and then onto President Bush (the House has approved it before, as it is GINA's 3rd time in this Congressional "limbo" where either the House or the Senate has granted approval, and the other has failed to act). This Act virtually mirrors the protection under Title VII discrimination from employers, and prohibits insurers from raising or setting premiums unjustly based on one's genetics. This is great news for people with unfortunate genetic predispositions, and is a great step towards finally putting the Act into effect. Appropriately, April 25th also marks the anniversary of James Watson (an IU alum) and Francis Crick's announcement of DNA's helical structure. Also the 25th also marks the anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project: both of these events are landmarks in the history of human genetics. Back in February, I wrote a long post about genetic discrimination and its relevance to our class, and now I just wanted to update everbody on the progress. If you'd like to listen to the NPR broadcast, just follow the link here. Good luck to everyone with finals this week - coffee and optimism is all you need :)

Bridging the gap of work/life balance

2008-04-25T14:30:00.004-04:00

I ran across an article today that discussed how bringing children to work helps balance the work/life conflict that many employees face today. The article sparked my attention because in class we never really discussed this "solution". Should bringing a child to work effectively solve the problem?

It is a widely known fact that finding acceptable childcare is a job all by itself. Some companies offer childcare service within the facility. Others may not. However, when the burden is heavily weighed on employees themselves, some employees feel the pressure mount. Not only is the childcare usually expensive, the quality of childcare can become sketchy.

Some companies offer the ability to bring children into the workplace. In this particular article, the woman did not really ask if it was okay to bring her son into work. Since the employer did not offer maternity leave, the woman used her seven weeks of unpaid leave to substitute. Once the seven weeks passed, the woman had to return to work. Bringing her child to work was the only option that would allow her to return. Is this fair? Presuming that the employer does not care if the child comes to work, where are the boundaries? At what age should this policy be terminated?

The overall issue I find with bringing children to work is the effectiveness and fairness of the situation. Can an employee truly focus on work while also taking care of a child? In addition, can other employees? My first instinct would be no. But if an employee, like the one in this article, can balance the two, who can argue against it? Also, does bringing a child to work really help balance both work and home life? I would say no because it actually links the two together. Many employees truly like differentiating work and personal life. I think separating the two is essential to actually finding that work/life balance.

Reference:
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2008/04/22/news/community/6loc03_babyatjob.txt

Illegal Immigrants in the Workforce

2008-04-25T13:34:00.001-04:00

A topic that we might not focus on too much here in the Midwest is that of illegal immigrants, which is a major problem in Western states such as Arizona, and much of Northern California. In the United States, illegal immigrants number about 12 million and make up an estimated 5 percent of the civilian workforce, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Much of the nation is puzzled on how to handle this situation. Do we make it easier for them to get green cards, or just make restrictions even tougher, making their lives so hard that they are forced to move back to their home nation: Many times this is Mexico.

In this class we have discussed a lot on how we should all be treated in our professional careers, and how we are going to make life choices based on goals, families, and other decisions that require a balance of work and life. However, for illegal aliens working in the United States, there is no room for any of these choices to be made. With the Bush Administration tightening restrictions on employers’ responsibilities to make sure their employees are legal, illegal immigrants are living in fear of being deported, not whether or not they will have enough time to make dinner for their families after work. In the article, Illegal Immigrant’s Choice: Work Underground or Leave by Tyche Hendricks in the San Francisco Chronicle, one immigrant worker, and California resident said, “"I know a lot of people who live in constant fear that they'll be deported," he said. "They're all honest people who work very hard, as I did when I came here. After 18 years here I employ three people every day, I have my own business, my own house. I consider that I've been successful. And I know that these people, if you give them the opportunity, they will be successful, too." So I wonder whether these people should be given a chance to continue to work hard and stay in America, where they want to be. What will the impact be in places such as California where so many illegal immigrants are responsible for critical jobs in the environment and beyond?

Leave well enough alone.

2008-04-25T09:55:00.001-04:00

RFID tags have been extremely valuable as a business aspect. They provide a faster, more accurate, and reliable way to track production, shipping, and purchasing than any other technology we have to date. The impact they have made on operational management alone is staggering.

And while I think it is admirable California has put legislation in place banning forced implantations of RFID tags, I don't think there is a judge in the country that would set a precedent making a forced surgery ok. And that is what I really want to talk about.
Is it necessary to put legislation in place before any incidents have occurred? Rather than rushing to place restrictions on every possible scenario we have or can imagine, shouldn't we let the scope of the law and our judges follow the direction of society's values without the executive branch's intervention?

It is a basic question of balance of power, and I just feel like the excess laws that are put in place will begin to restrict our freedoms rather than grant them. A judge that sets a new precedent is a very different scenario than getting a law repealed.

California proves me wrong... thank god

2008-04-25T02:04:00.006-04:00

So I've continued to read about these RFID chips since my group's presentation on Monday. After some more recreational research, it turns out I was wrong about there being no legislation on RFID technology. California seems to have stepped up once again before anyone else. I came across a story that was aired on NPR about RFIDs and a new law in California. Just visit http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17762244 and then click "Listen Now" at the top of the page to listen to the story if you're interested.

A new California law, effective since January 1st of this year, says it is illegal to force someone to have an RFID chip implanted in their body. This is a pretty straight-forward law and it seems to solve a lot of the ethical issues connected with these implantable RFID chips. It was a little upsetting to see I totally missed this before our presentation, however the significance of the law has put a lot more worries to rest.

If other states follow California's example on this matter I think it would put a lot of minds at ease over these sub-dermal RFID chips. Because the implications of implantable chips are probably the scariest, I would not be surprised to see other states, or event he country, passing similar legislation. The implications of RFIDs for other employment uses, such as ID cards and products, are a little more vague and probably more difficult to set legal rules and standards for. In the end, we may avoid the worst-case sci-fi scenarios regarding these chips. However, there is still a whole sea of murky water that we are just stepping into.

Now to start my next Google search: California jobs for soon-to-be graduates

Can you believe what you see?

2008-04-24T15:10:00.002-04:00

The discussion in class of surveillance in the UK reminded me of an incident that happened in London a few years ago. In 2005, a man from Brazil was shot 8 times by police officers in the middle of a crowded tube station as a result of mistaken identity. The officers caught him on surveillance cameras, mistook him for someone else whom they believed to be a terrorist threat, and followed him from his flat to the station. If it was this easy for London police to make such a large mistake using video surveillance, it makes me wonder how full-proof surveillance is within the workplace. Should there be legal protections for employees who feel they are misrepresented by surveillance evidence, such as video?

Here is a link to a story in Guardian newspaper regarding the London shooting.

Signing means...

2008-04-24T03:02:00.003-04:00

In todays presentation, I think it was Aubrey who mentioned that India was the only country that had not signed an agreement against the worst types of child labor, which included slavery. This initially struck me as pretty awful. Well, it still does, however, after thinking about a situation that my good friend experienced in India, I thought a little more in depth about the situation.

So, a good friend of mine, Alex, spent last summer in a fairly conservative part of India on an internship. He lived with a host family who he described as very kind and caring. He told me they always provided more than he needed even though they could not be considered above middle class. They were always concerned about my friends well being and were very accommodating. He said that he never had any complaints about the family... except that a young boy lived with them who was, as my friend described him, essentially a slave. Apparently this young boy lived with the family and had no family of his own. My friend's guess was that he had been bought by the family as a slave. The boy cleaned, cooked and did random household chores. My friend guessed he was maybe 8 or 9 years old.

Alex told me he spoke with the father of the family and asked him about the boy and told him he questioned whether it was ok for them to have the boy working in their home. The father explained that there was nothing wrong with it and that it was very common. Apparently the boy was in a much lower class according to the local society and this was accepted as normal.

So, according to various societies around the world, there are clearly different views on expectations and acceptable actions. That is partly why it is valuable to be doing the research and the presentations we are doing now. However, we all seem to be focusing primarily on actual law and policy and while I think these things tend to reflect the views of different cultures, there is much to learn about what different cultures feel at very basic levels.

While slavery is clearly immoral and wrong in the view of the vast majority of people around the world, there are still some cultures who view it as acceptable. So, how do we go about changing things? Do we change the law first? Do we try and make societal changes first? Do we outlaw certain immoral practices before people realize they are wrong? In the U.S. during the civil rights movement it seems people had to be made aware that segregation and discrimination were wrong before laws were enacted. My final question is, would laws protecting human rights even work if they are enacted before the society itself accepts them?

You all might find it uplifting after this to know that my friend Alex coordinated with another family who understood the unfortunate situation and agreed to take the boy in and care for him. All of this was without the knowledge of the original host family. I found it quite courageous of my friend to take action. Perhaps this is would be a message to the original family they would not have received or been able to understand otherwise.

Child labor or child prostitution?

2008-04-23T23:57:00.002-04:00

Hey all! The presentation on child labor reminded me of a discussion I had in another class. It is not directly related to employment law, but I thought that if any of you were interested in what happens to children in impoverished countries, I would share this info with you.

Aubrey mentioned in his presentation today that often times when children have been removed from factories that are employing child labor, they are returned to the streets, and prostitution is their only way of making money. The link below is a documentary, "Born into Brothels," about a photo journalist who went to Calcutta to research the red light district. However, what she found was the children of prostitutes and how dim their future looked. Inspired to help the children, she taught them how to take photographs, in hopes of liberating them from their circumstance. The documentary is very touching and inspiring. I encourage all of you to watch a few minutes of it because it opens our eyes, as Americans, to some of the struggles of other countries, particulary the reality of child prostitution.

One really interesting thing that the video points out is the difficultly in adopting or taking a child out of Calcutta. It is so difficult that it is much more realistic that a child must figure out a way to make a suitable life in his own country. Does knowing that the children have no escape change our minds on child labor? What about when the only other option is prostitution? I am by no means endorsing child labor, but I just wonder if sometimes, we don't see the whole picture. What do you think?

Seriously, check out the video! It is something else!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2736319599359779313

The UK's DNA Database

2008-04-23T19:18:00.002-04:00

Since a few people seemed interested in the DNA Database during our presentation today, I found this article, which highlights the errors found in the UK's DNA Database. The article says that the DNA contains that of children and individuals who have been arrested. Couldn't this very DNA be misused to implicate someone who is not guilty? In one of my other classes, we discussed how in our culture we view science as truth and system built upon these as truth too, although they are man-made, and as a result subject to error. Someone in the article refers to the DNA database as a joke, as "a system worthy of the Keystone Cops" but it is hardly a joke! While there are advantages to the DNA database such catching criminals who were once arrested by identifying their DNA at a crime scene or having children's DNA to identify a kidnapped person but do these outweigh the potential the system has for misuse?

Are Employers Taking Monitoring and Surveillance Too Far?

2008-04-23T13:34:00.001-04:00

In our presentation concerning employment privacy, more specifically employee monitoring, I touched on how employers have the ability to monitor anywhere in the workplace with the exception of employers in California. I mentioned how I read a case where an employee wanted to make a claim against his employer for installing hidden cameras behind the mirror in the bathroom. Here is a little more information about the case, “Consolidated Freightways ("Consolidated"), the defendant in this action, is a large trucking company.1 It concealed video cameras and audio listening devices behind two-way mirrors in the restrooms at its terminal in Mira Loma, California, ostensibly to detect and prevent drug use by its drivers.” Furthermore, the case states, “Employees at the terminal discovered the surveillance equipment when a mirror fell off the men's restroom wall, exposing a camera with a wire leading out through a hole in the wall behind it. Subsequent investigation revealed a similar hole in the wall behind the mirror in the adjoining women's restroom.” The California law states, “Under California Penal Code § 653n, "[a]ny person who installs or who maintains . . . any two-way mirror permitting observation of any restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower, locker room, fitting room, motel room, or hotel room, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Thus, Consolidated's installation of the two-way mirror was a direct violation of California criminal law. Soon after discovery of the camera, truck driver Lloyd Cramer, an employee at the Mira Loma terminal, brought a class action suit in state court alleging invasion of privacy on behalf of all "individuals lawfully on the premises . . . who had a reasonable expectation of privacy while using [Consolidated's] restrooms." Guillermo Alfaro, another Consolidated employee, and 281 others brought a separate suit seeking damages for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. They also sought injunctive relief to end the use of the surveillance devices.”

After reading this short excerpt from the case, I was wondering how you feel about employers across the country, potentially your future employer, installing hidden cameras behind the mirrors in bathrooms, locker rooms, ect? If you recall from the presentation, 75 percent of employers monitor without any individualized cause whatsoever, which means they can or may be watching internal bathroom activity and in my mind, this is not okay. I was hoping to spark any additional comments or opinions on the subject.

If you wish to read the case go to this website [http://epic.org/privacy/workplace/], scroll down to selected cases, and click the first one, it is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways (PDF), No. 98-55657.

Work/Life Balance

2008-04-23T10:31:00.001-04:00

After our class discussion about work/life balance I was talking to my parents about it. They informed me that Cincinnati passed a law that companies had to stagger when employees arrived and left the office. This was enacted to lessen the amount of traffic employees endured to and from work. Companies not have 7-3, 9-5, and 10-6. This has cut down commute time by a third. While this seems like a very radical way that law can enter the workforce it has seemed to work and make employees happy. I think it is a great idea but it is very limited on what type of cities could utilize it. Besides the mid-sized cities like a Cincinnati or Indianapolis this might not work. Major cities like LA, Chicago, or New York would have too many commuters I think to makes this a feasible option. I wondering what other people thought of the process Cincinnati has in place and if you had any possible alternatives that would be applicable in larger cities?

Don't Worry, Be Happy

2008-04-22T23:33:00.003-04:00

As we enter into the final weeks of the semester, and, for some of us, the final weeks of our tenure at IU, I thought it would be fitting to find an article related to workplace stress. As this article reveals, if you are stressed out right now, you are not alone. According to the American Psychological Assocation, "1/3 of Americans are living with extreme stress, and nearly 1/2 of Americans say their stress has increased over the past five years."

I find it interesting to note that stress is a natural reaction of your body. Essentially, stress releases hormones invoking the body to be turned on to full alert. Historically, the article claims, stress has helped us survive by increasing our own sense of awareness of certain challenges of life, ranging from wild beasts all the way up to technological advances.

I would like to wish everyone the best of luck throughout finals week, and, as this article depicts, you are not alone if you are stressing out!

