City of Chicago Ordinance Proposal

11/30/2011

0 Comments

 
Recently, Alderman Ameya Pawaran sponsored amendment to the City of Chicago Ordinance. This amendment would create two key changes:

(1) It would prevent employers from using credit check results to deny a person employment.

(2) The amendment also would ban discrimination against the unemployed. If you have experienced this type of discrimination, and are willing to share your experience, contact Nat Lippert at nlippert@unitehere.org to help support this amendment.

The amendment can be found here:
http://chicago.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=972504&GUID=FE6BCD20-7A42-4271-B167-74EA27164DCA&Options=Advanced&Search=
Add Comment
 

Makeup Makes Success? (Part II: Pulchrinomics)

11/21/2011

0 Comments

 
Further exploring the concept of attractive people earning more money, another recent study revealed that women who wear moderate makeup are perceived as more competent by viewers than women who are not wearing makeup or are only wearing “natural” makeup.

The makeup increases people’s perceptions of a woman’s likability, her competence and (provided she does not overdo it) her trustworthiness.  On the flip side, there is some evidence that women feel more confident when wearing makeup.

The women were photographed without makeup and in three other looks that researchers called “natural,” “professional,” and “glamorous.” Regardless of time spent looking at a picture, participants believed that the women with more makeup looked more competent than barefaced women.  Interestingly, the “glamorous” look did suffer a serious drawback – a lowering of trust of the viewer. The study can be found here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025656.

While employees may want to consider the recent beauty studies or pulchrinomics, when approaching work, beauty is only skin deep – none of these studies address the long-term effects of wearing makeup on perceptions or, more importantly, the quality of work done by these women, which does not depend on makeup or beauty.
Add Comment
 

Employer’s “Restructure” Because of Pregnancy and FMLA

11/17/2011

0 Comments

 
Last week, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded a District Court decision granting an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a Title VII and FMLA case.  Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, No. 10-3330 (November 9, 2011). The employee alleged that the employer (SmithAmundsen) eliminated her job during a "restructure" because of the her pregnancy and to interfere with the employee’s FMLA rights.  Only two jobs where eliminated, one because of performance issues and hers because of her pregnancy and use of FMLA leave.

The Human Resources Director actually said to Makowski that "was let go because of the fact that [she] was pregnant . . . and took medical leave."  However, the District Court (Judge Darrah) excluded the evidence as "hearsay." The Seventh Circuit held that the District Court erred in doing so because the evidence fell within an exception to hearsay - “admission.” While the Director was not personally involved in termination decision, the Director’s duties “encompass[ed] some responsibility related to ‘the decision making process’” affecting the termination.  The Director here consulted with decision-makers leading up to Makowski’s termination decisions and she was responsible for compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. 
Add Comment
 

Attractive people are more successful? (Part I: Pulchrinomics)

11/16/2011

0 Comments

 
The cold hard truth is yes, according to Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas in Austin.  His study suggests that beautiful people are paid more, get hired faster, and are generally more successful while parallel disadvantages face those who are viewed as being ugly.

In analyzing this, Hamermesh has created a new kind of economics: "pulchrinomics," the economics of beauty.

According to his research, good-looking people are likely to earn an average of 3% to 4% more than a person with below-average looks resulting in $230,000 more over a lifetime for the typical good-looking person. Even an average-looking worker is likely to make $140,000 more over a lifetime than an ugly worker.

Hamermesh points out that while beautiful people earn more, beauty is only one factor that affects how much one earns. Individuals can still emphasize those things that they are good at, focusing on intelligence, personality, and other strengths.

For more, see his book, "Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful."
Add Comment
 

In Litigation, Never Rest!

11/10/2011

0 Comments

 
Most lawyers know better than to rest on their laurels during litigation.  One in a while, a lawyer misses the memo, so the Seventh Circuit sent it again in a decision this week where the plaintiff's attorney did nothing in the case for over a year!  The Court not only dismissed the case but held the attorney's actions were sanctionable.

In Sambrano v. Mabus, No. 10-3430 (November 8, 2011), the 7th Cir. affirmed the District Court, holding that the District Court did not err in dismissing the case for want of prosecution where one year had elapsed without the federal employee taking any discovery in the case regarding her claims of race, sex, age, and disability discrimination.

On appeal, the employee's attorney argued that Local Rule 41.1 (permitting dismissal for want of prosecution) was unconstitutional, but the The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument.

However, the Seventh Circuit noted that the employee had failed to comply with Circuit Rule 30(a) by failing to attach the District Court’s memoranda which explained its decision that employee wanted to appeal. Rule 30(d) requires certification of compliance with 30(a), which counsel provided, but which was false as he did not comply.  The Seventh Circuit held that violation of Circuit Rule 30 was sanctionable and required employee's counsel to show why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions and discipline for filing frivolous appeal and for violating Circuit Rule 30(a).
Add Comment
 

Nursing Mothers in Illinois

11/07/2011

0 Comments

 
The are several laws in Illinois that protect nursing mothers at work and throughout Illinois.  Because of these laws, Illinois employers may not prohibit nursing women from breastfeeding or expressing milk at the workplace and must provide them with reasonable times and private facilities to do so.

More specifically, 720 ILCS 5/11-9 states that breast-feeding of infants is not an act of public indecency.  That is reinforced in the Right to Breastfeed Act (“the Act”), which guarantees nursing mothers the right to breastfeed in any location, public or private, as long as the nursing mother is authorized to be at that location. Further, nursing mothers’ are not liable if any part of her breast is exposed for the purpose of breastfeeding. If the owner or manager of a public or private location, other than a place of worship or residence, denies a woman the right to breastfeed, the mother may sue to enjoin future denials of her right to breastfeed and may recover attorney's fees and expenses.

The Act compliments the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act (the “NMWA”). NMWA requires employers who employ five or more people (excluding immediate family members) to provide employees a reasonable unpaid break time each day to express breast milk for her infant child, unless the break time would "unduly disrupt the employer's operations." The break time may run concurrently with any break time already provided to the employee. Additionally, employers must make reasonable efforts to provide nursing women a private room close to the work area to express milk.  A bathroom stall expressly is not an acceptable private location.
Add Comment