Latest news with #TitleVII
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Employer settles claims that it refused to promote Black employee, fired her after bias complaint
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: A Maryland retirement community will pay $85,000 to settle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that it refused to promote a Black manager and subsequently fired her when she complained of discrimination, EEOC said in a press release Tuesday. Per the 2024 complaint, the plaintiff sought promotion to a vice president or executive director position, but was told that she was ineligible because she lacked a bachelor's degree. She alleged Westminster Ingleside King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Communities nonetheless employed a White employee who lacked a bachelor's degree as its VP of HR and promoted another White employee with the same job title as the plaintiff to an executive director role. The plaintiff later received a bachelor's degree, but EEOC claimed her supervisor ignored the plaintiff's promotion request. It also alleged she received a 'false' written warning from HR, after which the plaintiff expressed a desire to file a race discrimination charge. She was terminated shortly afterward. EEOC alleged violations of federal laws including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As part of its consent decree with EEOC, the employer did not admit wrongdoing. Dive Insight: The EEOC noted that retaliation — such as that alleged in the Westminster Ingleside lawsuit — is unlawful irrespective of the validity of an employee's claims. Such complaints 'can be early warning signs for employers,' Debra Lawrence, regional attorney at EEOC, said in the press release. 'What employers should never do is treat complaints as the problem or take adverse action against the complainant.' According to agency enforcement guidance, employers may not retaliate against employees for opposing unlawful equal employment opportunity practices. This opposition may include actions such as complaining or threatening to complain about alleged discrimination against oneself or others. Retaliation has formed the basis of previous EEOC settlements with employers, including a 2024 agreement between the agency and an employer that it alleged retaliated against three employees — including an HR manager — for raising concerns about discriminatory workplace treatment. Employers should swiftly and thoroughly investigate employee complaints — with the assistance of an external investigator if necessary, an employment law attorney wrote in an op-ed to HR Dive in March.
Atlantic
6 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Anti-Semitism Gets the DEI Treatment
To do the same thing over and over and expect a different result is one definition of insanity. According to Robert Shibley, a special counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), it's also Columbia University's approach to addressing anti-Semitism on campus. On Tuesday, Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, announced in an email to the community that the university would take several steps to quell anti-Semitism on campus. Columbia will appoint Title VI and Title VII coordinators to review allegations of discrimination. It will launch new programming around anti-Jewish discrimination, send out regular messages affirming its zero-tolerance policy on hate, and use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism for certain disciplinary proceedings. In her message, Shipman promised that the university would continue making reforms until it had stamped out anti-Semitism. 'In a recent discussion, a faculty member and I agreed that anti-Semitism at this institution has existed, perhaps less overtly, for a long while, and the work of dismantling it, especially through education and understanding, will take time,' she wrote. The message was notable for how closely it resembled the communications that university presidents have previously sent out about other forms of discrimination. Replace the references to 'anti-Semitism' with 'racism,' and Shipman's message could practically have been lifted from the statements of summer 2020. As university presidents contort themselves to respond to campus anti-Semitism, they seem to be replicating the DEI push of the past decade, bureaucracy and all. It's not just Columbia. Harvard University is also implementing new trainings, evaluating its administrative complaint structure, and adopting a more expansive definition of anti-Semitism. Franklin Foer: Columbia University's anti-Semitism problem Setting aside the question of insanity, Columbia's approach is risky: University leaders may be implementing reforms that aren't proven to work, or are proven not to work. Giving anti-Semitism the DEI treatment is also ironic: Universities are instituting these policies under pressure from the Trump administration, which is simultaneously engaged in an effort to root out DEI from governing and educational institutions across the country. Anti-Semitism is a real issue at Columbia. As my colleague Franklin Foer documented, university administrators slow-walked responses to anti-Jewish discrimination; such apathy directed at any other protected group would have led to scandal. In the days after Hamas's brutal attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Columbia's student newspaper interviewed dozens of Jewish students about life on campus. Thirteen students said they had suffered attacks or harassment. Under President Donald Trump, campus anti-Semitism has also been a pretext to wage war on universities. In March, the Trump administration used Columbia's perceived deficiencies in combating anti-Semitism as an excuse to yank $400 million in research funding. It demanded far-reaching concessions as a precondition for getting the money back. Columbia soon acquiesced to the reforms, with only minor changes. But the administration still didn't restore the funding. The two parties have been locked in protracted negotiations ever since, though they are reportedly nearing a deal. Shipman's Tuesday announcement was one attempt among many to satisfy the administration. Assaf Zeevi, an Israeli professor at Columbia's business school, told me he was encouraged by the latest reforms. He cautioned, however, that these efforts would matter only if the university demonstrates that it will discipline students who harass their Jewish peers or violate protest policies. Otherwise, the recently announced measures are no more than lip service. (Columbia did not immediately provide comment.) Universities have built up their antidiscrimination apparatuses for decades now. Yet they seemed utterly ill-equipped to address anti-Semitism on their campuses. 