Problems with Vacation

2008-04-22T19:42:00.001-04:00

I found the Tuesday presentation by Buff, Aaron, and Sarah over vacation discrepancies in different countries extremely interesting. I never realized how little vacation time Americans receive in comparison to other countries. I decided to do a little of my own research on the topic and found the following article

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3583357658&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3583357666&cisb=22_T3583357665&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=295551&docNo=6

As the group presented, the article confirms that over half American workers do not take their full vacation time. I personally find this a huge problem considering that Americans already have significantly less vacation time than other countries. More than even increasing the number of vacation days, I think that companies should focus on getting their employees to take all of their allotted days. In a lot of instances, employees do not take vacation time because the company does not look favorably on it and sadly, 27% of managers return from vacations more stressed than ever. With the negative factors that result from taking time off, it is easy to understand why employees do not take their entire time off.

I have recently experienced this issue first hand with my dad and his company. He recently took a position with a different function and they have various big projects that pop up throughout the year. Since he has been with the company a long time, he has a significant amount of vacation. My parents went to Florida a couple weeks ago and we are going to Italy this May. His company was very upset about his trips and gave him a lot of grief about going. When he did go to Florida, he had to take his laptop and phone and call in daily for updates; I hardly call that a vacation. With the increased technology of laptops and Blackberrys, it is easy for employees to stay connected while away. I do not think that this should be encouraged by companies. Employees already work hard while at work and their vacation should be their own time to relax and reenergize. I think that the employee on vacation should ONLY be contacted if there is an emergency at work. Employers need to recognize the importance of the work life balance and not impede on the employees vacation time.

To combat the problems of employees not taking their full vacation time and of employees being bothered with work while on vacation, companies should set vacation policies in place that limit the company from disrupting the employee’s vacation. I think there could even be a law set in place that punishes companies who put pressure on employees to keep working and not take their allotted vacation. I do see the downside of this being that employers would give less days of vacation so their employees cannot take as many. Does anyone else have thoughts on how to resolve these issues???

Where do we draw the line?

2008-04-21T13:11:00.002-04:00

The past few classes have really gotten me thinking about work/life balance. I recently read an article that was giving tips to IT professionals on how to achieve a work/life balance, and it got me thinking about jobs that don't have the boundaries of an office. I have been wondering if the reason why people work so much, and therefore are so successful at a young age, is because there is not definative line of when work is done for the day. The technology industry is particulary subject to being taken advantage of becuase there are no limitations on where and when work can be completed. The article specifically noted that IT employees work at least 50 hours a week, and many are on call 24/7. This, to me, does not suggest a balance. IT, though, is not the only industry with liquid lines of where work ends and life begins. Technology has enabled employees of many industries to be reached and to reach others at any time. Because of this ability, while employers may "say" that they limit hours worked, there is both an expectation from the employer and a sense of obligation from the employee to never stop working. Is this fair?

A recent post about Google's benefits for its employees struck a nerve in me, and has spured my interest on this topic. (Note to the author of the blog: you did not strike a nerve in me, the Google article did! You are great!) The Googleplex has every amenity possible for its employees. A hair salon, gym, gourmet chef, even an in house physician. This is not only a home away from home, but a life away from life. It is in this example that we see a perfect demonstration of work boundaries being erased. It seems that it would be impossible for employees to escape the pressure of work, as well as for employers to have any other expecatation of an employee. Now I realize that Google is a mega corporation, and not all careers are like this, but a standard is being set. A standard is being set that many will not want to live up to.

How far is too far with benefits that erase a life outside of work? How long is too long for hours to be worked simply because technology enables constant communication? Is a standard being set that requires all employees of all professions and industries to erase lines between work and life? I fear that being a work-a-holic will no longer be looked at as bad, but the norm. Where should the line be drawn?

To Be or Not to Be? (A Working vs. Stay-at-Home Parent)

2008-04-20T15:49:00.000-04:00

I was giving some more thought to the discussion we had in class on maintaining a work/life balance. The conversation was really interesting, because everyone seems to have their own unique view of whether or not to work if and when they start a family. I mentioned this in class, but at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think it’s important to realize that we often emulate what our own parents did. If your parents worked during the day and came home and had family time at night, that’s likely what you will want to do with your family (assuming you had a good experience with that). Similarly, if your mom or dad was around during the day to take you to soccer practice, pick you up from piano lessons, and having dinner prepared when you got home, then it isn’t surprising if that’s what you want to do, too. (By the way, this is an interesting link to tips for balancing work and family: http://parenting.ivillage.com/mom/workfamily/0,,nxjr,00.html).

I’m a psychology major, so it’s not surprising that I attempt to relate everything to a psychological theory. I found it particularly interesting when the class started justifying their parents work/life balance. At one point, someone argued that they didn’t think stay-at-home parents represented a very balanced lifestyle. This was a very interesting point, but if I remember correctly, it was made by someone whose parents both worked (?). Either way, it made me think of something called the “Social Desirability Bias,” which is the tendency to present oneself in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. I bring this up because I feel like it came into play in our conversation. It seemed that at times, social desirability was used in justifying individuals’ parents choice to work or stay at home. We all (for the most part) want to defend what our parents did, because we are proud of them.

My mom was a stay-at-home mother. She worked part-time, but for the most part, she dedicated herself to being a mom to my brother and me. I personally loved having her around. Granted, I have an excellent (and very rare, from what I can tell) relationship with both my parents, and unlike most of my friends, I love spending time with my parents. Just as my mom did, I want to stay at home and raise my kids, whenever the time comes. This isn’t to say that I want to give up my entire career and devote my every waking moment to my children, but I do want to be involved in their lives and in actively raising them. And I have no doubt that this propensity to do so comes as a direct result of the way my parents raised me. To me, part of my career IS my family, and I don’t think I’d be happy if I couldn’t be fairly involved.

I suppose what is the most important thing is that there is no “one right answer.” Everyone has their own preferences and desires in how they want to live their lives. For some people, working full time as an investment banker and seeing their family during the weekends only is fine. It works for them. For others, working during the day and seeing family in the evening and weekends is what works best. Either way, I think that each person ultimately discovers what works best for them, and this turns into their work/life balance. We all have different goals and desires, and what works best for me is not going to be best for the next person.

Whistle Blowing (a little late)

2008-04-15T23:18:00.002-04:00

I forgot all about a story that I heard a couple of weeks ago during March Madness. It was about the mens basketball coach at Tennessee, Bruce Pearl. He was a rising star of an assistant coach at the University of Iowa. When in 1989 he blew the whistle on Illinois and their recuiting violations similar to the ones that Kelvin Sampson and IU had. Pearl did all the right things first going to the head coach then the athletic director and finally bringing the accusations to the NCAA.

However, instead of being praised for calling out the school on their violations he was "black-balled" from Division I basketball. He got fired from Iowa and even though he was a worthy assistant coach, he was unable to find a job. No one wanted him. He finally got a job for the University of Southern Indiana a far stretch from Big Ten and Division I basketball. He won the Division II championship in his second year at USI but still only 1 team in division I even bothered to interview him. It was 9 years until he got a serious offer from a school. And now he has coached Tennesses into a national power but was hardly given the chance because he decided to blow the whistle on Illinois and their recuiting tactics.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3299331&sportCat=ncb

The Case for Weight part 3

2008-04-15T10:17:00.002-04:00

As the last and final post in this series, I would like to acknowledge the counterarguments that are often advanced against making body size a protected characteristic. First, should employers be obligated to be liable if an obese or overweight employee incurs high cost for a company for insurance coverage or medical expenses? Should an employer have to spend the money to change the workplace environment?

On this website, one individual makes that argument, stating, “…does not the employer have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not wanting over-weight individuals on their payroll who will make health insurance likely more expensive for everyone. And don't obese individuals tend to be, on average, more absent from work because more frequent health problems?”

I would also argue that there are certain diseases attributed to people of a particular gender (breast cancer in women), a particular race (sickle cell anemia in African Americans), and national origin (Tay Sachs in Eastern Europeans). Would an employer be able to discriminate against these individuals as well? The counter argument for this as well would be that these diseases are not as common as obesity. I would question if empirical research exists that proves that obese employees tend to miss more work than other employees due to their obesity and as a result make health insurance more expensive. I think, as in other Title VII cases, applying the undue burden standard, as in cases with religion and disability, would be able to make compromises for employers and overweight or obese employees.

If an employer can discriminate against an overweight or obese person for the likelihood of being unhealthy, could an employer discriminate against an extremely thin person on the likelihood they could be unhealthy also?

Although there has been research that suggests that obesity is correlated with heart disease, there have also been findings that obese and overweight individuals suffer from things like stress and depression from the way they are treated by others. Could it possibly be that the way they are being treated by others continues to be perpetuated and contributing to their physical state?

There has been research suggesting that overweight women endure weight discrimination. This MSNBC article notes that, “In a recent Yale University survey of about 2,000 overweight women, 53 percent of those polled said co-workers stigmatized them, and 43 percent said their employers stigmatized them. Being stigmatized translated into not being hired, being passed over for promotions, losing a job, or being teased or harassed because of their weight.” However, does the same occur to overweight men in the workplace?

Additionally, if body size became a protected characteristic, a BFOQ defense would still be applicable to those jobs in which it is necessary to be a certain body size.

Although body size is not a protected characteristic now, there have been some ways that overweight individuals are taking this to court. For example, some individuals could sue on the basis of gender discrimination. As Laura Kipnis in her article Fat and Culture takes note, “…it’s safe to say that any issue of physical appearance affects women far more disproportionately than men,” (218).

Another argument supportive of individuals of a particular or perhaps bigger body size is to sue on the basis of disability in which for some have been able to argue that obesity or being overweight is a metabolic disorder, as mentioned in the MSNBC article, but has not been quite successful.

Activities "Outside" Work

2008-04-14T23:37:00.003-04:00

Someone mentioned in class today about their problem with work activities because you are actually spending your off time with co-workers. I never REALLY thought about that, which is interesting. This reminded me of when Dylan told me about the benefits that Google employees have and it seems outrageous. Basically a home away from home. Literally.

Here is the link:

http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=benefits.html

I am really interested to hear what you think.

P.S. Thanks Dylan

Is there a real balance?

2008-04-14T23:21:00.002-04:00

I found class today to be extremely interesting and it raised important issues. It was apparent that individuals were persuaded on whether they wanted to stay-at-home with their kids if their parents had and vice versa. This holds true in my life. Both my parents worked and while I was in middle school my mom actually went back to school to get her masters degree while working full-time and raising three daughters. If that is not balance, I am not sure what else is. My mom is amazing and because of her, she has taught me that I can achieve whatever it is I want - as long as I prioritize and use discipline.

I actually called my mom after class and asked her if she ever considered being a stay-at-home mom and she said, "No, but I did take an extended maternity leave. I had my usual 6 month maternity leave and then I got an extra 3 (paid) weeks only because I did not take any days off. I saved all my vacation days so I could use them later. Then, I convinced your dad (my dad was worried about money) that she was going to take an additional month off (unpaid) to spend more time with the girls."

After speaking with my mom, I believe the government should intervene with regulations (assistance programs/paid time off/something similar) that help parents . My mother should not have had to save all of her vacation days to use that...even though it was her choice. I understand that many believe that you would not have the work ethic that you have now, but that assistance would allow your mother/father to be rewarded in some way for the work they constantly do. Comments?

Judith Klein v. Trustees of Indiana University

2008-04-13T23:52:00.003-04:00

I decided to google Title VII and Indiana University in the news and to my amazement I found this case!

Judith Klein was a psychiatrist that worked in the Counseling and Psychiatric Services (CAPS) unit of the Indiana University Health Center. Judith Klein also conducted a private practice three days a week outside of her University employment. In 1976, Klein was announced as an Associate Director of Psychiatry at the Health Center. Later, in 1979, Dr. Foster was made director and Klein's associate director position was eliminated (but Klein still remained on staff as a practicing doctor). Judith Klein filed a complaint with the EEOC claiming she was discriminated against based on gender. Klein allowed the 90 day period to pass without filing suit.

Later, in 1981, Nancy Buckles replaced Dr. Foster as the director of CAPS. Buckles attempted to change Klein's private practice times which were non-accommodating for her. When Klein consistently did not show up to her new hours at CAPS, she was discharged from the university.

Klein again filed a claim with the EEOC, claiming she was wrongfully discharged as a result of retaliation for filing a sexual discrimination suit in the first place. It was noted that Dr. Foster left "lukewarm" evaluations for Klein.

In the end, the Court ruled that Klein failed to fully present material evidence towards her case. A pendent state law claim was also made, however, this the Court ruled that the Trustees of Indiana University were immune to Federal court on state law claims under the Eleventh Amendment.

I invite you to check it out! The case is very interesting and there is much more detail inside!

Minimum Wage and Today's Financial Markets

2008-04-13T23:16:00.004-04:00

In class the other day we talked a lot about the labor market at the macroeconomic level. A comparison was made between raising the minimum wage and the current status of the US financial markets. In both cases, jobs are being lost because of financial obligations (or lack there of). If we were to raise the minimum wage, firms would no longer be able pay as many employees and jobs would essentially be crowded out. Similarly, the credit crunch which the US economy is in the midst of experiencing has caused many firms to cut back on spending, resulting in them not hiring as many undergraduates as they have in recent years.

I found this article in the Wall Street Journal which I think is very interesting as well as applicable to not only this situation, but many professions that students in the business school will most likely pursue. The article emphasizes the poor status of the market and how 2008 undergraduates are simply not getting the offers they are expecting. The jobless rate is now at an astounding 5.1%, a figure that hasn't been reached in three years.

Although most of these firms are paying well above minimum wage, the article also highlights that firms are not increasing salaries at their typical rates.

I know this topic has been touched by discussions regarding Bear Sterns and friends that have unfortunately lost their jobs before even starting. That said, I would like to commend all of our 2008 graduates in our class that have in fact landed full-time jobs in this tough environment.

Reflection of Monday's Class

2008-04-09T11:26:00.001-04:00

After class on Monday, I started thinking about how our campus tries to promote diversity. I thought of all the different multicultural clubs on campus, the different classes that offer an inside look at different cultures, and well…that was all I could come up with. But when we look for diversity among the students in many of our classes we see that this is not the case.

In the School of Journalism, for example, the dominate group is white females. If a male is in the class, or anyone of a different race, we all get excited. This sometimes means we are able to actually have a "real discussion" about topics that sometimes the dominate class doesn't really know a lot about. We are able in a way to get more sides to each story, and cover things that might not be looked at, especially if their opinions were not there.

I came to Indiana University in hopes of finding diversity among the long stalks of cornfields and tractors. To my disappointment I found the same diversity (or lack there of in this case) as I did at home.

