By mj55068 October 02, 2013
The guys at Allegiant tracked down the information I needed to win my lawsuit. They are professional and were very fast. I highly recommend them. ...read more
By societygirl June 16, 2013
Our office got new phones from c2m last week, and we could not be happier. The sales guy, Ben, was at our beck and call for almost a month while we decided. He would answer every little nit picky thing we had questions about. The installation went seamlessly even though we did it during business hours! Our hats are off to you c2m! Keep up the good work. ...read more
By Web Design Pittsburgh PA WebOneDay.com June 01, 2012
Weboneday.com Thank You For The Connection Win a Free $50 Visa Gift Card we just launched our new company just like us on www.facebook.com/24webdesign ...read more
Posted on September 25, 2013 by Ilyse SchumanThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently responded to a letter sent by a number of state attorneys general urging the agency to reconsider its guidance on the use of criminal background checks in employment. The guidance at issue – Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – has been criticized since its release last year.The letter from the attorneys general took issue with, among other things, the EEOC’s application of disparate impact analysis to an employer’s use of criminal history screens, which was the subject of two recently-filed lawsuits. According to the EEOC, the criticism is based on a “misunderstanding” of what the guidance suggests, and emphasized it is not illegal for employers to conduct or use the results of criminal background checks. The agency explains that the guidance does not urge or require employers to use individualized assessments instead of bright-line screens. Instead, the letter states that the guidance encourages a two-step process for job applicants, with individualized assessment as the second step. Under this process, an employer would first use a “targeted” screen of criminal records, which the EEOC says “considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job.” Following the use of a targeted screen, employers have the opportunity to individually assess the applicants that were screened out by the first step. According to the EEOC:using individualized assessment in this manner provides a way for employers to ensure that they are not mistakenly screening out qualified applicants or employees based on incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant information, and for individuals to correct errors in their records. The Guidance’s support for individualized assessment only for those who are identified by the targeted screen also means that individualized assessments should not result in “significant costs” for businesses.The EEOC further contends that the individualized assessment “is a safeguard that can help an employer to avoid liability when it cannot demonstrate that using only its targeted screen would always be job related and consistent with business necessity.”The EEOC also responds to another assertion in the attorneys general letter that the Guidance “purports to supersede state and local hiring laws that impose bright-line criminal background restrictions that are not narrowly tailored.” The agency responds that the EEOC’s Guidance is simply reciting and applying the text of Title VII, which sets forth the principle that federal law preempts contradictory state or local law.That the EEOC saw the need to address these issues indicates that there remains much confusion over the legality of when and how to conduct such background checks. A federal district court in Maryland recently dismissed an EEOC Title VII lawsuit against an employer over alleged discriminatory background checks. The court noted that employers have legitimate and at times “essential” business reasons for conducting such inquiries.Photo credit: Kirby HamiltonOriginal article posted on Washington DC Employment Law Update blog at http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2013/09/articles/eeoc-1/eeoc-clarifies-guidance-on-criminal-background-checks/?goback=%2Egde_103488_member_277093372#%21 ...read more
By Allegiant Investigations October 03, 2013
by Janette S Levey from The Emplawyerologist Last week at The Emplawyerologist we looked at when and why an employer might need or want to conduct a workplace investigation. This week, we will look at whoshould conduct the investigation. We already know that employers in situations described last week (click here for review) are among those who should or must begin an investigation. This focus is on which person or entity on behalf of the employer should conduct the investigation? Can/should it be HR? In-house counsel? Maybe outside counsel or even an outside investigator? Is an outside investigator really necessary? Does it really matter who does the investigation on behalf of the employer? If so, why? We will address these and other questions after the jump. In order to answer the questions raised before the jump, we need to look at some recent (and two less recent) U.S. Supreme Court cases. In June, the US Supreme Court decided Vance v Ball State University No. 11-556 (2013), and University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v Nasser No. 12-484, 6/24/13. In turn those cases build somewhat on Ellerth v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 