Who Says Campaigning Senators Aren't Working

Civil Rights Act of 2008 Would Change a Host of Current Labor Law

Despite the heated Presidential primaries, Senators Clinton and Obama (along with Senator Kennedy and a host of others) introduced the Civil Rights Act of 2008, S. 2554, demonstrating that there can be things done while on the campaign trail.

These changes would have a demonstrable effect on how employers train their supervisors and will affect the calculus behind allowing cases to go to trial. In other words, if you're an employer, these changes affect the ability to defend and protect yourself.
 

Here's how:

The 1991 Civil Rights Act was the first major revamping of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and provided for trial by jury and emotional distress awards, but limited damages. The 2008 version would eliminate these damage caps and those damage caps under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) allows for a "bona fide factor other than sex" defense as justification of "disparate treatment." Such a bona fide factor would be something such as education or experience, anything as long as it's not related to the sex of the employee. The changes proposed would require the defensible factor be both related to the position in question and that which furthers a legitimate business purpose, as the reason for the difference in pay. It would also expand remedies to include punitive damages where none currently exist.

Employers would also be prohibited from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers, although that has already been deemed to be a violation of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provisions. In March 2007, the Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington DC decided Cintas v National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in which it was determined that an overly broad policy concerning the confidentiality of wages and terms and conditions of employment, which could have a chilling effect on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Related information
 
Comments 1 - 5 of 5  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

I'm freaked out. Politics!

Posted on 05/04/2008 at 8:05:32 PM

Just a quick question: Are they making it to Washington to vote? I truly believe if you are going to run for office, you should still have to show up for work and if you can't, you should have given up your office to run in the first place. I can appreciate keeping your options open, but how can you say you are working for me when you aren't there voting for me? Not trying to be difficult, but asking.... I'd be interested to see how many votes everyone has missed, both Dems and Repubs while campaigning.

Posted on 04/29/2008 at 6:04:22 PM

Fragnoli said: We had an incident here where a new hire's offer letter was accidentally attached to an email blast welcoming her aboard, with that blast being sent to the entire company. Yikes! Wow, that is a big mess up! And to be honest, having worked with someone who under performed, if you make less than them and know what they make relative to you, it does tend to foment discontent!

Posted on 04/29/2008 at 6:04:13 PM

We had an incident here where a new hire's offer letter was accidentally attached to an email blast welcoming her aboard, with that blast being sent to the entire company. Needless to say, that employee's performance has been, let's say, under par. That has lead many folks that read that attachment to cite her salary to justify their own demands during reviews. Not good news.

Posted on 04/29/2008 at 6:04:35 AM

Interesting.

Posted on 04/28/2008 at 9:04:08 PM

Comments 1 - 5 of 5