U.S. workers are well aware of discrimination issues at work. Since 1964 Title VII has prohibited sex discrimination in the workplace. Other countries are catching up to U.S. equal employment standards.
A new Italian law has ended retirement age discrimination based on sex. A good thing you say? Most Americans would agree with that.
However, apparently not all Italians agree. Previously, female employees could retire at 60, 5 years earlier than men. The difference had been justified by crediting women for taking care of the family and housework.
The European Commission found the rule to be illegal, forcing Italy to change the law. The law applies only to government employees for now but it is likely to be extended to the private workforce as well.
We knew that HR law would change with a Democratic Congress and administration. Well, the changes have begun.
President Obama has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. The law overrules the 2007 Supreme Court decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., making it easier for employees to bring discrimination cases by allowing them more time to do so.
(more…)
We’re most familiar with discrimination cases and they do get most of the headlines. Retaliation issues and claims remain more obscure. That’s a big mistake. Retaliation claims are growing and are typically attached to discrimination allegations. They frequently arise when an employee or applicant claims that an organization took “adverse action” against him because he filed a discrimination complaint, acted as a witness, assisted in a discrimination investigation, or opposed unlawful practices.
On January 26, 2009 the plot thickened. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, clarified, complicated and expanded the scope of retaliation issues. The Court held that an employee, who answers questions and conveys information about discriminatory conduct during an internal investigation, is engaging in “protected activity” under Title VII. Surprisingly, to me at least, some lower courts had found that such involvement would not constitute “active” opposition under Title VII.
(more…)