'It suggests that whatever tactic universities were using and the huge growth in the bureaucracy dedicated to this hasn't been effective,' Shibley told me. 'I don't think there's any reason to assume that adding some coordinators or throwing more people at the problem is going to solve it.' Rose Horowitch: The era of DEI for conservatives has begun Ineffectiveness is one concern. Here's another: As the university sets up a new anti-Semitism bureaucracy, it runs the risk of repeating the overreach of the DEI movement. What began as a well-intentioned effort to address real issues of discrimination resulted in a proliferation of administrators who, in certain instances, evolved into a sort of speech police. David Bernstein, the founder of the North American Values Institute, has criticized DEI initiatives for flattening nuanced issues. 'I don't like the idea of training anybody in ideas,' he told me. 'Just as I'm critical of DEI programs for providing simplistic answers about power and privilege to complex issues, I'm worried that campus anti-Semitism training will use the same playbook.' The appointment of new Title VI coordinators and the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism could also tend in that direction. FIRE has opposed universities adopting the IHRA definition, arguing that it could be used to punish speech that merely, if harshly, criticizes Israel's government. Universities' existing policies are sufficient to punish anti-Semitic speech, Shibley said. The problem is that schools haven't enforced them. And then there's the fact that the Trump administration, even as it has focused on addressing anti-Semitism, has pushed universities to get rid of efforts that have the faintest whiff of DEI. The notion that some version of the DEI bureaucracy is appropriate for anti-Semitism and only anti-Semitism is nonsensical. 'Ultimately, the most important thing a university can do to deal with this anti-Semitism problem is to embrace the free expression of ideas and to make sure that they have faculty who embrace a genuine liberal education," Bernstein told me. The experiments in addressing anti-Semitism are likely to continue all summer and into the next academic year. 'Hopefully, some will work,' Shibley told me. 'I'm concerned, though, that many of them are going to cause government overreach and end up causing more problems than they solve.'
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Performance reviews undermine woman's bias claim against Exxon Mobil, 7th Circuit says
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: A former laboratory technician for Exxon Mobil failed to show that the employer fired her on the basis of her sex in part because she lacked evidence to counter the company's claim that its decision hinged upon her poor performance, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a Monday decision. The plaintiff's first and only performance review placed her in the lowest-ranked performance category. Exxon gave her the option of either taking a separation agreement or resigning immediately. She chose the latter, per court documents, and sued the company for discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, alleging Exxon erred in its evaluation process and treated her less favorably than two male co-workers who held the same title, work location and managers. A district court ruled in favor of Exxon and the 7th Circuit affirmed, finding that the two male employees were not proper comparators and that the plaintiff had not shown that Exxon's decision was pretextual. Dive Insight: In its decision, the 7th Circuit repeatedly referenced Exxon's performance documentation of the plaintiff, at one point noting that she 'did not fare well in comparison' to other employees in her cohort of 'Management Assigned Category' workers, a category that included new hires with three or more years of relevant experience before joining Exxon. The company's policy dictated that MAC employees who received the lowest performance category rating be given the separation-agreement-or-resignation offer. The court noted that the plaintiff did not cite any evidence to show that her performance was comparable to other such employees. Instead, the plaintiff 'was ranked last in that unchallenged process,' it said. 'Other than the fact that [the plaintiff] is a member of a protected class, there is no evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could infer that she was terminated because of her sex,' the 7th Circuit wrote. Employers have successfully used documentation as a defense against discrimination claims in the past. In 2019, for example, the 11th Circuit held that Lowe's did not discriminate against a worker on the basis of his age or disability when it fired him following a series of investigations in response to complaints about the plaintiff from other employees. Management-side attorneys have repeatedly stressed the importance of thorough documentation, including of performance issues, in defending against lawsuits. A speaker at SHRM's 2024 annual conference told attendees that effective documentation covers a number of bases, including clear expectations of the employee, descriptions of needed adjustments, and detailed plans or action items, among other elements. Recommended Reading Scientist couldn't show NASA failed to hire him due to race, court says