I feel cheated in a way. I was hoping for a life changing experience in college, and making connections with people of all different walks of life. Instead, I get the same thing, day in and day out. I go to events that try to promote diversity on campus, but there seems to be a lower turn out rate because many students don't really know about it.

What do you guys think about this? How do you think the school should promote diversity, in order to get different students of all different walks of life to come here? Do you think if that happens that it would make for a better learning environment?

The Case for Weight part 2

2008-04-06T15:46:00.002-04:00

Another reason I believe that body size should be a protected characteristic is because it is unlike religion or sexual orientation, which can superficially be concealed. An individual's body size, much like one's race or gender is there upon first impression, and exists immediately and provides that individual with the basis to be discriminated against, much like an individual’s race or gender.

For this reason, I think body size is a characteristic deserving of protection.
I would further argue that the pervasiveness and normalization of thinness and demonization of fatness in our society, specifically by the media, perpetuate biases and further warrant discrimination against individuals with a particular body shape and size. When I took the IAT, was I surprised to have a bias against fat people? Absolutely not, because every time we turn on the television or look in a magazine we are conditioned to accept and therefore normalize the images we see which are typically not of people. These biases are clearly absorbed and taken into the workplace and one study even found that this kind of discrimination is as common as racial discrimination:

Discrimination against overweight people—particularly women—is as common as racial discrimination, according to a study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. "These results show the need to treat weight discrimination as a legitimate form of prejudice, comparable to other characteristics like race or gender that already receive legal protection," said the study's lead author.

These biases exist in the workplace, and they have real consequences.

According to this MSNBC article, “Obese men and women can expect to earn on average anywhere from 1 to 6 percent less than normal weight employees, with heavy women being the biggest losers when it comes to their paychecks, according to a study by Tennessee State University economists Charles Baum and William Ford.”

I am not arguing that obesity is a good thing and something to strive for, but should these individuals be prevented from making a living or be penalized because of their weight?

**My last and final post in this series will look specifically how the law does help to protect this in some ways in addition to addressing counter arguments, which some of you have already been active in addressing already.

Innocent and Unemployed

2008-04-06T14:53:00.002-04:00

Last week in one of my other classes we watched a video about people who had been convicted of crimes, had spent extended periods of time in jail, but were later proven innocent. We learned of several men who had even been sentenced to death or life in jail when in reality, after DNA testing was conducted, were actually innocent. How does this topic relate to employment law? Each of the men expressed their frustrations and struggles with finding employment after being released from jail for a crime they didn't commit.

As many of you know, employment applications ask whether or not you have ever been convicted of a crime. Obviously, these men had been convicted of a crime. Now, some applications allow for the applicant to explain their circumastance, but it seems to me that if one were to write "I was convicted, but I'm innocent" the validity of that statement may be questioned by the employer. As the men in the video revealed, employers are not very open to hiring someone who has been convicted even though proven innocent by federal government.

This poses several questions for me. One being, is the employment system set up to trust people and allow each person an opportunity to present their true self? It seems that with some applications not even allowing for an explanation space and others only providing enough for minimial explanation, individuals are not able to convey who they truly are enough to get invited to an interview where further explanation can be given. My second question then becomes, is the system set up to discriminate against people who have a criminal history? Honestly, I am not suggesting that employers welcome criminals with open arms, but in the case of those who were wrongfully charged, it doesn't seem fair to discriminate against them or make assumptions about their case or abilities.

I am aware that many states have Fair Employment Acts which are meant to protect against such discrimination, but is there anything at a federal level? And even if there was, should there be, or should it be left to each state to decide whether or not individuals with criminal history have equal opportunity? Thoughts?

Criminals have a right to low prices too!

2008-04-04T12:07:00.003-04:00

Back to the issue of privacy and the grocery discount cards that we talked about earlier in the semester. So, on Tuesday, April Fools Day, my roommate mentioned to me how someone saran wrapped his car. This is simply when someone takes a role or more of saran wrap and covers an entire car with it so doors can't be opened, and windows can't be seen out without removing it. I later noticed the evidence in our parking lot later that day. Anyway, it was a pretty harmless prank, and he wasn't really angry, but regardless, he wanted to find out who did it. Whoever it was had left the used rolls, boxes, and Kroger grocery bag on the ground near my roommate's car. I guess when my roommate picked up all the trash and was getting ready to throw it away he noticed the receipt was still in the grocery bag from Kroger. Apparently the receipt also displayed the Kroger card number used to save the assailant a few extra cents on the saran wrap. In what I thought to be a quite resourceful move, my roommate called Kroger and asked if they could tell him the owner of the card number. Unfortunately, Kroger said that in order to release that information they needed a police subpoena, of which my roommate obviously did not have.

Anyway, this just made me question the whole privacy issue concerning businesses and what they do with your personal information once again. While Kroger did keep the saran wrapper's identity private, it's still questionable in my mind that a consumer's actions can be logged and traced at the will of businesses and the authorities. Perhaps it serves a legal purpose and is actually a good thing, allowing the police one more method to track down criminals.

On the other hand, even though they held the information from my roommate, can these stores always be trusted to keep our information private? I would imagine that our privacy cannot always be guaranteed by these businesses.

Whistle Blowers in the Airline Industry

2008-04-03T21:03:00.002-04:00

I came across this article talking about all the maintenace problems with commercial airliners. Found it interesting how these workers experienced the negative effects of whistleblowing. Their jobs were threatened and reports of problems with the planes were never addressed. Seems unbelievable after all of the issues with corporate scandals in the last decade. Here is the article for whoever is interested. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23942137/

Stray remarks - what ever happened to "at will?"

2008-04-02T16:27:00.003-04:00

Today in class, we spent some time arguing about when stray remarks should or shouldn't be taken into legal consideration. It appears to be a very gray area of law that deserves protection under the 1st ammendment, yet also merits scrutiny in employment law - especially in discrimination cases. In Professor Prenkert's explanation, a stray remark is any statement made outside the actual employment decision's parameter. So, unless an employer says, "I'm firing you because you're an old fart," any derrogatory statement directed at age, sex, etc. made out of context is therefore a stray remark. The question, however, is how much legal gravity should these statements hold when a court hears a discrimination case? Do "innocent" jokes pose a threat to a comfortable work environment, or do plaintiffs who use them as evidence against employers present a situation similar to what we read/saw in Oleanna? I'm not sure if there's any right answer, but a few articles I found online help to shed light on the issue.
In judging the relevance of a stray remark, a statement must be considered in whether or not it is "substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice." Therefore, a remark needs to judged upon whether or not a statement is (1) made by the decision maker or agent of the company, (2) isolated, (3) timely in terms of the decision, and (4) ambiguous or clearly reflective of a discriminatory bias (Krohn v. Sedgwick James of Michigan, 2001 ). Taking these factors into consideration, it appears as though a standard of discernment can be implemented in cases where stray remarks arise. Does everyone think that this standard accounts for all the right criteria, or are there stipulations that need be added/discarded?
Putting all this into perspective, however, another article from Phelps Dunbar shows that stray remarks can significantly alter the outcome of certain cases. The case outcomes go to prove that stray remarks (which cover the criteria above) provide ample evidence that a decision is discriminatory. Although this clarifies some of the confusion discussed in class today, the standard isn't necessarily complete, and may or may not hold relevance to the entire realm of jokes and anecdotes. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks on the issue, and maybe how it affects the nature of the at-will contract?

Where do you draw the line?

2008-04-02T00:02:00.003-04:00

There have been a few posts regarding height and weight discrimination in the workplace in response to the bill that Massachusetts State Representative Byron Rushing is trying to make into law. Along those lines, I found this very interesting article from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis regarding the relationship between physical characteristics of employees and their wage. According to the article, "The average CEO is approximately 3 inches taller than the average American man, who stands 5-foot-9. Further, 30 percent of CEOs are at least 6-foot-2; the corresponding percentage for American adult men overall is only 3.9 percent." The article also gives some pretty clear evidence that factors such as beauty, height, and weight do affect an employee's wage.

I understand the desire to create law protecting employees from discrimination based on height and weight...but what about beauty? Where should the line be drawn as to which groups get legal protection and which group do not? Should the law continue to set out regulations and protections for characteristics not covered by Title VII, or is this opening the door to too much government interference in the workplace?

"Have a Blessed Day"

2008-04-01T20:40:00.002-04:00

When we had our class discussion about religious discrimination, I remembered a case that my dad had discussed with me about a woman being banned from telling people to, "Have a Blessed Day," at work. I decided to look it up and found that it there was such as case, Anderson vs. U.S. F Logistics, that came from the 7th Circuit. Elizabeth Anderson, a follower of the Christian Methodist Episcopal faith, would tell people to "Have a Blessed Day" when signing off to correspondence or as a way to end a telephone conversation. She did not say this all of the time but did say it when signing off with Microsoft. Microsoft said that they did not mind the phrase. Anderson however was reprimanded by her supervisor for saying this a few times and then filed a claim for religious discrimination. Anderson lost the case because the court said that the phrase was not required by her religion and U.S.F Logistics made an accommodation by letting her say the phrase to fellow employees.

Now while I do understand the court's ruling of the case, I sometimes wonder if companies sometimes go too far in restricting their employees. The phrase is a harmless one and does not impose any specific religious beliefs upon others. Further, Microsoft openly expressed that they did not mind the phrase. If the phrase was harmless and she said it to be nice and courteous to others, why did U.S.F take such measures to restrict her from saying it? Going into the workplace next year, I feel as though I am going to have to watch every little thing that I say. It appears to me that people are being restricted and sued for all sorts of little things. I guess I just wonder where companies draw the line... Thoughts???

Weighing In on Title VII

2008-04-01T16:49:00.000-04:00

My mind has sparked a flare of inquisitiveness after Reading the previous blog “The Case for Weight (part 1),” concerning prohibiting body weight discrimination. When considering gender stereotypes and the weight restrictions placed on both men and women, I wonder if the law should protect both overweight and obese applicants and employees from employment discrimination, specifically through Title VII. When an employer, male or female, chooses or declines to hire, fire, or promote an individual based on either preconceptions about a male or female’s ideal physical appearance or on stereotypes of overweight and obese men and women, one would think believe the employment decision would constitute sex discrimination. In a weight-sex discrimination context, a legal reason for an adverse employment decision (weight) only arises due to an illegal stereotype of an individual’s desired appearance by today’s society. In order to reach this kind of hidden stereotype and bias through law, one must explore the statistical analysis within the context of Title VII Discrimination claims. To me, this stands as a direct parallel tying back to the Social and Cognitive Theory and Anti-Discrimination Law we discussed last week when reading the article by Krieger. I wonder if the Social/Cognitive Theory could be applied to the bias buried within gender stereotypes as a means to make a claim within Sex Discrimination under Title VII?

The Case For Weight (part 1)

2008-04-01T14:49:00.005-04:00

I know Ashley's post began to touch on this, but I wanted to make a case that body size should be a protected characteristic under Title VII or at least have some policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of body size. Because this is something I've been thinking about for awhile now and have read a lot about in other classes, I would like to discuss this topic in a series of posts.

To begin this series of posts, I would like to start by providing one reason why body size should be a protected characteristic and speculating why currently body size is not a protected characteristic.

I have also read articles about how particular biases are formed regarding body size and how these biases are perpetuated by societal norms and media One argument that was brought up in class regarding the differences in discrimination on the basis of race and gender as opposed to the basis of religion is choice. I think most people would agree that most people regard religion as a choice. But what about body size? Do people choose to be the size they are? I would argue that many people cannot simply choose their body types, and therefore, body size should be a protected characteristic because it is not necessarily a mutable characteristic, at least not simply mutable as we discussed in class about dress code and appearance (in which an individual can remove a hat or change a hairstyle quite easily).

I would argue that body size is not a protected characteristic because people think that you choose the size of your body by working out, dieting, or overeating, and in general people have a tendency to ignore the genetics side of it. In her article, Fat and Culture, Laura Kipnis mentions that, “Recent studies in Scandinavia have indicated that fat women actually live longer than thin women, and there’s a preponderance of evidence that weight and distribution of body fat are for the most part genetically determined. A recent National Institute of Health study concluded, There is increasing physiological, biochemical, and genetic evidence that overweight is not a simple disorder of will power, as is sometimes implied, but is a complex disorder of energy metabolism” (Kipnis, 205).

Kipnis further outlines in her article that society as a whole does not view weight or body size in this way. Society tends to think more along the lines that further perpetuate the idea of the American Dream: that if you work hard enough, you can succeed or achieve anything. With this idea, if you work hard enough (by dieting, working out, etc.) you can be thinner, and we are bombarded with weight loss products (Hydroxycut, Alli, etc.) or weight loss reality shows (The Biggest Loser, Celebrity Fit Club) that prove this to be true.

Should an employer be able to choose not to hire you because you are not a size you genetically would and could never be without surgery?

**I intend to follow up this post with additional posts discussing other reasons to "make the case for weight" and also ideas on how the case for weight can be made today without it being a protected characteristic.

Size Discrimination

2008-03-31T08:31:00.003-04:00

I don't think we cover size discrimination in class this semester, so I thought maybe this would be good for the blog. I came across an article this morning that talked about size discrimination in Massachusetts. Many people wanted to see height and weight added to the current accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. To me, this seems similar to what we talked about in class last week about appearances. I know that companies cannot discriminate a person because of what they look like, but I feel like that happens a lot in our society. One of the people that was interviewed for the article talked about how just because she was overweight doesn't mean she wasn't capable at doing her job. More and more people in the United States are becoming clinical obese every day. Wouldn't this law just promote people that may have been slightly overweight to continue only to become so heavy that their lives are in danger? (I'm not saying this would happen just giving you guys something to think about.)

What about those people who are very underweight, or too tall do you guys feel like they have it any easier than those that are over weight and too short?

What do you guys think about this topic? Do you guys think that maybe this should be handle under disability discrimination? Or do you think it should be added to the race, gender, religion, national origin discrimination claims?

Here's the link to the article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5657655.html

Mason v. Avaya Communications, Inc.

2008-03-30T22:35:00.000-04:00

I was really intrigued by the case we are to have read for Monday entitled “Mason v. Avaya Communications, Inc.” While I agreed with the ruling that Diane Mason’s request for an at-home accommodation was unreasonable because it eliminated an essential function of the job (Mason’s physical attendance in Avaya’s administration center), I felt that the initial part of the case was not dealt with properly. That is, the incident involving Kevin Lunsford, a co-employee of Mason’s who worked with her in Avaya’s Oklahoma City administration center.

