OCR Regulations (HTML) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in all Disabilities Act of 1990, whichprohibits discrimination on the Part 35 is enforced by the us Department of http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/regs/
Extractions: U.S. Department of Labor www.dol.gov Search / A-Z Index Find It!: By Topic By Audience By Top 20 Requested Items By Form ... By Location April 3, 2003 DOL Home Find It! By Topic EEO Find It! By Topic Equal Employment Opportunity Executive Order 11246 prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity without regard to those factors. E.O. 11246 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This law is enforced by the Civil Rights Center Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This law is enforced by the
Extractions: That Affect Personnel Management Various regulations and laws exist pertaining to employess. If you plan to hire individuals to work for you, some understanding of the rules that apply to your business are necessary. Federal laws, depending on your sales volume and number of employees, may supercede state laws. The following list is representative of the types of regulations and laws that may govern your business operations. Consult with the state and federal Department of Labor to learn more. An attorney's guidance can be useful in assisting you as you meet legal requirements during the establishment of your business venture. Subject Area Law / Regulation Enforcement Agency Coverage Summary Primary Penalties Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) US Dept. Of Labor, Wage Hour Division Generally, employers with 2 employees handling goods moving in interstate commerce and annual dollar sales of $500,000; certain types of employers have lower or no dollar volume thresholds. Minimum wage of $5.15/hr.; overtime pay after 40 hours/week at time and 1/2 regular rate and accurate time records required for all non-exempt employees. Child labor restrictions.
Ask Jeeves: Search Results For "Employment Law" fed. discrimination, sex discrimination, race discrimination, disability discrimination,age discrimination. us Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Home http://webster.directhit.com/webster/search.aspx?qry=Employment Law
Allegheny National Forest - Welcome! The us Department of Agriculture (usDA) prohibits discrimination in all the basisof race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/allegheny/
Extractions: The Allegheny National Forest is a scientifically managed forest that works hand in hand with the Northeastern Area Research Station. Our major programs include recreation, wood fiber, water, wildlife, cultural resources, and oil and gas. Forest Plan Revision has been approved to begin in 2003.Please be sure you take the opportunity to provide comments on how you would like to see the forest managed. News media will publicize the beginning of Forest Plan revision. Forest Plan Revision Need For Change Workshop ANF Office hours are as follows: Bradford Ranger District Office: Mon-Fri 8:00 am - 4:30 PM; Marienville Ranger District Office: Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 PM; Ridgway office of Marienville Ranger District: Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4:00 PM; Supervisor's Office: (Warren, PA) Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 PM. Tionesta Office: opens Friday, April 12 and will be staffed Thursday and Friday from 8:00 am until 4:30 and Saturday 8:00 until 2:00 PM. addresses and phone numbers of Ranger District and county Allegheny National
Automated Staffing Application Program of Agriculture (usDA) prohibits discrimination in all color, national origin, gender,religion, age, disability, political should be sent to fsjobs@fs.fed.us. http://www.fs.fed.us/people/employ/asap/
Extractions: The USDA Forest Service has implemented its Automated Staffing Application Program to process applications for various types of employment. Follow the links in the menu on the left to check out the positions being filled, how to request an application package, and more information. A menu bar at the bottom of each page will identify the section you are in and link to other sections. The jobs filled under these announcements work outside in some of the most rewarding and challenging settings found in the nation. Positions not being advertised through this program, can be retrieved from the OPM website at: www.usajobs.opm.gov. For further information regarding the Forest Service, Click Here.
USDC Mediators Bio fed Crt Mediation Skills Workshop (8 Hrs.) Nov. 1, 2002. Wilson v. Corcoran (EmploymentDiscrimination-age - us Postal Service) - Full Agreement, 12/19/2000. http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/mediation/meddbase/out-person.php?perprid=22
Age Discrimination - Opposition To MSJ fed. v. Green, 411 us 792 (1973). The plaintiff establishes a prima facie case ofage discrimination by showing (1) that he belonged to a protected class; (2 http://www.quojure.com/samples/archives/agedisc.htm
Extractions: Return to Quo Jure Archives This archival document has not been updated, and WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS STILL GOOD LAW. We do not warrant the accuracy or currency of the information it contains. We hope you will find it useful in evaluating the nature and quality of our work, but we ask that you not make further use of it for any other purpose. To preserve our original customer's confidences we have "sanitized" this document by changing names and factual details, and by deleting all references to the record. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. GROCERIES, LTD., JOHN GREEN, MARY JONES, HARRY BROWN, FRANK SMITH and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Joe Smith oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment defendants on the grounds that he has evidence that will raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendants' alleged reason for terminating him was a mere pretext. FACTS Plaintiff has worked for defendant Groceries, Ltd., at its store in Anytown, California, for 25 years. After he was promoted in his fourth year of employment, he worked as a journeyman grocery clerk until his termination. In that period, defendant Groceries, Ltd. never disciplined plaintiff and he never took time off for illness. As a result, plaintiff had accumulated a significant number of personal and sick days. When he was dismissed, plaintiff was 40 years old.
