Look Around HR

I am guessing these blatantly illegal ads are more common on Craig’s List than you might expect…

See my post below from yesterday for another not-so-subtle ad.

This is a definite advertising no-no…

Pictured above is a clip from an ad on Craig’s List. The title and first line indicate the company is looking for a “Young and Experienced Realtor Wanted ASAP.” It does not take a lawyer to know that the word “young” is a no-no.

Like most Craig List ads, the company is anonymous and I am not sure of their motives, but all managers, recruiters, HR pros, etc. need to know what you can and can’t say. Any indication of age- young or old- is illegal.

Isaiah Thomas and the New York Knicks made some unwanted headlines last winter when they were hammered with a multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit. Now, it looks like NASCAR has themselves in legal hot water.

I must first admit I am a huge NASCAR fan, so this is kind of hard for me to see and read, but I will be honest and say that the accusations do not look good for the auto racing body.

From the Associated Press:

The 32-year-old Grant, who is black, worked as a technical inspector responsible for certifying cars in NASCAR’s second-tier Nationwide Series from January 2005 until her termination. In the lawsuit, she alleged she was referred to as “Nappy Headed Mo” and “Queen Sheba,” by co-workers, was often told she worked on “colored people time,” and was frightened by one official who routinely made references to the Ku Klux Klan.

In addition, Grant said she was subjected to sexual advances from male co-workers, two of whom allegedly exposed themselves to her, and graphic and lewd jokes.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, lists 23 specific incidents of alleged sexual harassment and 34 specific incidents of alleged racial and gender discrimination beginning when she was hired in January 2005 through her October 2007 firing.

More…

Grant said she routinely complained to her supervisors. Two weeks after her final complaint, Grant said she was warned during the week of August 18, 2007 at Michigan International Speedway that she had engaged in “conduct unbecoming of a NASCAR representative” and would be fired unless she changed her behavior. She said the warning stemmed from a confrontation with a track official who stopped her as she passed through a gate to use the restroom.

Roughly two months later, Grant was fired, and NASCAR cited a poor work performance in ending her employment. The lawsuit claims other than a previous warning for using “street” language, Grant had never been disciplined for job performance and routinely received positive reviews.

On the surface, it looks like there were a lot of problems going on, and it looks as though they went unanswered and in the end she was terminated for complaining. Of course, we will let this play out and see what happens (unless the sides settle out of court).

On NASCARs behalf, they have done a lot of work to work on their old redneck image and have many diversity programs including Drive for Diversity and the Diversity Internship Program.

Following a Supreme Court decision last year that said an employee could not sue for wage discrimination because she did not make the claim within 180 days (as the current law states), the U.S. House passed a bill effectively stripping the statute of limitations on back pay. The Senate tried to take action, but failed to get the necessary 60 votes to end a filibuster. On top of that, the president had threatened to veto the legislation.

Read more about the legislation here.

From the New York Times:

Under a measure sponsored by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, the court’s ruling that Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a timely challenge to pay practices at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden would effectively be overturned, though Ms. Ledbetter would not benefit directly.

“Never mind that Ms. Ledbetter didn’t know about the discrimination when it first began,” Mr. Kennedy said. “Never mind that she had no means to learn of the discrimination because Goodyear kept salary information confidential. Never mind that Goodyear’s discrimination against Ms. Ledbetter continued each and every time it gave her a smaller paycheck than it gave her male colleagues.”

It looked as though this would be dead until 2009, but Kennedy, who heads the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, has brought this issue back to the fore and their will probably be a vote on it in the coming weeks.

I think, as Kennedy had admitted, the bill probably doesn’t have the 60 voted needed in the Senate. But it doesn’t mean supporters of this bill will back down anytime soon.

This bill is dangerous to HR and companies in that anyone could make a claim at anytime. This means companies will have to take the expensive step to keep records on employees for an unlimited time essentially. Add that to the fact that the managers involved may no longer be at the company and/ or memories may fade over years; and this bill is a trial lawyers dream. The litigation will be endless and hard to defend.

Regardless of what happens with this bill, HR should continue to take efforts to regularly monitor pay to make sure discriminatory cases are not going on. The best offense is a good defense, and a company can stay out of court and easily defend themselves if they stay within the law.