Apparently, in March of 2000, Lunsford pulled out a knife during a verbal confrontation with a coworker at the administration center. In addition to this, Lunsford had at one point threatened to “go postal,” and it was discovered that he kept a supply of weapons, along with a “hit list.” Following the knife incident and verbal confrontation, Lunsford was suspended from work for a week, but returned thereafter. I was completely surprised by this because, for one, it seems like a very short punishment for someone who seems to be, potentially, very dangerous. Of course, I lack many of the details of the case, so it’s difficult for me to speak about the intricacies of such.

Mason was upset by the fact that Lunsford was allowed back to work so quickly, but Avaya assured her that it had conducted a “fitness-for-duty” exam on Lunsford and determined that “he could safely return to the workforce.” A few things surprise me about this case. It’s interesting that there were no other complaints from coworkers about Lunsford. I know that if I had been at work and had witnessed my coworker pull a knife on someone, I’d be pretty distressed (regardless of whether or not I had experienced post traumatic stress disorder in the past). It just seems so odd to me that there wasn’t more of a stir regarding the issue of Lunsford’s return. (It also makes me wonder if Mason was overreacting to the situation.)

Based on our reading in Muir and according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer can take action if a disabled individual represents a current and real threat to others in the workplace. I suppose that Lunsford was not considered “disabled,” which is why this didn’t apply to him. But it seems to me that his behavior was inappropriate, despite his physical or mental condition, and should have been punished more severely.

Overall, while I do think that Mason’s request to work from home was unreasonable, I do think that there were other more appropriate steps that could have been taken to assure a safe and comfortable working environment for everyone involved. For example, perhaps Lunsford could have been transferred to a different department or even a different branch. After all, since it was he who caused the altercation, it seems reasonable that he should have to take whatever steps necessary to fix it (even if it’s somewhat inconvenient for him). I know I have completely derailed the case from its primary objective, but I am just wondering if anyone felt similarly?

Hoping Wal-Mart does the "right" thing

2008-03-26T00:08:00.004-04:00

I came across this horrific story on CNN earlier today:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html

I, as I am sure anyone who reads the article, initially felt utterly appalled at how Wal-Mart is choosing to proceed with this case. With so much pain and agony that this family has gone through, how could Wal-Mart choose to respond in this manner? It is widely known that one must become completely literate in contracts that require signature and authorization, including such documents as health plans that truly affect one's well-being. But many employees skim over such documents without ever really reading the fine prints on those contracts.

Like many others before, the Shanks fell into the trap of another corporate giant's fine print health plan policy stating that Wal-Mart has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. This policy seems like a fair compromise for the employer-employee relationship. However, in the Shanks situation, many could argue that Wal-Mart should deem the situation as an exception to the policy. But is that fair? Should the Shanks be considered an exception to the Wal-Mart policy? Is this a matter of ethics or legality?

Initially I became truly angry with the corporate giant ability Wal-Mart is allowed to exercise. A family who has given so much is receiving almost nothing in return. In fact, this family in some ways is being punished. Now maybe I'm being too sentimental here. However, on the other hand, maybe the Shanks have been dealt some unfortunate cards and should just somehow learn deal with them. And if so, Wal-Mart is a business that can not and should not have to try to fix and accommodate their employees' unfortunate occurrences in life.

How safe is a job offer

2008-03-24T11:12:00.002-04:00

Many of you probably know about the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan. What is not being discussed is the impact this is going to have on students graduating in May. There are currently eight students from Indiana University that between August and October 2007 received and signed job offers from Bear Stearn. When they signed, Bear was the fifth biggest investment bank in the country and their careers seemed limitless. Now, just over a month before they graduate college they do not know what their status as employees is. The company they signed with no longer exists and JP Morgan has not publicly announced what they are going to do with the hundreds of new hires Bear had lined up to start work in July. Along with this of the 14,000 employees Bear had they owned over a third of the companies shares. When this merger was approved they lost 85% of their wealth over night.

It is scary thought that just before graduation when you think the only thing left to do is finish school, you could potentially lose everything you have worked for over the last four years. I was wondering what people thought about this situation and also if you think there should be some sort of protection or type of severance if you have signed an offer and then lose your job before even starting.

Also in the News.. Whistle Blown on Famous Lawyer

2008-03-24T00:41:00.003-04:00

I was recently informed that Dickie Scruggs, a famous lawyer, has pleaded guilty for bribing a judge. For those of you that don't know, Dickie Scruggs is the attorney which fought against tobacco companies in the 1990's that awarded settlements close to $250 million from the industry. Currently, Scruggs is in the midst of another large case where he is representing many Katrina victims in their fight against large insurance companies. Once again, millions of dollars are at stake (yet the future of this case is unkown due to Scruggs' current situation). Scruggs is politically active and well-known in the law community.

However, this once hailed good guy has now lost his credibility. Scruggs is accused of conspiring to bribe a judge for $50,000 to influence the judge's decision on how to split $26.5 million in attorney's fees. The judge, Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey, is reported to have blown the whistle from the start. He reported the bribery to federal officials when it was first announced, then went undercover to help expose the master plan. Now, Scruggs and others have been accused and admitted to their guilt.

I highly recommend reading this article which accounts for the detailed information which I provided on this post.

I think this is a great example of a true whistleblower and I commend Judge Henry Lackey for his actions.

Interesting Race Bias Studies

2008-03-21T14:09:00.003-04:00

In an attempt to respond to Ashley and Katie's blog posts about the doll experiments, I stumbled upon some very interesting studies about the origins and effects of the implicit biases discussed this week in class. I've provided short synopses of the experiments below, along with links to the studies themselves. I hope this sheds some light on what an implicit bias truly entails.

1) This study experimented with expressed steretype inhibition (or lack thereof) when affected with alcohol. The results go to show that as more alcohol gets consumed, the more adamant individuals get about their stereotypes. This gives credit to supporters of the IAT by offering evidence that biases, however repressed, still exist. Moreso, alcohol's ability to relieve the mental barriers of biases offers insight into the extent and passion that one can hold for a certain stereotype, providing some quantitative information that may, or may not, be relevant in potential legal cases that may arise due to implicit discrimination.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17646794

2) This next study offers insight into the mental activity as one attempts to control his/her biases. The frontal lobe, which is largely responsible for cognitive control, "lights up" when biased individuals are presented with a stereotypical situation. The study goes to describe that the presence of implicit biases, when activated by an activity that employs that bias (the students taking part in the study went through an interracial interview), is mentally draining and exhausting to the biased individual's brain - affecting intellectual performance after the study. Cool, huh?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4388-brains-drained-by-hidden-race-bias.html

3) This next article, I believe, really gets to the heart of what we were discussing this week. In a Harvard study on race biases, a hypothetical scenario was presented to a group of physicians in which the subject in question had a life-threatening case, yet was white in some scenarios, and black in the others. Accompanying the study was a short survey to assess the respective doctor's implicit biases. The results go to show that the probability of a black person recieveing the potential life-saving remedy decreased as the doctor's respective biases increased. Though the results seem obvious yet disturbing, the article has a great take-home message which one of the doctors expressed; "It's not a matter of you being a racist. It's really a matter of the way your brain processes information influenced by things you've seen, things you've experienced, [and] the way media has presented things."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/20/tests_of_er_trainees_find_signs_of_race_bias_in_care/

I hope that these articles provide some insight into what governs all of our biases, however (un)aware we truly are of them. Thanks to Ashley and Katie for making me look these up.

Should We be Held Responsible for our Brains?

2008-03-19T12:22:00.002-04:00

While Brad has briefly touched on this subject in his post, there seems to be a lot more involved in the debate about psychology and law. In class the question was: should a person be held legally responsible for their implicit thoughts of discrimination even if the direct or circumstantial evidence did not support the claim? In a discrimination case, it is difficult to know exactly what distinguishes the facts of the case from the thoughts, emotions or assumptions of the parties involved. Because of this, psychology seems to play an integral role in determining the outcomes of cases, not just in employment, but in criminal cases as well. It takes a logical and critically thinking jury and judge to decide what evidence is true and what parties are credible or trustworthy. All of these metal processes are surely very related to psychology and our ability to effectively categorize, process and retrieve important information.

In class we spoke about the confirmation bias, its relation to stereotypes and information processing. We touched on how a person who has a racial stereotype against Hispanics, like in Krieger’s article, may attribute any negative action by a Hispanic person to that person’s disposition, or personality, thus confirming their stereotype and causing them to pay specific attention to that action. That same biased person might attribute any positive action by a Hispanic person to the situation, seeing it as a rare or unique occurrence, and soon forgetting about it. These mental processes are often done implicitly and without thought. So, the question remains, can we hold people legally responsible for these unconscious thoughts?
What if the crime was more seriously than discrimination? What if the crime was murder?

Recall the IAT tests about black stereotypes and guns, (Kyle mentioned that he took the test and associated black faces with guns). In another class I read an article where a group of all white policemen repeatedly shot and killed a black man they thought to be holding a gun. It turns out the gun was a wallet, the black man was unarmed and the officers were found innocent. The article then continued with an implicit association test that showed subjects frequently mistook everyday objects as guns when they were first shown a picture of a black man’s face as opposed to a white man’s face.

Ultimately, why did the officers go free? Because the jury found that they had reason to believe, in that situation, that the black man had a gun. Now what if the jury and judge held the same implicit stereotypes against blacks as the officers might have held? Did they sympathize with the officers because they would have also believed the black man to have a gun? Did the jury use their implicit attitudes to confirm parts of their racial stereotypes and ignore other valuable information in the case?

After all of that, I still do not have an answer to the question but I believe that these implicit thoughts should at least be taken into account and the juries and judges should be made aware of the defendant’s, as well as their own, implicit attitudes, letting the subsequent verdict decide responsibility.

Continuation of Monday's Discussion on Psychology and the Law

2008-03-18T17:19:00.003-04:00

In Monday's class we had a great discussion regarding whether Psychological tests, factors, and influences should be taken into legal consideration. In every Psychology class that I've taken, one of the most heavily stressed comments made my Professors is that much of what we know is all based on theory and correlated data. Considering the fact that the law and jury trials are based on strict FACTS, I think it would be irrelevant to present Psychological theories as determining factors.

Although I find the self-fulfilling prophecy and theories towards biases and preferences interesting, I think that Psychology and Law should remain distinguished.

A Girl Like Me

2008-03-18T13:07:00.002-04:00

Here is the link to the post on The Situationist Blog that contains Kiri Davis's video "A Girl Like Me," which we watched in class yesterday (and to which SFlohr refers below).

Is it more than the doll?

2008-03-17T17:39:00.003-04:00

Class today got me thinking about the doll experiment that was presented in the YouTube clip. I was afraid this post might come off the wrong way, however I definitely think it is something to consider.

When the children were picking 'good' and 'bad' dolls, the decision was made very quickly, however when they were forced to pick the one that most resembled them, they were hesitant and it took some more time to figure out. This made me think that perhaps race is not the most prevalent issue here. It looked as though they were not picking good and bad because of the skin color of the doll. Instead I thought these children could have been picking on color of the toy alone.

Often times children are more drawn to bright colors and discouraged by dreary colors. This is often ingrained by the way we treat children as infants. We paint our children's room with light colors that we see as happy and uplifting. I've never seen a child's room painted black or dark gray or parents buy toys that are dark in color. Therefore I could see the children picking the doll because of the positive feeling that is reinforced to them, and not necessarily because of the race of the doll or because they think that black people are 'bad'.

I just feel like the fact that the children are picking toys should be taken into consideration. Perhaps the experiment would be different if they were picking a different set of objects.

New Technological Advancements: HR Practices changing. . . Discrimination?

2008-03-17T14:03:00.007-04:00

I came across two articles:

This one is from Financial Week

This one is from Daily News

These articles discuss how employers are starting to use Technology and social networks such as Facebook to deploy their hiring practices in order take up minorities, homosexuals, and other members of protected classes. Generally, the articles agree that while these practices are being done, there is no official "law" that states that companies are risking an unnecessary liability in an ambiguous are of HR until the Supreme Court can have word on it.

What do you guys think about this? I mean, people do put out public information for everyone to see, however it is another thing to state that employers conduct searches to PRE-SCREEN job applicants before an interview. This is the same reason we have stopped sending pictures (the little passport style ones) alongside resumes because it gives employers an edge to screen out, for example, those applicants who are members of a protected class.

At the very least, companies should at least put a disclaimer that the individual may be background checked on any public information available at their disposal.

Is this stretching the limit? Or, is it a fair practice to allow this? I am curious to hear some of your opinions.

Physical Attractiveness Bias in Oleanna

2008-03-05T19:32:00.001-05:00

I apologize if everyone is through with discussing Oleanna. I hate being the one to admit this and hope that no one find me “shallow” for it. As I have been doing research for the rough draft of my project, I came across this article (click on full PDF to read) and couldn’t help but acknowledge that physical attractiveness bias may have been at least partially affecting my perception of who the victim is in Oleanna. I, like most of the class, strongly sympathized for John, and despite some of Professor Prenkert’s arguments and showing of scenes in the film that can be read in Carol’s favor, I found myself very adamant in my opinion that John was the victim. That is not to say there weren’t good reasons for finding John the victim and as Professor Prenkert mentioned in class today, it was probably the way Mamet intended. I do not want to assume that everyone has the same perceptions on beauty ideals or what those perceptions are, but I must admit I did think Carol was unattractive and wondered had she been attractive if I would have perceived her more as a victim.

As we discussed a little in class today, Mamet’s play is highly interpretive and ambiguous. In class we had mentioned John’s character could act more “pervy” and Carol’s character could act more innocent. I have never seen a live performance of Oleanna, but I wonder if Carol on stage had the same appearance as Carol in the film? I would also like to investigate if Mamet had an idea of what these characters should look like. Although this would not affect our reading of the play, I think it partially persuaded me in John’s favor after seeing the film. Would we as an audience feel differently about who the victim is if Carol was played by Pamela Anderson? Jennifer Aniston? An Olsen twin?

I particularly find this issue interesting because we tend to look at aspects of the law to be so objective, but it’s easy to see how something unconscious such as physical attractiveness bias might persuade a jury’s position in a sexual harassment case.

New Indiana Law Requires Accommodation of Nursing Mothers at Work

2008-03-05T16:08:00.003-05:00

Check out the details here.

It covers employers of 25 or more employees and requires them "to provide a private place for an employee to express breast milk for her child and to provide some form of refrigeration to store the milk." The language of the act requies the provision of that private place, which must be a location other than a toilet stall, when "reasonably possible."

The press release makes the claim that the rate at which mothers nurse their infants falls by half after three months, due to the return of women to the workforce. That's a stark statistic if accurate.