524 US 742 (1998); and Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 US 775 (1998) (these cases were apparently decided more or less together, as the issues overlapped). In Faragher and Ellerth, the Court held that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are vicariously and strictly liable for their supervisors’ workplace harassment of, and/or discriminatory conduct toward, employees. What is the difference between strict and vicarious liability? Strict liability is liability without regard to fault or bad faith. An employer who is strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassment will be liable even if it took all appropriate steps to stop or prevent the supervisor’s behavior. The employer’s good faith efforts do not matter. Here, the employer is also vicariously liable, meaning the supervisor’s acts in effect are the employer’s. In contrast, with harassment or other misconduct perpetrated by a co-worker who is not a supervisor, the employer’s good faith does matter, and can mitigating an employer’s liability. An employer is “only” vicariously liable for harassment or discrimination inflicted by employees’ co-workers if the employer was negligent in either discovering or remedying the offending conduct. An employer therefore can escape liability for a co-workers harassment and/or discriminatory conduct if it proves: a) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the behavior; and b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to otherwise avoid harm. Why do we have this difference? The rationale is that employers give supervisors authority to act on behalf of the employer and that employers should bear the risk of any supervisor behavior that abuse that authority. Farragher and Ellerth did not actually decide the question of who qualifies as a supervisor. Vance essentially articulated the standard for determining who is a supervisor for purposes of deciding when an employer will be strictly liable for harassing and/or discriminatory behavior. I will not digress further into specifics about Vance here, though if you are interested you can click here to read the opinion. Finally, in University of Texas SW Medical Center v Nassar, , the US Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff alleging unlawful retaliation for protected opposition to suspected discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act must prove that “but for” the retaliation s/he would not have suffered the adverse employment action. The alleged retaliation cannot simply one motivating factor among many for the adverse employment action. What might these cases tell us about who should conduct workplace investigations on behalf of employers? Remember, the first requirement of the Faragher/Ellerthdefense is proving exercise of reasonable care in preventing and/or promptly correcting the behavior in question. The investigation becomes the most important tool available to help you, the employer, figure out your ultimate response to the allegations. How else could you determine what most likely happened, let alone the appropriate response? Similarly, where an employees alleges that s/he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about harassment or discrimination, how does an employer successfully argue that other factors led to the termination without investigating? So, an investigation may be necessary, but what does it matter who investigates on the employer’s behalf? What happens to your Faragher/Ellerth defense If you have just anyone conducting the investigation,and that person does a poor job? If you use someone who is not knowledgeable of the relevant laws, you risk losing your defense. What if the person is biased? How can that person conduct a fair, impartial, thorough and appropriate investigation that protects you, the employer, from liability? The US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio addressed this and other concerns in EEOC v. Spitzer Case Nos. 1:06CV2337 and 1:08CV1326, 1:08CV1542 and 1:09CV255. In that case, the employer’s attorney also conducted the investigation. The case ended in a mistrial after the court learned that the employer did not turn over the attorney’s notes from the investigation of discrimination allegations during discovery. The judge, for that and many other reasons, sanctioned the employer to the tune of $300,000. The court noted that since the employer “relied heavily on the Faragher-Ellerth defense in this matter”, that the “heart of the defense would necessarily center around how [the employer] responded to [and] investigated complaints of harassment and discrimination”. The judge’s analysis alluded to the conflict of interest inherent when an employer asserts this defense and uses its in-house or usual outside counsel, who will likely be called as a fact witness at trial. So, how do you ensure that you have the right person conducting the workplace investigation? Here are some points you should first answer: Whoever conducts the investigation will likely get called as a witness in a lawsuit. Since your attorney cannot also be a witness, s/he should not conduct the investigation if you want him/her as the attorney of record in a lawsuit. The person conducting the investigation should be knowledgeable of the relevant federal and state employment laws. The person should be able to remain impartial while conducting the investigation. When