Law Firm HR Decisions Law Firm HR Decisions and Policies and Policies ARTHUR R EHRLICH ARTHUR R EHRLICH GOLDMAN & EHRLICH GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 20 SOUTH CLARK STREET 20 SOUTH CLARK STREET SUITE 500 SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 312-332-6733 312-332-6733 [email protected][email protected]www.GoldmanEhrlich.com www.GoldmanEhrlich.com Follow me on Twitter @GoldmanEhrlich Follow me on Twitter @GoldmanEhrlich
16
Embed
Law Firm HR Decisions and Policies ARTHUR R EHRLICH GOLDMAN & EHRLICH 20 SOUTH CLARK STREET SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 312-332-6733 [email protected].
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Law Firm HR DecisionsLaw Firm HR Decisionsand Policiesand Policies
ARTHUR R EHRLICHARTHUR R EHRLICHGOLDMAN & EHRLICHGOLDMAN & EHRLICH
20 SOUTH CLARK STREET20 SOUTH CLARK STREETSUITE 500SUITE 500
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS ALSO PROHIBITFEDERAL AND STATE LAWS ALSO PROHIBIT. . .. . .
GENDER STEREOTYPINGGENDER STEREOTYPING
ARREST RECORDARREST RECORD
MARITAL STATUSMARITAL STATUS
UNION LIKE OR UNION RELATED ACTIVITIESUNION LIKE OR UNION RELATED ACTIVITIES
FACEBOOK POSTS THAT DISCUSS WORK CONDITIONS FOR FACEBOOK POSTS THAT DISCUSS WORK CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEESEMPLOYEES
““LIKING” PARTICULAR FACEBOOK POSTS DISCUSSING WORK LIKING” PARTICULAR FACEBOOK POSTS DISCUSSING WORK CONDITIONSCONDITIONS
PROVING A DISCRIMINATION PROVING A DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION CLAIMOR RETALIATION CLAIM
A.A. DIRECT EVIDENCE DIRECT EVIDENCE
1.1. “You Are Just Too Old for this “You Are Just Too Old for this Job”Job”
PROVING A DISCRIMINATION PROVING A DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION CLAIMOR RETALIATION CLAIM
B.B. DIRECT METHOD OR INDIRECT METHODDIRECT METHOD OR INDIRECT METHOD1.1. YOU DON’T NEED A SMOKING GUNYOU DON’T NEED A SMOKING GUN
2.2. COMBINATION VARIOUS STATEMENTS, ACTIONS AND COMBINATION VARIOUS STATEMENTS, ACTIONS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT TOGETHER CREATES A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT TOGETHER CREATES A “CONVINCING MOSAIC OF DISCRIMINATION.”“CONVINCING MOSAIC OF DISCRIMINATION.”
ASKING AN OLDER EMPLOYEE WHEN HE PLANS ON ASKING AN OLDER EMPLOYEE WHEN HE PLANS ON RETIRING OR ASKING HIS AGE AND LETTING HIM RETIRING OR ASKING HIS AGE AND LETTING HIM
GO GO SHORTLY THEREAFTER DISCOVERING HE IS 50SHORTLY THEREAFTER DISCOVERING HE IS 50
MOSIAC CAN BE CREATED IN MANY MOSIAC CAN BE CREATED IN MANY WAYSWAYS
SUSPICIOUS STATEMENTS OR ACTSSUSPICIOUS STATEMENTS OR ACTS
a.a. “YOU DON’T FIT OUR PROFILE”“YOU DON’T FIT OUR PROFILE”
b.b. FAILING TO HIRE ANYONE OVER THE FAILING TO HIRE ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 40AGE OF 40
TREATING SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES TREATING SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S PROTECTED OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S PROTECTED CLASSIFICATION MORECLASSIFICATION MORE FAVORABLY IN SIMILAR FAVORABLY IN SIMILAR SITUATIONSSITUATIONS
PRETEXTPRETEXT
EMPLOYER’S ARTICULATED REASON FOR THE EMPLOYER’S ARTICULATED REASON FOR THE ACTION DID NOT ACTUALLY MOTIVATE THE ACTION DID NOT ACTUALLY MOTIVATE THE ACTIONACTION
THE ARTICULATED REASON HAS NO BASIS IN THE ARTICULATED REASON HAS NO BASIS IN FACTFACT
THE ALLEGED REASONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO THE ALLEGED REASONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MOTIVATE THE ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFFMOTIVATE THE ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF
WHO IS SUBJECT TO WHO IS SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATION LAWSDISCRIMINATION LAWS
ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED FOR ONLY ONE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED FOR
DISABILITY OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE DISABILITY OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS UNDER THE ILL HUMAN RIGHTS ACTILL HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED BEFORE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FILED BEFORE
CITY CHICAGO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS CITY CHICAGO COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
ORORCOOK COUNTY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOOK COUNTY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
IMPORTANTIMPORTANT MISCONCEPTIONS TO BE MISCONCEPTIONS TO BE AWARE OF AS AN EMPLOYER ABOUT AWARE OF AS AN EMPLOYER ABOUT
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMSDISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
NUMBER 1:NUMBER 1: NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS LYINGIS LYING
PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING
IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION NUMBER 2NUMBER 2
NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS OUT TO NOT EVERY PLAINTIFF IS OUT TO MAKE A BUCKMAKE A BUCK
NOR ARE THEY IN IT JUST FOR THE NOR ARE THEY IN IT JUST FOR THE MONEYMONEY
IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION IMPORTANT MISCONCEPTION NUMBER 3NUMBER 3
EVERYONEEVERYONE IS PREJUDICED TO SOME IS PREJUDICED TO SOME DEGREE, DEGREE,
THAT INCLUDES YOUTHAT INCLUDES YOU, , THE EMPLOYEES WORKING THE EMPLOYEES WORKING
FOR YOU,FOR YOU, AND YOUR SUPERVISORSAND YOUR SUPERVISORS
BUT I HAVE NO PREJUDICES!!!
YES YOU DO
THERE IS NO LOGIC TO THERE IS NO LOGIC TO PREJUDICE PREJUDICE
IT IS NOT TYPICALLY AN ALL OR IT IS NOT TYPICALLY AN ALL OR NOTHING PROPOSITIONNOTHING PROPOSITION
BOTTOM LINE:
A. BE OPEN MINDED TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAYBE SOME MERIT TO AN ALLEGATION OF
DISCRIMINATION
B. DO A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AS WARRANTED BY THE ALLEGATIONS
C. EXPEDITIOUSLY ADDRESS COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARASSMENT
DO NOT REJECT THEM OUT OF HAND
PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO
HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION OF EVENTSOF EVENTS
A.A. FIRST RULE: FIRST RULE:
CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY
CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY
CONSISTENCYCONSISTENCY
PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE WHO
HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION HAS AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION OF EVENTSOF EVENTS