But what of these new requirements? I'm sure any one of us could spin a hypothetical in which these requirements are pretty onerous (e.g., an workplace that is just a series of desks or cubicles on an open floorspace, so that the provision of a non-toilet stall private space would require the acquisition of additional space or the installation of walls). So, the rubber will hit the road in the interpretation of what is "reasonably possible."

Job offers and the Military

2008-03-04T18:51:00.004-05:00

My friend ran into this particular situation and we could not find any information on a result. I was curious what others thought about how people in the military are being treated. My friend was given a job offer to start work this summer for a sales company. After receiving his job offer he found out his National Guard unit was being deployed. Upon hearing this news, the company that gave him an offer took it off the table. They said because he could not begin employment as stated in the offer they could not honor it. Now there is protection if he had already started the job and then was deployed. The lack in protection is if you have not started your position yet. Personally I can not believe that people serving our country are being treated this way. There should be protection in place that when they return from service they can start work in a deferral program. I am curious to hear other people's thoughts on this issue.

MORE on Privacy...

2008-03-03T12:49:00.001-05:00

I was reading the IDS last week and came across a really interesting article about some new monitoring software that Microsoft is in the midst of developing. The new software (unnamed as of right now) will allow employers to monitor employees’ body temperature, heart and respiration rates, brain signals, blood pressure, and facial expressions. WOW. Microsoft explains that they are developing this software in order to alert managers if an employee seems to be depressed, over-worked, or stressed. Well, okay… but I’m sure that there are plenty of individuals in the corporate world that are depressed, over-worked, or stress. Does this mean that they can’t do well at their job, that they’re not going to function at maximum capacity?

Maybe, but not necessarily. How about the fact that just over a quarter of all Americans over the age of 18 suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year?* This is a lot more prevalent than a lot of people might think, and thus to have an employer be able to monitor some of your most personal information and find out if you’re suffering from depression may not be in anyone’s best interest.

One opponent of the monitoring software stated: “I can see how some employers might want to know their employees’ stress levels or something like that, but a good company would already have policies in place (to deal with those issues).” I just can’t imagine a workplace in which all of my biometric data was measured and monitored. Often times, if I’m having a bad day, I’d rather keep it to myself. I understand the idea that managers want to be alerted if their employees are over-worked or stressed, but I feel that these issues are something that each employee should take care of him/herself. If there is a problem, it should be up to the employee’s discretion to decide whether or not he/she wants to make an issue of it. Each company needs a structure where the employee is going to come and talk to you directly.

The article stated that this technology won’t appear in the workplace anytime soon, and IU law professor Fred Cate explained that the critical issue is how the software is going to be used. He makes a good argument: “It’s clear that it could have enormous potential for invading privacy, but so does lots of other technology that we use.”

So, any thoughts?

*Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america.shtml

Opposite of discrimination

2008-03-03T02:39:00.002-05:00

An acquaintance of mine was telling me a story about his company and discrimination. I'm not sure if there will be any comments but I wanted to tell the class because I thought it was quite unique

He was working for a large consulting firm that would often hire minorities and seemed to be a company that was against discrimination. He told me that they had hired a black man to work on his team and upon working with the new guy, he said "it wasn't hard to tell that he was homosexual."

After a few months of good work from the black homosexual, the company was given word from a client that one of the new guys reports had been plagerized. He had copied part of a competing firms report and given it to the client as his own.

This put the company in a sticky situation because of the employee's race and sexuality. Instead of firing the employee for plagerizing a report that was given to a client, they did nothing. They told the employee that it is illegal to plagerize and let him continue his responsibilities, I'm sure that they didn't take further action against him because of a potential lawsuit that could have stemmed from the employee being fired or repremanded.

Now is it not discrimination that this employee was given special consideration because of his race and sexual orientation? Has the law gone too far when an employee that has very obiviously done wrong and deserves to be fired or at the least be repremanded receives no such actions because of his race and sexuality?

The Pay Gap...Is it Discrimination??

2008-02-28T00:25:00.003-05:00

I was sitting in my sociology class today and we began discussing gender roles in the workplace. My professor started off the discussion by talking to us about the pay gap between men and women in the workplace. Statistically, women make $.76 for every $1.00 a man makes at the same job. I found this disturbing and sat there wondering how it could be true if Title VII is being enforced correctly. I did a little bit of research and found an article talking about how the following factors contribute to this gap:

1)Women work full time less than men and take longer time periods off.
2)Men with children get an earnings both while women lose earnings. ( I don't understand how this is true or how it is fair at all)
3)Women have fewer years of work experience.
4)And the most disturbing: Despite external factors, men get a bonus just for inherently being men.

Now if I found out that a male equal was getting paid more than me at my job I would be quick to look for a discrimination lawsuit and I'm assuming that other women would as well. So I still can't understand why this pay gap exists and how we can get rid of it and eliminate discrimination for good. Thoughts???

Professor Accused of Sexual Harassment Resigns

2008-02-27T11:32:00.002-05:00

So I was reading a few articles on sexual harassment, when I came across this article. It made me think about the story Oleanna, which we have to read for class. I found it interesting that Professor William Bender was not taken out of the system earlier, especially if he had so many complaints against him. The fact that they still let Professor Bender teach online classes, after the university found him guilty of sexual harassment, makes me wonder how concerned the University of Georgia really is about this matter. He was teaching online classes, but if a student did have a question, she/he could go into his office hours or they could talk using e-mails. So it is very possible that the sexual harassment could have continued, it just might have taken a different form. The fact that Professor Bender made the resignation himself makes me wonder, if he was just so sick of hearing about it or maybe his subconscious was eating away at him that he finally wanted it. Regardless, he won't be teaching this upcoming fall.

What Professor Bender did was wrong, but where do we draw the line when it comes to the student/professor relationship? How far is too far? Should the University of Georgia (or any university where this could be taken place at) be held accountable for not doing anything sooner? I think that this is something that many of us really don't think about because we associate (for the most part) this happening in the workplace.

What do you all think about this issue? And if your professor seemed to be making an advance on you, would you report it? Why or why not?

Here is the link if any of you are interested in reading the article:http://chronicle.com/news/article/3836/professor-accused-of-sexual-harassment-resigns?nb

Inside or Outside the Scope of Employment... does it really matter?

2008-02-26T22:49:00.001-05:00

The Faragher versus Boca Raton case states, “A ‘master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.’” What is the “scope of employment” anyways? The reading defined it as including conduct "of the kind [a servant] is employed to perform," occurring "substantially within the authorized time and space limits," and "actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master," but as excluding an intentional use of force "unexpectable by the master." It seems to me that this says that the organization can not be held liable for sexual harassment cases if, when the employer harasses the employee, he is not doing his ‘specified job’ during the time of the harassment. Under this definition, an organization will not be liable for crude comments made while the man is getting a soda from the vending machine, or refilling his coffee in the morning. Because these actions are not within his job description, he was not within the “scope of employment.”

The reading continues to say that the Courts of Appeals have typically held, or assumed, that conduct similar to the subject of complaint in the Faragher and Harris cases fall outside the scope of employment. “The courts have emphasized that harassment consisting of unwelcome remarks and touching is motivated solely by individual desires and serves no purpose of the employer. For this reason, courts have likened hostile environment sexual harassment to the classic ‘frolic and detour’ for which an employer has no vicarious liability.” In my opinion, this is completely unfair! Just as organizations, in the realm of electronic monitoring, are held liable for the conduct of their employees during work hours or on company property/equipment, they should be held liable for sexual harassment between employees during working hours or on company property. To me, actions taken or words spoken during working hours ARE within the scope of employment… you are, in fact, at work! I am not sure I understand the difference. For instance, take into consideration the Doe vs. XYC case:

“With actual or imputed knowledge that Employee was viewing child pornography on his computer, was defendant under a duty to act, either by terminating Employee or reporting his activities to law enforcement authorities, or both? We conclude that such an obligation exists. The existence of a duty is a matter of law, ‘deriv[ing] from considerations of public policy and fairness.’ …we agree with plaintiff that defendant had a duty to… take effective internal action to stop those activities, whether by termination or some less drastic remedy. That section places upon a master, in this case defendant, the duty to control his servant, here Employee, while the servant is acting outside the scope of his employment, as in the present case, to prevent the servant from ‘intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them.’ The servant was ‘using a chattel of the master’ and the master both ‘knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant’ and ‘knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.’ Under these circumstances, a risk of harm to others was ‘reasonably within the [master's] range of apprehension.’”

Why is XYC liable and the city of Boca Raton is not when, in both cases, the employees were acting outside the scope of employment? In my opinion, these cases are not that different; therefore, the same rule should apply. Either employers should be held liable for actions outside the scope of employment, as in the XYC case, or they should not, as in the Harris and Faragher cases.

Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Doctor-Patient Sex Discrimination: do patients have the right to discriminate?

2008-02-24T22:33:00.003-05:00

I have a friend who is currently completing his third year in medical school. This year and then next requires all students to complete rotations, both in-patient and out-patient. This basically means that the students get to check patients and scrub in on surgical procedures in order to better educate themselves and gain experience. My friend is finishing up an 8 week rotation in OB and gynecology. He has, as all other students in their respective rotations, scrubbed in on numerous surgeries of different kinds. Last week, he was scheduled to scrub in for a common procedure. The resident heading the surgery happened to be female, as did the nurses. My friend, by chance, was the only male to be present for the operation. after scrubbing in for a surgery, the woman receiving the procedure refused for him to be in the operating room, claiming she did not want any males in the room during the operation. He had to leave the room and wait for the procedure to finish before receiving another assignment from his resident.

Patients are notified when students will be in the operating room. They have the right to refuse students to participate in their procedures. Because of the circumstances, the patient was able to throw him out because he was a student. In her eyes however, she did not mind that he was a student, only that he was male. In talking about Title VII during class, I got to thinking about this incident. Although it is not really an employer/employee relationship, has this patient committed sex discrimination? What would she have done had the resident heading the surgery been male; not had the operation or rescheduled? Regardless of their sex, should patients even be allowed to kick students out of the room? It can be detrimental to society to inhibit the learning of medical school students. Just think, if everyone kicked the students out, they would have zero experience or practice before becoming ‘real’ doctors! Would you want someone to operate on you for the very first time? Every doctor performs their first procedure at some point, and it is usually under a resident’s supervision. If patients continue to refuse students to scrub in, this will no longer be the case, leaving society with very inexperienced doctors.

What are your thoughts on the sex discrimination in this case? What about allowing patients to refuse treatment from medical school students?

Who's Responsible?

2008-02-22T18:21:00.003-05:00

I came across this article and it instantly reminded me of a previous class discussion regarding how one knows their legal rights when they're employed. Should the managers be teaching their employees? Should these topics and the like be integrated into a mandatory undergraduate curriculum?

Vicki Wilmarth, a lawyer specializing in employment law, attempts to keep everyone informed on the latest updates by publishing articles. She notes employment law is constantly being revised and updated. In this specific column she describes a change in employment compensation to military families, a new I-9 form, and a recent case in which an employer sued their employees for breaches of contract.

I would personally like to see topics relating to employment law tied into a college curriculum. Many of the topics we have discussed in class have come as a complete surprise to me, which is scary considering I will be entering the workforce next year. I think these topics would be very relevant in career development courses which many majors and programs require. Also, I believe employers do have a responsibility to inform their employees on major, applicable changes in the law. Does anyone else have a suggestion on how everyone can get on the same page? Who's responsible for keeping everyone up date?

Is 15 or less fair?

2008-02-20T16:36:00.002-05:00

In class today, Prof. Prenkert said how businesses with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from the rules of Title VII (our class book also said they were exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act).

I know a few of you gave an example of why it is OK, but I still found myself shaking my head in confusion. I do not think it should matter how many employees a company has, they should still be liable to not discriminate and follow laws pertained to larger organizations. Should those companies be able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin because they have 15 employees and not 16? It just does not add up to me!

I would be really interested to read opposing views. Examples? Devils Advocates?

So, what do you think?

More on Sexual Offenders

2008-02-20T16:27:00.002-05:00

We have had a few class discussions already regarding sexual offense cases: Doe v. XYC Corp. and K.M. v. PUBLIX Super markets. As soon as we were discussing it, I thought about an email I got about a year or two ago that gave me a link to the Family Watchdog website. Once you hit the link, you put in your address (throughout the U.S.) to see the different offenders in your area, which range from offense against children to sexual battery. There picture, age, address, offense, etc. is listed.

I found it really interesting...just a bit scary...but worth it.

Here is the link below:

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Let me know what you think.

Class Discussion...Again

2008-02-19T20:11:00.002-05:00

I am not trying to belabor Monday's class discussion concerning the K.M v. Publix case, but the fact that the court did not find Publix liable for K.M's molestation really bothers me. As mentioned in class, the legal ruling is logical, but ethics are absent from the ruling. However, in my opinion, there is a legal aspect that the courts seemed to skip over. The courts ruled that Publix was not responsible for Woodlard's actions outside of work because there was no "special" relationship entitling Publix to inform the third party of Woodlard's past. This,in theory, makes complete sense, seeing how it would be very intrusive for employers to monitor and reveal to others an employee's outside activities. However, in this case, I argue that there is a "special" relationship between Publix, Woodlard and K.M's mom. All three are employees, and the relationship between Woodward and K.M's mom was established at work. In addition, the fact that Publix would be revealing the illegal activity of Woodward, leads me to believe that Publix had the right and the responsibility to inform K.M's mom of Woodward's illegal activity. Furthermore, K.M is a minor, 7 years old; she has no concept of protecting herself or making legal charges. When dealing with illegal activity that affects minors, it seems that Publix should be obligated to inform others when a reasonable relationship has been established between parties.

I fully understand how placing this type of legal obligation on an employer could create a messy situation concerning privacy and monitoring of outside activities. However, this case doesn't present issues of privacy, so much as it presents issues of protecting minors from incurring illegal harm when they can't protect themselves. I also understand that some of the fault falls on K.M's mother for not checking out Woodlard's past, but I think that her oversight is outweighed by the lack of legal obligation to ensure that sexual preditors are not a threat to society.

Am I thinking too much into this case, or is the law slacking a bit? Let me know what you think!