in doubt, and if the allegations are particularly serious, consider engaging an outside investigator. Many may find engaging an outside investigator to be the safest option. Is that always necessary? Employers who have competent, knowledgeable in-house HR practitioners and/or in-house counsel that they are comfortable can remain impartial and who they do not mind being witnesses at trial may opt to save themselves the extra expense. Please note however, that some states may, in some circumstances, require you to use a licensed, professional investigator (h/t Gregory Reese ). Also, note that not every allegation will warrant a full-blown investigation. Some situations may be resolved by speaking with the people involved and facilitating an understanding between the parties. So what should you do? If you do not have competent in-house counsel, then seek advice from competent outside employment counsel, and keep in mind that each situation might warrant a different answer to that question. Well, that wraps up this week’s segment. Join me next week and we will discuss the “how” of workplace investigations, aka the “do’s and don’ts”. See you then! Disclaimer: Contents of this post are for informational purposes only, are not legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with competent local employment counsel on any issues discussed here. ...read more
By Allegiant Investigations October 01, 2013
Posted on September 25, 2013 by Ilyse SchumanThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently responded to a letter sent by a number of state attorneys general urging the agency to reconsider its guidance on the use of criminal background checks in employment. The guidance at issue – Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – has been criticized since its release last year.The letter from the attorneys general took issue with, among other things, the EEOC’s application of disparate impact analysis to an employer’s use of criminal history screens, which was the subject of two recently-filed lawsuits. According to the EEOC, the criticism is based on a “misunderstanding” of what the guidance suggests, and emphasized it is not illegal for employers to conduct or use the results of criminal background checks. The agency explains that the guidance does not urge or require employers to use individualized assessments instead of bright-line screens. Instead, the letter states that the guidance encourages a two-step process for job applicants, with individualized assessment as the second step. Under this process, an employer would first use a “targeted” screen of criminal records, which the EEOC says “considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job.” Following the use of a targeted screen, employers have the opportunity to individually assess the applicants that were screened out by the first step. According to the EEOC:using individualized assessment in this manner provides a way for employers to ensure that they are not mistakenly screening out qualified applicants or employees based on incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant information, and for individuals to correct errors in their records. The Guidance’s support for individualized assessment only for those who are identified by the targeted screen also means that individualized assessments should not result in “significant costs” for businesses.The EEOC further contends that the individualized assessment “is a safeguard that can help an employer to avoid liability when it cannot demonstrate that using only its targeted screen would always be job related and consistent with business necessity.”The EEOC also responds to another assertion in the attorneys general letter that the Guidance “purports to supersede state and local hiring laws that impose bright-line criminal background restrictions that are not narrowly tailored.” The agency responds that the EEOC’s Guidance is simply reciting and applying the text of Title VII, which sets forth the principle that federal law preempts contradictory state or local law.That the EEOC saw the need to address these issues indicates that there remains much confusion over the legality of when and how to conduct such background checks. A federal district court in Maryland recently dismissed an EEOC Title VII lawsuit against an employer over alleged discriminatory background checks. The court noted that employers have legitimate and at times “essential” business reasons for conducting such inquiries.Photo credit: Kirby HamiltonOriginal article posted on Washington DC Employment Law Update blog at http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2013/09/articles/eeoc-1/eeoc-clarifies-guidance-on-criminal-background-checks/?goback=%2Egde_103488_member_277093372#%21 ...read more
By Allegiant Investigations October 01, 2013
Laptops are often the storage of personal and business information for the modern PC user. When data is compromised or lost, recovery of information can be a painful and costly process. Learning more about data recovery and understanding a few tips can help to avoid coming to the point of needing it. ...read more
Notebook computers are often harder to fix because of the size of the components and the compact design. In many cases, the problems can be resolved without requiring a technician. It is helpful to know how to diagnose and fix common problems. ...read more