The Hill
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Columbia announces additional steps to combat antisemitism amid negotiations with Trump administration
Columbia University announced Tuesday additional steps it would take to combat campus antisemitism after months of negotiations with the Trump administration to undo cuts to its funding. Among the steps, the most controversial Columbia President Claire Shipman announced was the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The definition is widely used among governments and other schools but has been criticized by left-leaning groups because it considers some anti-Zionism advocacy antisemitic. 'Columbia is committed to taking all possible steps to combat antisemitism and the University remains dedicated to ensuring that complaints of discrimination and harassment of all types, including complaints based on Jewish and Israeli identity, are treated in the same manner. Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Other actions will include appointing Title VI and Title VII coordinators, additional antisemitism training for faculty, staff and students and affirming a zero-tolerance policy for hate and antisemitism on campus. Two people familiar with the situation told The New York Times a funding deal between Columbia and the administration could come as early as this week. It could include a hefty hundred-million dollar fine and further reforms on campus. 'Our work toward an agreement with the federal government has put a harsh spotlight on many of the difficult issues regarding discrimination and harassment we've seen on our campuses. The fact that we've faced pressure from the government does not make the problems on our campuses any less real; a significant part of our community has been deeply affected in negative ways,' Shipman wrote. 'In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change. Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path. It will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change,' she added. Columbia began cooperating with the federal government after it took away over $400 million in funding for alleged inaction on antisemitism.
NBC News
16-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Federal agency shifts stance on transgender discrimination complaints, but hurdles remain
The federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination will allow some complaints filed by transgender workers to move forward, shifting course from earlier guidance that indefinitely stalled all such cases, according to an email obtained by The Associated Press. The email was sent earlier this month to leaders of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the subject line "Hot Topics," in which Thomas Colclough, director of the agency's Office of Field Programs, announced that if new transgender worker complaints involve "hiring, discharge or promotion, you are clear to continue processing these charges." But even those cases will still be subject to higher scrutiny than other types of workplace discrimination cases, requiring approval from President Donald Trump's appointed acting agency head Andrea Lucas, who has said that one of her priorities would be "defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights." Since Trump regained office in January, the EEOC has moved away from its prior interpretation of civil rights law, marking a stark contrast to a decade ago when the agency issued a landmark finding that a transgender civilian employee of the U.S. Army had been discriminated against because her employer refused to use her preferred pronouns or allow her to use bathrooms based on her gender identity. Under Lucas's leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers. Lucas defended that decision during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing in order to comply with the president's executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes. However, she acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — "did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation." Colclough acknowledged in his July 1 email that the EEOC will consider transgender discrimination complaints that "fall squarely under" the Supreme Court's ruling, such as cases involving hiring, firing and promotion. The email backtracked on an earlier policy, communicated verbally, that de-prioritized all transgender cases. The EEOC declined to comment on the specifics of its latest policy, saying: "Under federal law, charge inquiries and charges of discrimination made to the EEOC are confidential. Pursuant to Title VII and as statutorily required, the EEOC is, has been, and will continue to accept and investigate charges on all bases protected by law, and to serve those charges to the relevant employer." But even the cases that the EEOC is willing to consider under Bostock must still be reviewed by a senior attorney advisor, and then sent to Lucas for final approval. This heightened review process is not typical for other discrimination charges and reflects the agency's increased oversight for gender identity cases, former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum told The AP in a Monday phone interview. "It is a slight improvement because it will allow certain claims of discrimination to proceed," Feldblum said of the new policy. "But overall it does not fix a horrific and legally improper situation currently occurring at the EEOC." Colclough's email did not clarify how long the review process might take, or whether cases that include additional claims, such as harassment or retaliation, would be eligible to proceed, and the EEOC declined to address those questions.