Rewards for Whistle Blowers: A Solution for SOX? (By Guest Blogger Terry Morehead Dworkin)

2008-02-12T13:21:00.000-05:00

As promised, here is a guest post by whistle blowing scholar Terry Morehead Dworkin:

"Merck to pay $671 million for bilking Medicaid." This headline from Friday's paper illustrates the tremendous success the False Claims Act has had in recovering large sums for the federal treasury. In this case Merck settled charges that it routinely overcharged the government for its most popular medicines. The whistleblower who brought the evidence forward will receive about $68 million for his role. The Justice Department is looking into 630 other whistleblowing claims. In almost all False Claims Act cases in which there is a recovery, the whistleblower gets a million or more. The reward structure has greatly increased whistleblowing about fraudulent claims for federal funds.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) relies on whistleblowers to help enforce it. It tries to promote whistleblowing through requiring companies to set up anonymous whistleblowing procedures, protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, and providing criminal penalties for intentional retaliation. It does not give rewards though. While most employees who work in companies covered by SOX thought they were protected when they blew the whistle, this has proved to be an illusion. SOX whistleblowers are most commonly fired, and they have been unable for a variety of reasons to get redress. Not surprisingly, whistleblowing has gone down under SOX. Because of these problems, many are calling for changes in the law, including a reward system similar to that in the FCA.

Suppose that you are working for a company and that you discover that it is misleading shareholders and the public about its financial stability. Would you blow the whistle? Would you be more likely to if you got a reward? If your answer to the latter is yes, how much do you think would be just compensation for the risks invovled? Who should have to pay for the reward?

The FBI's Growing Database

2008-02-11T20:20:00.000-05:00

As I browsed through the news the other day, I came across an article which perfectly relates to last Monday’s class discussion on privacy. The article discusses the FBI’s desire to form a database of palm prints, eye scans, and tattoo mapping, in what they call an effort to better identify criminals and terrorists. Although the FBI claims that the database is "important to protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in," privacy experts aren’t so confident.

As one opponent explains, “It's the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated.” I mentioned earlier in class about my time in London and how the privacy is both 1) much more closely tracked, and 2) much more stringent in its policies. Now, I’m starting to feel that same pressure here in the states.

At first glance it may not seem to be a huge deal that the FBI wants to add eye scans, palm prints, and tattoo and scar mapping to the existing fingerprint database. I mean, that database is used for criminals, right? And I’m no criminal, you may think. But no, the database isn’t just reserved for these rebellious groups. Now, as the article explains, “more than 55 percent of the checks the FBI runs involve criminal background checks for people applying for sensitive jobs in government or jobs working with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly.”

As Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union explains “This had started out being a program to track or identify criminals…now we're talking about large swaths of the population -- workers, volunteers in youth programs. Eventually, it's going to be everybody.” I’m in the market for a job and I don’t think I’d be pleased with a database that treated me in a way that used to be reserved for criminals. Plus, where does all this information and tracking end? IS there an end?

The "Work Spouse": Harmless Flirting or Slippery Slope to Harassment?

2008-02-06T08:56:00.001-05:00

CNN informs us of the phenomenon known as the work spouse.

If you were an employer/manager and saw this sort of relationship developing between two of your employees, what would you do? To what extent are you concerned about the relationship going too far or falling apart and resulting in tension, reduced productivity, or harassment claims/liability? To what extent would you think it important not to interfere with your employees' personal (but perhaps not, strictly speaking, "private") relationships?

Social Networks

2008-02-05T12:04:00.001-05:00

Apropos of our discussion yesterday of privacy and social networks is this story from Newsweek entitled The Morning After. The article details allegations of sexual assault on the campus of Lewis & Clark University, which were disseminated widely through a "private" Facebook group.

Though this is clearly not an "employment" story, it does illustrate how the plugged-in world of on-line social networking has changed and will continue to change our experience and expectations of privacy.

Genetic Information: A new realm of discrimination?

2008-02-04T17:20:00.000-05:00

The major topic discussed today in class was the privacy of individual information, and how different companies utilize its disclosure to profit from interested 3rd parties and the like. We mostly discussed companies like Kroger, Marsh, and Facebook which manage personal information mostly for contact, advertisement, and recruiting purposes (Facebook is a useful tool for potential employers seeking information on their applicants). All these businesses rely on information one puts on an application, or a profile, meaning that the user still exercises control of the information disclosed. However, what would be the modern day consequences be if information was available that an individual had no control over? More specifically, genetic information. I'm not meaning to be coy or far fetched with this blog post; this is a very controversial and relevant topic in today's realm of Biotechnology. What happens on TV shows, like CSI, is a small and forensic glimpse into the power that genetic information currently holds. What are the regulations and potential repercussions that need to be considered in the disclosure of genetic information? It seems that we are on a potential brink of a new wave of discrimination; from employers, insurance companies, and society in general - based on our genetics.

Nowadays, screening for diseases can be done easily and efficiently on individuals in utero (during pregnancy) and in vitro (externally handled and minimally invasive) per request of the parents or individual, respectively. Detection of genetic diseases and predispositions can be known long before the disease has its onset, yet gives the individual valuable information on their future health. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, breast cancer, and cystic fibrosis are all examples genetic diseases that can be screened for at most major hospitals. Advances in detection methods are made daily - advancing the fields of medicine, forensics, and science in general. Will genetic information be protected and regarded as private information, or will it be disclosed to employers, insurance companies, and schools where it is vital to the profitability and management? Would it be fair for an employer to be informed that an applicant will have Alzheimer's onset during their term with the company? What about a construction company that has a choice of hiring someone who is on a genetic path for Parkinson's? This information is obviously crucial on both ends of an employment contract; but who will profit from its disclosure?

The notion that personal information is generally regarded as property allows companies to enter into 3rd party contracts just like what we discussed in class. If genetic information is regarded as personal property, it opens the door towards this new genre of discrimination. The sad truth is that most people have no control over genetics, as opposed to the control we have over our Facebook profiles. Depending on the legislation, genetic profiles could be regarded as confidential, viewed for insurance and employment purposes, or publicly available upon an individual's discretion. Clearly, a genetically superior individual would be more likely to let employers or insurance companies know his/her profile, whereas an individual with a future cancer onset would be more reluctant. This same debate parallels what was discussed in class today - although I realize Facebook and genetics are two different beasts.

The scientific progress towards more precise methods of genetic fingerprinting is exponential, to say the least. State-of-the art detection equipment is outdated within months, if not weeks (visit the Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics in the Jordan Hall basement and you'll see what I'm talking about, or just browse www.sciencedaily.com). This poses both great hope and threat for all of us that have some sort of genetic ailment. Yes, easy screening opens a venue towards cures and remedies - but it also opens the door towards simpler testing, thereby easing access to information. I hope that adequate rules and regulations are put into place to moderate disclosure, keeping the job market a fair a non-discriminant system. This controversy seems like science fiction but unfortunately "Gattaca" (the 1997 movie) is a potentially near future. I don't mean to cast a shadow on the future - I am normally an overly optimistic person. However, I believe that information with such potential must be handled with the right hands and extremely carefully.

What do you think?

2008-02-04T12:14:00.000-05:00

My friend recently came upon a dilemma that I thought was perfect for our blog because I wanted to hear what all of you thought. He is a tutor for a couple of classes, like one of those that posts on OneStart, facebook, etc. He had been in contact with this one individual that was willing to pay him almost 3 times the original rate! But of course he wanted more than just tutoring. For the extra pay, my friend was going to have to do everything but sit in on the tests. He was going to have to complete all the homework, papers, cheat sheets for the tests, and the day of the test explain how to do the basic stuff so the kid could do enough to pass the tests. He also told my friend that no one could know about the "help" and he would have to keep in confidential. Oh and to make things interesting lets say that the student is a scholarship athlete. What actions do you take? Blow the whistle? Take the job? Do nothing?

Pucker Your Lips and...Blow (sometimes)

2008-02-02T16:25:00.000-05:00

I found Beverly K. Phillips’ article “Pucker Your Lips But Never Blow” to be quite controversial. The majority of her article talks about Amy Van Ostrand, the public relations and outreach coordinator for the Hamilton Country Humane Society (HCHS). Phillips believes that Van Ostrand should not have spoken out publically against the Humane Society. To put it in her own words: “Laws or no laws, licensing or no licensing, I believe there's an expectation and duty to maintain confidentiality if acting in a public relations capacity, and certainly if it's included in ones official job title as in the case of Van Ostrand.”

What bothered me was the way that Phillips spoke about Van Ostrand, in a particularly negative and accusatory rhetoric. She heartily points out that Van Ostrand “has given a black eye to every public relations professional who works hard, year after year after year, to build the confidence that's necessary to effectively counsel upper management.” This was when I started to get really annoyed. To preface this, I want to make it clear that I understand and agree with Phillips’ fundamental argument: a whistleblower should do all that he/she can to keep the complaint inside the company and let the company work it out internally before releasing information to the media.

However, as I mentioned in class when we spoke about this, I feel that what is most important is to put Van Ostrand’s case into perspective. As a reader, we have no background as to what steps she took to institute change within the HCHS. And Professor Prenkert backed up my theory by explaining that Van Ostrand did, indeed, take many steps before she blew the whistle publically. In the article, Van Ostrand is even quoted as saying “I tried desperately to protect the agency from public embarrassment, putting the agency before myself.”

I feel that it is wrong to make one’s allegations public as a first step, but after one has tried time and time again to implement change, is it still wrong to go public? Perhaps it is the only way to force policy changes. Would Enron still be alive if it hadn’t been for Sherron Watkins? Would the company have changed its illegal accounting practices and cleaned itself up, or would someone else have blown the whistle?

I want to end by focusing on Phillips article, which, as I mentioned earlier, was a bit abrasive and accusatory. Following her comment about giving PR professionals a black eye, she closes her argument by saying, “I hope she'll consider this next time she takes a job that involves public relations in any way, shape or form.” Yes, this is an editorial. But no, I don’t agree with what Phillips says here. If, after several attempts, a person has failed to implement change in a crooked business, then I feel that the individual has the right to take it to the government, media, or wherever it needs to go to be heard.

Does an individual's upbringing REALLY matter?

2008-02-01T19:57:00.000-05:00

When I was reading "Persons of the Year 2002, The Whistleblowers: Cynthia Cooper, Coleen Rowley, and Sherron Watkins," I was surprised towards the middle of the article when it stated:

"What more do they have in common? All three grew up in small towns in the middle of the country, in families that at times lived paycheck to paycheck. In a twist that will delight psychologists, they are all firstborns. More unusually, all three are married but serve as the chief breadwinners in their families. Cooper and Rowley have husbands who are full-time, stay-at-home dads. For every one of them, the decision to confront the higher-ups meant jeopardizing a paycheck their families truly depended on."

This struck me as strange because it seemed out of place in the article. For one thing, why did the interviewer think it was relevant to find a commonality among the three women? Why couldn't they each be recognized for their specific actions?

I was also surprised when the similarities went back to their childhood upbringing. (Specifically when it noted that they were all first borns.) I am not trying to say that their backgrounds do not have anything to do with their actions in the future (because they do), but do you believe it holds a SUBSTANTIAL part of the positions they are in now -- as whistleblowers? They could have had a poor childhood and done the same thing within their company...right?

Happy Ending?

2008-01-29T19:23:00.000-05:00

Does this story reporting a $3 million verdict in favor of Nancy Olipares in her claim against the city of Honolulu fit the narrative of the whistle blower about which we spoke in class yesterday?

Illegal Briefs?

2008-01-29T18:14:00.001-05:00

From the incomparable Workplace Prof Blog, we are directed to a story about the CEO of American Apparel, who apparently prefers to go "apparel-less." An employee of his is claiming that the CEO's practice of running meetings nearly nude resulted in a sexually hostile work environment.

In a few weeks when we focus on Title VII and the claim of sexual harassment, we'll discuss the requirement that an alleged victim of harassment must prove that the perpetrator targeted the victim because of the victim's sex. Here the defense is that Mr. Charney, the nearly-naked CEO, didn't target Ms. Nelson, his employee who is complaining of sexual harassment, because of her sex. Rather, he treated everyone -- male and female alike -- to the same uncomfortable experience.

In a pretrial brief the defendants counter that Nelson was not discriminated against based on her sex because everyone at the company was subjected to the same sexually explicit workplace. The answer brief says Charney did not dress as he did in Nelson's presence because she is a woman. Rather, he wore his underwear to meetings for many reasons, including "product development, testing product fit, marketing, promotion, sales and even just humor," according to the brief.

As Workplace Prof Blog suggests, this is the tale of the "equal opportunity harasser."

Another interesting aspect of this type of claim, which we will discuss in a couple of weeks, is whether an employee should expect a certain amount of sexually charged behavior to be directed at her when she takes a job in a company or industry that is known for such.

"American Apparel is a workplace where employees of both genders deal with sexually charged imagery, conduct, speech and photographs as part of their jobs, and such conduct and speech does not constitute sexual harassment," the brief says.

Did Ms. Nelson get only what she should expect?

A Fashion to Die For

2008-01-22T13:34:00.000-05:00

A friend's recent exposure to a Brazilian model's struggle with anorexia nervosa got me thinking about the law behind the health of models and the regulation that doesn't seem to exist. In a class discussing the disease anorexia nervosa, two pictures of a Brazilian model that died in 2006 were shown to demonstrate the effects of the disease. One picture displayed a typical, but presumably healthy, woman, while the second featured the same model looking emaciated and sickly. The second picture was shocking and unnerving as it revealed her bulging rib cage.

When I saw the second picture displaying the extremely thin and clearly unhealthy body, I thought to myself, "Why would the modeling agency allow her to continue working? Can't they see that she is very sick?" While I know that BFOQs protect the agency's right to require that models meet certain physical qualifications, shouldn't the law be regulating the requirements so that the models aren't endangered when meeting or exceeding the weight requirements? In an article written the week of the 21 year old model's death, in 2006, it was reported that she had the body mass index of a 12 year old girl. Shocking as this may be, it was this body that was allowed to continue working as a professional model. How did the industry allow this model, and so many others like her, get this far? Are the agents too closely connected to the industry to be able to clearly see when the models are in danger? It is my concern that the modeling agency may not be in the best position to make the decision of what models are healthy and what ones in need of assistance because they so regularly accept very thin women as normal weight. Considering this fact, it seems that external regulation from legislature should be used to assist in determining what models are at a permisible weight. The inclusion of external regulation is not done due to the fault of the agency, but is imposed based on the truth that sometimes outsiders can see the truth easier than insiders.

In 2006, the modeling industry banned underweight models from walking in one of Spain's largerst fashion shows. I applaud the industry's attempt, but still in 2008 with the popularity of modeling television shows, I see that not much has changed. The owners of modeling agencies pinch every inch of skin and claim that the models need to lose weight. My questions are: Was the ban on underweight models used to make a one- time statement? And where is the lawful enforcement of a much needed regulation?

To read the referenced article visit: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230326,00.html
To see the referenced Google images visit:
http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230326,00.html
http://amha.be/renegirard/share/mannequin anorexique.jpg

Insurance, Wellness, and the Potential for Discrimination

2008-01-21T09:30:00.000-05:00

One of the topics that I've always felt our class explores too little is employer-provided insurance benefits, especially the issues surrounding health insurance. So, I'm going to try to include periodic posts to make up for the lack of time we spend in class.

In that regard, a recent article from the Wall Street Journal Online's Career Journal caught my attention. In "Wellness Plans May Face Hurdle for Penalizing Unhealthy Workers," Victoria E. Knight describes employer-sponsored wellness plans that reward employees for hitting particular wellness benchmarks (e.g., nonsmoking, healthy body mass index, proper cholesterol count, etc.). The rewards often come in the form of reductions in the employee's deductible amount under the main health insurance plan the employer offers. Knight describes the following example:

Vital Measures is one wellness program where credits are issued under a supplemental policy. Launched in July by UnitedHealthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group Inc., and BeniComp Group of Fort Wayne, Ind., the program is available to companies with 100 to 1,000 employees in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Ohio. Typically, employees sign up for a health plan with a $2,500 deductible and can then participate in a free, confidential health screening for body-mass index, cholesterol, blood pressure and non-nicotine use. For each test workers pass, they earn a $500 credit toward their deductible, issued under a supplemental plan, BeniComp Advantage.

On the surface, these plans seem like a creative way to encourage employees to get or stay healthy, thereby allowing employers to save money on health insurance premiums. And they may (or may not ) do just that. Regardless, the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration has issued guidelines that will affect their administration.

These wellness plans may be subject to regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), a federal law that regulates a number of aspects of the health insurance industry. If the wellness plan is group health insurance coverage, it cannot discriminate among groups members on the basis of an individual's "health factor" in determining eligibility, benefits, or premiums. The Department of Labor considers current health status, medical condition, and genetic information or predisposition just such health factors.

Read the article to find out how an employer can avoid violating HIPAA requirements and still maintain a supplemental wellness program. Then leave your thoughts in the comments about these wellness programs, the pervasiveness of regulation in this area, or anyting else about the topic or article that gets you thinking . . . .

MLB and Steroids: Will the Debates Ever End?

2008-01-18T17:53:00.000-05:00

As many people are aware, there has been an on-going issue regarding the use of illegal substances in Major League Baseball. This controversy has caught much criticism from the public, especially those thinking the player's union is to blame for not imposing strict drug testing policies. Recently, I saw on ESPN that Congress met to further assess the situation. I found it interesting that it was repeatedly noted that although there appear to be more "important" issues to be discussed by Congress, this topic heavily influences young athletes; members of Congress claimed this notion of such heavy, negative influence on our youth is a topic that is just as important as any. A recent article on ESPN.com further analyzes the most current news going on with this issue, including Congress' questioning of the accuracy of Tejada's testimony to federal authorities. Personally, I am growing weary of hearing about steroids and cannot wait for MLB to return to a period of normalcy, whatever that may be!

Glamorous v. prestige

2008-01-16T16:10:00.000-05:00

Our previous class discussion (the one before our guest speaker) in which we read the article about the diminishing prestige and popularity of becoming lawyers and doctors really got me thinking. As I watched Mark Zuckerberg, 23 years old, CEO of Facebook, being interviewed on 60 Minutes, I thought to myself, “Why couldn’t I do that?” I mean, here’s a guy who is only one year older than me, and he’s in charge of his own company in comparison to me, a soon-to-be college graduate, a soon-to-be in debt and unemployed college graduate.
One thing that I connected with this interview was the idea that pursuing a career as a doctor or lawyer requires years of schooling, which requires money (to pay tuition) and hard work (to receive good grades and graduate). Who wouldn’t want to skip years of schooling and still succeed. Many people pursue higher education to obtain a better job. Zuckerberg, a Harvard drop out, has, in my opinion, an ideal job – a company of his own design and millions of dollars. Zuckerberg is not the only success story; Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the country, and Matt Damon, the 2007 sexiest man alive, also dropped out of school, obtained careers that brought them fortune and fame.
I believe this connects very well with what Abbey mentioned in class, that with our generation “Everyone’s special.” Wouldn’t we all like to believe that we are in fact so special we don’t need further education and within ourselves are ideas for companies and we’d become rich or famous?

Using Technology to Build the "Will" to Stay in the "At-Will" Relationship

2008-01-15T17:06:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow we begin a couple of class sessions in which we discuss the dominant employment relationship in the U.S.: employment-at-will. There are benefits and drawbacks to the at-will relationship for both employers and employees. In general, it's easy enough to see that employment-at-will leaves the employee with less employment security in any particular job, but concomitantly leaves the employer with the ability to manage its workforce with some agility (to downsize when needed, for example).

We may less often focus on the flipside of that benefit/drawback comparison. Nevertheless, it's important. Employees have flexibility to leave a job for a better opportunity -- or simply because they're unhappy -- without any liability to the employer. Because of that flexibility, employers can lose significant investments in training employees who subsequently leave, must deal with competition from other employers (especially in a labor shortage), and can find themselves with significant gaps in human talent when employees leave.

The Wall Street Journal Online has an interesting story regarding how some companies are trying to manage and avoid those drawbacks and to encourage good employees to develop the "will to stay" with talent-management technology. Check it out here at Career Journal.

Crack Is Whack, But Selling It Is a Job!!

2008-01-15T14:19:00.001-05:00

So says the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Lynch v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2007-
Ohio-6668, in which it was asked to determine whether Mr. Lynch's ongoing crack cocaine selling enterprise constituted "remunerative employment" such that he should be disqualified from receiving the total disability workers' compensation payments he had been receiving after he was injured in an industrial accident 40 years ago.

The court said the following:

Lynch also claims that the commission cannot consider the activity he engaged in to be sustained remunerative employment, because the activity was illegal. We disagree. Lynch cannot use the illegality of his pursuits as a shield. Lynch exchanged labor for pay on a sustained basis. This constitutes sustained remunerative employment for purposes of permanent total disability.

The lesson is, if you can work -- even if the work you're doing is illegal, you are not toally disabled. Or, if you can make money in an illegal enterprise, you have the ability to go make money legally.

US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Two Interesting Cases Today

2008-01-09T07:47:00.000-05:00

According to my perusal of SCOTUSBlog, an invaluable resource for all things Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases of interest to us today.

This afternoon, parties will present their arguments in a case involving issues of age discrimination and retirement plans in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC.** According to the "liibulletin" from Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, the case involves the following:

This Petition involves a public employee retirement plan that includes normal and disability retirement benefits. A member who is eligible for normal retirement benefits based on attained age plus a minimum service requirement, or based on service alone, is not eligible for disability retirement benefits. Because age may be a factor in determining eligibility for normal retirement, it is an indirect factor in determining eligibility for disability retirement. Moreover, the calculation of disability retirement benefits is based upon actual years of service plus the number of years remaining before the member reaches retirement age or eligibility based on years of service alone; age may thereby be an indirect factor in determining the amount of disability retirement benefits.

The question presented in this Petition is accordingly: Whether any use of age as a factor in a retirement plan is “arbitrary” and thus renders the plan facially discriminatory in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?

The other case, which the Supreme Court will hear this morning, isn't an employment law case. Rather it's of interest to some of us, because it involves whether the Indiana voter ID law violates the U.S. Constitution. See the description of the issue in that case here.

** In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that my former colleagues at the Indianapolis District Office of the EEOC have been handling this case at the trial level. In fact, I worked on this case a number of years ago when I was still at the EEOC, on an issue unrelated to the one that the Supreme Court will consider today. I cannot remember whether my involvement was formal (i.e., whether I entered an appearance on behalf of the EEOC in the case) or whether it was informal (i.e., if I just helped draft a portion of a brief).

Welcome to the Third Iteration of the Work/Life/Law Blog

2008-01-07T02:14:00.000-05:00

It's our third semester and third group of student contributors to the Work/Life/Law Blog. We're going to see if we can't spice things up a little this semester. We may host a guest blogger or two. We may also see if we can't get another class or two at another institution to comment on the blog from time to time.

In the meantime, here's a reminder of what this project is all about. Below I've copied the inaugural post on the Work/Life/Law Blog from back in January 2006.

This blog will use, as a jumping-off point, a variety of laws and legal regimes that target and regulate work and the workplace in order to explore how life, work, and law interact and, more specifically, to analyze some important policy issues that affect how we live, by affecting how we work. We'll highlight articles in the mainstream media, comment on relevant posts by other bloggers, and provide some original content flowing from our class readings and discussions. While this blog is intended primarily to be an extension of the seminar for the class participants, we welcome the thoughtful and respectful contributions** of anyone who is interested in the topics we pursue.
**NOTE: For the time being, we are happy to permit comments from readers who are not members of our class. However, this is not a public forum and the administrator of this blog will exercise the right to close comments to non-members and/or delete unhelpful, off-topic, and intemperate or disrespectful comments without notice and subject only to his reasoned judgment. Non-anonymous comments are appreciated and will be less likely to fall prey to arbitrary and capricious deletion.

That still fairly sums up our goals, even for version 3.0 of our blog. We hope you check back often and let us know you're reading.

That's a Wrap

2007-04-30T20:29:00.000-04:00

The 2007 group of Work/Life/Law bloggers had our "final" meeting today.

I want to thank the students for some really excellent and insightful commentary. It was a kick for me to read what you posted here throughout the semester.

Thank you also to any non-class readers or lurkers who have or will check out this blog.

Good luck to the graduates!

Have a wonderful summer all.

Ready to Work Abroad?? (by Fatima)

2007-04-27T09:37:00.000-04:00

Globalization is a key word today. The world is shrinking and we now know the importance of understanding different cultures. I found an excellent article followed by a questionairre at the end which helps you assess what kind of person you are and how well you can adapt to change. The level of your ethnocentrism will help you assess how well you can adapt to the laws of other countries and your chances of flourishing if you are interested in working abroad.
I enjoyed this, I suggest you give it a try!

A Comparison of Laws (by Fatima)

2007-04-27T09:35:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, after my team’s presentation, I pondered over the many laws of my country. I wondered whether the laws would have been different had we not been partitioned from India in 1947. This invoked my interest and hence I researched specifically over sexual harassment laws in India to find out how different we were. Much to amazement I found out that it has only been six years since sexual harassment was recognized for the "first" time by the Indian Supreme Court as a human rights violation and gender based systemic discrimination.
I was very surprised to read about this because my perceptions were that sexual harassment laws would be much stricter and well defined in India, due to its economic growth, foreign investment and different religion. This was obviously not the case. Even in India it appears to be that sexual harassment laws and policies are ‘weak’ and cultural implications are intertwined. Also, I was very surprised that six years ago was the first time that this was brought up because India has been economically successful over the past fifteen years with huge multinationals and foreign companies located there. However, it appears to be that South Asian countries give huge importance to culture and hence formulate their laws around that very aspect even if it means differentiating themselves from the rest of the world’s definition of what is the "right" thing to do.

Get Excited For Cubicles

2007-04-26T15:18:00.000-04:00

Since many of us are in our last days as undergrads and we will soon find ourselves in a small cubicle that will be our workplace home. I found this kind of shorter article about some of the do's and don'ts of cubicle etiquette. I think that most of the advice is legitimate, although I think you're boss might disagree with you turning off your cell phone at work. anyway it is kind of lighter article to ease some of the mood and tension of "dead week" But it's still dealing with censorship issues and workplace privacy. Let me know if you agree or disagree with any of these guidelines

Cubicle Etiquette

Does Title IX make retaliation illegal?

2007-04-26T14:27:00.000-04:00

Here is an article i read that is a little old (2003) but it talks about a coach who was a whistle-blower in saying that his women's teams did not have the same opportunities and facilities as the men's teams. After he complained he got negative performance evaluations, and was finally removed from his coaching position. But continued to hold a tenured position as a physical education teacher at the school. He says that his removal from coaching was retaliatory.

So does Title IX prohibit not only sex discrimination itself, but also retaliation against those who complain about sex discrimination? And another thing to think about is if a person can sue for retaliation?

I couldn't find out if the supreme court took the case and what the outcome was, but if anyone finds anything let me know!

Discrimination and Harassment: South Asia vs. USA (by Fatima)

2007-04-25T13:00:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow my team and I will be talking about sexual harassment policies in the USA v. Pakistan. My team and I chose this topic especially because they were interested in exploring the topic from a first hand perspective. However, on researching for the presentation I also learned so many facts about Pakistan law that I was unaware of. Even though this is going to be a very drastic comparison (comparison of a first world nation to a third world) it is something enlightening to understand some of the South Asian laws in general. In such a fast paced economy today, where men and women are on equal footing in most nations, some nations are still holding on to the past. Many people argue that in some countries like Saudi Arabia women are not put in the forefront even when they are capable. Most people argue that this is done to protect and safeguard women, and because most clients would not like to deal with women. I wonder if safeguarding women and keeping the clients satisfied can be seen as a mission of firms, or can it still be regarded as discrimination? What do you think??

Health Care Debate (by Fatima)

2007-04-25T12:58:00.000-04:00

Lauren, Kelley and Sara's presentation on Health Care debate was especially interesting and insightful in many aspects. I come from a country where the private sector health care is very limited in nature, and most people have to make do with the universal health care which is of very poor quality.Here in the USA, the private sector health care is flourishing and I know many of my family friends that either wish to come to USA to get medically treated, or wish to come here to study so that they can become successful doctors in the US. I believe that even though it is very hard to justify that why a 70 year old woman would not get treated just because she cannot afford it, it happens to be the inevitable truth that the private sector health care is driven by monetary incentive. This incentive leads to a much higher quality of health care provided to citizens.Today, some of the diseases that have been eradicated from the world such as small pox, are due to the fact that private companies had monetary incentive to come up with wonder drugs. To simply analyze this issue from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, it does not make sense for a pharmacuetical company to spend so much time and effort in creating a new drug other than them having a moral imperative towards the public.

(Professor Prenkert's Comment: Fatima's Blogger account is messed up, so her posts are going to be showing up under my name.)

Data Protection in the European Union

2007-04-24T21:43:00.000-04:00

Our group tomorrow is going to talk about privacy law between the United States and the European Union. I am concentrating on data protection between the two countries. A relevant court case which broadened the European Union General Privacy Directive is the Lindqvist decision. I will discuss it more in our presentation, but I felt it would be relevant to post the entire scenario of the case on the blog. Here is the link: http://www.olswang.com/news.asp?page=newssing&sid=125&aid=670. With the European Union having more uniform rules with privacy and the United States being more self-regulatory, how do you think the courts would have interpreted a case like this in the United States. Let me know what you think after hearing our presentation tomorrow.

Watch Out! Don't fire a complaining employee.

2007-04-24T15:08:00.000-04:00

Here is an interesting article about at-will in America form this week's BusinessWeek. This is one of the major issues I have been dealing with the more I learn in this class. Frankly, I am still very afraid of just what can happen when you have to fire someone. I understand better now the need to keep documentation of every contact with each employee/person (this is why I prefer to e-mail everything now), but still this doesn't protect from a lawsuit. In the article GE was sued because of alleged discrimination, but the judge said the proof was so weak he wouldn't allow the plaintiff to present the discrimination as evidence. However, the plaintiff was awarded $11.1 million because of the alleged retaliation stemming from complaining about the alleged "discrimination" complaints!

Enough with the French

2007-04-24T14:57:00.000-04:00

After yesterday's love fest with France, I was feeling down about the good old US of A so I wanted to look into if there was something that I could find in American employment law that could make up for our health care being so inferior to France's. I know yesterday's presenters showed us that graphic about how much Americans spend on health care. I also remember hearing that our medical systems are successful just not accessible. So what about our wonderful capitalist society makes medicine affordable to most Americans? And what monetary law were we discussing last week? That's right minimum wage laws.

So knowing American minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, I found this website that said that French minimum wage is 7.61 Euros/hr (approx. $10.35) starting with people who work 39 hrs a week.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/07/study/tn0507101s.html Unfortunately we lose again, Dang it!

Can any restore my faith in our country? What makes up for our low minimum wage and unaccessable healthcare?

Discussing Virginia Tech

2007-04-24T12:29:00.000-04:00

Obviously universities around the country have been affected by the tragic events that took place last week at Virginia Tech. Towards the end of last week, an adjunct professor at Emmanuel College in Boston was fired for leading a discussion about the events that took place in Blacksburg, Virginia. The article I found from AHN gives a very mild description of the events that took place in the classroom. However, a video shown on CNN gives a more descriptive analysis of the specific actions of the professor. Specifically, the administration at Emmanuel College had apparently asked their instructors to engage students on the issues surrounding the tragedy. The recently fired professor gave a lecture where he paced around a classroom and simulated murdering students by pointing a marker at them individually and saying "bang". The lecture was intended to promote the discussion of the public's "celebration of victimhood". The professor considers his dismissal as being a challenge to academic exploration and free speech.

At this point, it is unclear whether or not this professor was the subject of employment at-will or bound to a contract. Regardless of the terms of his employment, should this individual have been fired based on his actions? Although it seems that the professor's actions could be construed as insensitive, his actions did meet the guidelines set forth by Emmanuel College. Does the college bear any responsibility for not approving or reviewing this lecture before it was given to students? Does the professor's firing infringe upon his first amendment rights? Tell me what you think.

The Young and Uninsured

2007-04-23T16:59:00.000-04:00

Kelley, Lauren, and Sara's informative presentation today reminded me of an article I'd read recently. It is from New York magazine and discusses how many young people don't have healthcare.

It makes interesting points about the ineffectiveness of our healthcare system and how as a group, our generation has been passed up. It also talks about how we generally think that we are healthy and don't need any type of care (as Kelley mentioned). I know it's a long article, but it is definitely worth your time!

http://nymag.com/news/features/29723/

It's Not as Private as You Think

2007-04-20T09:51:00.000-04:00

While Little 5's weeklong festivities are something to get excited about, it also got me thinking about a more serious employment topic that we touched on a few months ago.

Privacy issues and the internet have become more prevalent in the last few years. It is a neccessity to realize that your online profiles (Facebook, Myspace, etc) are available to anyone who is interested, even employers. As graduating or soon to be graduating, students should keep this in mind when posting those great pics. Don't forget that there are privacy options that you can take advantage of so that you are only visible to your friends.

This article gives some examples of the negatives that can happen when you're not too careful. Check it out.

A World-Wide (Web) Convergence on a Single Topic?

2007-04-20T08:39:00.000-04:00

It seems that everyone was talking about work-life/work-family balance issues this week. Check out these two posts from Workplace Prof Blog:

First, the Workplace Profs report that Georgetown University Law Center has received a sizeable grant to continue its efforts on the Workplace Flexibility 2010 initiative, which is "a campaign to support the development of a comprehensive national policy on workplace flexibility." The website for the program describes the goal of the initiative as follows: "By the year 2010, we hope to have helped develop consensus-based policy solutions that work for business and families."

Second, on Wednesday as we were discussing the very topic in class, the EEOC was hosting a discussion about Family Responsibility Discrimination. The meeting included testimony by Joan Williams, director of the Center on WorkLife Law at UC-Hastings College of the Law (the organization whose webpage you read for class on Wednesday); Zachary Fasman of Paul, Hastings; Heather Boushey, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Jennifer Tucker, Center for Women Policy Studies; and Elizabeth Grossman, EEOC Regional Attorney. Cynthia Calvert, also of Hasting's WorkLife Law center, has a more extensive post about the discussion at the WorkLife Law Blog. You will note that the panelists comment negatively about the "sex-plus" concept, which I mentioned in class on Wednesday.

I thought this was a nice convergence of news on the topic we were discussing at the very time we were discussing it.

A Career Path to Motherhood?

2007-04-19T15:09:00.000-04:00

I was doing some more thinking about what Professor Prenkert said about the debate surrounding the FMLA and other work/family balance issues. Is it as he suggested, a choice only for the upper middle class and above? I had never considered that issue, but the more time I spend thinking I believe that is the case. A senior at The George Washington University, Juliet Moser wrote an op-ed for the New York Times this week. In the piece, "A Letter to My Mother" (NYT Select, you can sign up for a free two week trial). Ms. Moser discusses her feelings on the work/family debate. She begins by saying that she wants "no ankle biters" (children) of her own, but later in the letter wonders if she will "wake up one day and decide that my 22-year old self was ridiculous and that I do want children--hordes of them?" She worries that if that does happen, it'll be too late. Ms. Moser believes that she'll lack the option to make the choice of having children after establishing herself professionally because "opting out is the domain of a privileged few." Another point that Ms. Moser makes I found especially interesting. She refers to the increasing number of well-educated women who plan to spend only a few years in the workplace and wonders what effect that has on women like her who plan to remain childless. She asks if employers will consider her as a "flight risk" and limit her the opportunities needed for advancement in a career because she has the ability to bear children.

The phenomenon of well-educated women leaving (or never entering) the workplace is analyzed in an article mentioned by Ms. Moser and published in the NYT in 2005. The article "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood" (again, NYT Select) describes a study of female students at top universities in the United States. Sixty percent of those interviewed said that they planned to stop working entirely or cut back on work when they had children. Of that 60%, half planned to stop entirely and half planned to work part time. Many of those interviewed were planning on attending graduate school and then becoming full-time mothers. They believed it was impossible to be a professional and a good mother.

What are your thoughts? Is it possible to combine both jobs (career & children) or does a total choice need to be made between the two to succeed?

Pay Disparity between Men and Women

2007-04-19T10:59:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's class discussion regarding pay differences got me thinking. Considering it is something that affects all of us, I wanted to get some real numbers and here is what I found:

EARNINGS--Women's median weekly earnings in 2005: $585 for full-time wage and salary workers, $722 for men.
Overall, women’s earnings as a percent of men’s were 81.0 percent.
Women's median hourly earnings: $10.31 for those paid hourly rates, $12.16 for men.

2006: The median weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers was $600, or 81 percent of men’s $743. When comparing the median weekly earnings of persons aged 16 to 24, young women earned 94% of what young men earned ($395 and $418, respectively).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January 2006.

However, I also found this article:
http://www.forbes.com/work/compensation/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html
It gives a completely different point of view than most of us had in class and raises some interesting points.
Let me know what you think!

I also didn't forget that Valerie mentioned the difference between women and women with children is even greater. I think that pay disparities within genders is just as important; unfortunately, I couldn't find numbers on the topic.

Work-Life Balance

2007-04-18T19:41:00.000-04:00

In our discussion in class today about work-life balance, I kept thinking about a statistic I once heard about Americans, Europeans, and vacation days. I tried to find it online but I had no success so I will tell you and you can believe me or not. Americans on average are given 2 weeks of vacation or personal days a year, while the European average is more like 4-6 weeks of paid leave (depending on the country). I did find support for this. One website gives the average number of vacation days per country, and another gives the minimum number of paid vacation days per country that a company must give it's employees. I remember when I was in Italy last summer being told by an Italian friend that Italians usually get 6 weeks of vacation time and it would be extremely uncommon for an Italian not to take every single day possible. In the U.S. it's rare for an employee to take the full 2 weeks that they are given. So when we sit around discussing how we all want to have work-life balance, I guess we need to remember that some of it is in our hands. In our society it seems that there is a sense of guilt associated with taking a day off, and personally I don't think that's a positive thing. What do you think about the topic? Is it bad or good that there is a pressure not to ever take a day off work? Do you think it speaks of work ethic or obsessiveness?

Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession

2007-04-18T19:28:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned I would do in class, I'm posting this to direct you to the website for Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession. Here is also a post on the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog discussing the group and its goals.

IU Employee Wages

2007-04-17T21:55:00.000-04:00

The Indiana minimum wage that the Bloomington area adopted, which was described in the article from class, applies to Indiana University employees. I work at the IU golf course, and recently talked to my boss about the minimum wage that he is required to pay his course maintenance employees. He notified me that the University mandates a $9 minimum wage for these employees. This wage however is much higher than what I started out at in a golf course in Ft. Wayne, IN that I worked at with basically the same duties. So, my question is if you think the University is being somewhat careless with its money in paying this high of a wage in an area with a relatively cheap standard of living? Although it benefits me, I feel the University is not being economically efficient with how it distributes some of their employee wages. I know this is not a very popular topic, but thought it was relevant to the discussion we had in class.

Depression? Isn't that just a fancy word for feeling "bummed out"?

2007-04-17T20:08:00.000-04:00

If you're a fan of The Office, you probably recognize the title. Our impending discussion of work-life balace and last week's episode of The Office got me thinking, what are the psychological and emotional threats of excessive work? How many people suffer from depression as a result of job-related stress? What kind of steps do employers need to take to ensure the mental and emotional safety of their employees?

Why such stress? According to an article in Workforce Performance Magazine, "Among industrialized economies, the U.S. ranks as one of the highest in average annual hours worked per person, a rank that has remained virtually unchanged since 1990, according to statistics from the International Labor Organization at the United Nations." The American Institute of Stress published the following statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safet and Health (NIOSH) on their website (http://www.stress.org/job.htm).

40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful;

25% view their jobs as the number one stressor in their lives;

Three fourths of employees believe that workers have more on-the-job stress than a generation ago;

29% of workers felt quite a bit or extremely stressed at work;

26 percent of workers said they were "often or very often burned out or stressed by their work";

Job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family problems.

So what can employers do to prevent the adverse effects of a poor work/life balance and promote a healthy and productive environment? Employers can provide flexible working hours, such as a compressed work week. This allows workers to work more during four days of the week to allow for a longer weekend. Some employers allow their workers to work from home which provides the employees with a more comfortable environment. Employers should also monitor the satisfaction of their employees with their work/life balance. This can help the employer to establish guidelines for the business that will allow employees' personal obligations to be met. Many employers also provide the option for maternity and even paternity leave (as Daya mentioned).

As an employee, it is important to take time for yourself. And you can always remember Michael Scott's wise words, "An office is only as safe as the people in it."

Stay at Home Dads

2007-04-17T18:49:00.000-04:00

Be honest. What do you think of when you hear "stay at home dad"? Like Dunham's article referred, do you find it synonymous with "couldn't find work"?

For our research paper, I read "Discrimination by Default: How Racism becomes Routine" and it briefly touched on the idea of women as caregivers. We assume women are naturally more affectionate, "motherly", and have certain domestic roles. Employers often only apply maternity leave to mothers, and fathers are not given the same workplace benefits a woman might receive. These stereotypes create a self-fulfilling cycle that force women to be the primary caregiver and possibly discourage willing fathers from taking on the role. This subtle discrimination is so ingrained that we may not even realize we are participating in it.

If you are interested in the life of a stay at home dad, check out rebeldad.com, one father's blog devoted to such topics. I found this particular post very interesting:
A 2005 Gannon University study, for example, found that the most popular child-rearing books used mother twice as often as father when referring to parenting in general. According to the study, even when the authors used gender-neutral language, it was usually clear that they were speaking to mothers. Why else would they suggest parental stress-management techniques that included "getting one's nails done" and "talking with a girlfriend"?

Clearly, even the people who *should* be more conscious of child rearing issues still have a bias towards women as caregivers.

So what are your opinions on the legal system or the attitudes of employers? Clearly we still live in a society that involves dad "bringing home the bacon" and mom barefoot and pregnant.
How were you raised? Do you think it was an equal parternship or more your mother/father doing the work?
Is it just the legal system that is at fault or do you feel there are deeper roots to this problem?
What ideas do you have to help rectify this gender-biased thinking?

Living Wage Calculator

2007-04-16T12:57:00.000-04:00

In the spirit of our upcoming living wage discussion, I have found a very interesting website that calculates the hourly wage necessary for you to live in a particular area. (http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/) The website will give you output for regional expenses for items such as food, housing, medical care, etc. for just about anywhere in the U.S. If you scroll down, you can find what the living wage for the area would be based on how many people you support. This wage is then compared to what the actual minimum wage is. You can also examine the average hourly wage for various industries and determine if a career in this field would adequately cover the necessary expenses.

For example, for Prof. Prenkert to support a wife and two kids in Bloomington, he would need to make $19.29 an hour. The minimum wage for Bloomington is only $5.15 an hour, however. If he were in the Farming, Fishing, & Forestry industry, the typical hourly wage for Bloomington is $9.95, which would mean that he would be almost $10 short of having the ability to adequately cover his expenses. (Lucky for him, he's a successful Harvard Law grad!)

Take a look at the area where you're from or where you'll be living next year. Do you notice any surprising results? As young adults entering the work force, the cost of living can be quite surprising. However, as well educated individuals with bright futures, we are not often concerned that we will be able to cover these costs. It is important to consider some of the questions Daya posed and the policy arguments for and against the living wage. Although it may not affect us directly, it is policy battle that will continue to be fought on Capital Hill. Who knows, it may be an interesting consideration for you before the next election season.

If you're interested in finding more information, I would suggest visiting ACORN's Living Wage Web Site (http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/).