Traveling With Your Pet The us Department of Agriculture (usDA) prohibits discrimination in all basis of race,color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/petravel.html
Extractions: Traveling With Your Pet Dogs, cats, and most other warm-blooded animals transported in commerce are protected by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The U.S. Department of Agriculture¹s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces this law. APHIS¹ shipping regulations help ensure that people who transport and handle animals covered under the AWA treat them humanely. Airlines and other shippers are affected by regulations established to protect the wellbeing of animals in transit. Trip Preparation for Air Transportation Before taking a flight with your animal, have your veterinarian examine your pet to ensure that it is healthy enough to make the trip. Airlines and State health officials generally require health certificates for all animals transported by air. In most cases, health certificates must be issued by a licensed veterinarian who examined the animal within 10 days of transport. Ask your veterinarian to provide any required vaccinations or treatments. Administer tranquilizers only if specifically prescribed by your veterinarian and only in the prescribed dosage. Trips Outside the Continental United States Hawaii, U.S. territories, and certain foreign governments have quarantine or health requirements for arriving pets. For information on Hawaii¹s requirements, contact your State Veterinarian¹s office. For U.S. territories and foreign countries, contact the appropriate embassy, governmental agency, or consulate at least 4 weeks in advance. You may also contact a full-service travel agency for assistance. Additional airline requirements also exist for inter-national flights. These rules may require additional ventilation, labeling, and a shipper¹s certification. Contact your airline for information about these requirements.
Extractions: Advanced Search Options Summary of Federal Laws Employment Equal Employment Opportunity Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 Amended the definition of program or activity to clarify that if any part of the institution, agency, or corporation receives federal financial assistance, then the following listed non-discrimination laws apply to the entire institution, agency, or corporation: Proposed Regulations Publication of conforming regulations was in response to the Third Circuit decision in Cureton v. NCAA , 198 F.3d 107 (1999) Alexander v. Sandoval
Header http//lcweb.loc.gov/global/executive/fed.html/; Information on justices of the USSupreme Court http//www.feminist.org; Harassment, age discrimination and other http://www.texarkanacollege.edu/~vwilder/reference.htm
Extractions: Annotated Reference List Unit I: Introduction Pew Research Center for the American People and the Press offers survey data online on a number of topics relating to American politics and government: http://www.people-press.org Web version of the Constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html Emory University School of Law: access to a number of early American documents: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL National Constitution Center in Philadelphia: http://www.libertynet.org/~ncc/ Constitutions of almost all the states: http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ Constitutions of various other countries: http://www.eur.nl/iacl/const.html Congressional information: http://thomas.loc.gov C-Span: http://www.c-span.org Bureau of the Census: http://www.census.gov American Conservative Union: http://www.conservative.org/ Americans for Democratic Action: http://www.adaction.org/
Internal Civil Rights Related Statutes And Other Authorities for the armed forces, including the us Coast Guard. than age; to prohibit arbitraryage discrimination in employment arising from the impact of age on employment http://www.dot.gov/ost/docr/regulations/library/INTERNAL.HTM
Extractions: Statutes and regulations applicable to internal civil rights and equal opportunity employment practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended , 42 U.S.C. 2000 e et seq a. Purpose - To achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group over other employees. All personnel actions of an employer shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national ongin. In 1972, the act was amended to include the Federal government and its employees. The U.S. Coast Guard Military Civil Rights Manual, as amended , COMDTINST M5350.11B, October 8, 1981. a. Purpose - All Coast Guard personnel subject to the manual are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and religion. Although title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, supra ., does not apply to military discrimination cases, as a general rule, title VII case precedent is considered in such cases.
Chicago-Kent College Of Law: Media Advisory Index Will the fed cut interest rates again? us continues to deploy troops the PersianGulf; 1,700 public safety officers win largest age discrimination settlement; http://www.kentlaw.edu/news/advisory/
Extractions: MEDIA ADVISORIES Points of interest from recent media advisories are to the right of the advisory dates, which are active links to the full text versions. For more information about advisory services from the Office of Public Affairs, contact Gwen Osborne, director of public affairs, at gosborne@kentlaw.edu or March 31 Supreme Court hears arguments in University of Michigan affirmative action admissions case The debate over the role of women in military conflict U.S. demands Iraq abide by Geneva Convention in treatment of POWs Crude oil prices rise Rebuilding a post-war Iraq Final Four set for New Orleans Chicago discusses A Raisin in the Sun as part of Mayor Daley's "One Book, One Chicago" program Chicago sports exhibit opens at the Chicago Historical Society Chicago-Kent's Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Chicago-Kent starts summer abroad program in Mexico City March 24
State/fed EEOC age discrimination, http//www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html. Wage Hour DivisionUS Department of Labor, http//www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/whd_org.htm. http://www.northernky.desky.org/locallinks/statefed.htm
[Iww-news] Federal Workers Fed Up With Action On Bias had been found to have engaged in sex and age discrimination. Contenttype text/html;charset=us-ASCII Content HTML HEAD TITLE federal Workers fed Up With http://lists.iww.org/pipermail/iww-news/2002-November/000589.html
Extractions: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:13:09 -0800 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. Boundary_(ID_80b3dngcfAqFm3pKBN2VQw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT EEOC Hears What's Wrong With the System to Resolve Workers' Complaints of Bias By Stephen Barr http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46244-2002Nov12.html Previous message: [Iww-news] Demos Stab Federal Workers In The Back Next message: [Iww-news] UK Gov Accuses Fireman Of Threatening Britain Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Legal Links University Search; Guide to Researching fed Reg and Search us Supreme Court for RecentEd Law Cases; EEOC · 5 Items DOL EEOC - age discrimination; EEOC - ADA http://webpages.uah.edu/~woodwaw/ooch/zwebview.html
Extractions: University of Alabama in Huntsville Please send comments, corrections, additions, etc. to mailto:woodwaw@email.uah.edu These links are arranged by categories. Any category with an entry reflecting the number of entries can be collapsed by left clicking on the category description and expanded by left clicking on that description again. Clicking on a link under a category will take you to a table entry which restates the entry's name under the heading "Subject" and has a corresponding entry entitled "Document" on the right. Under the Document heading will always be a link which you may left click on to go to the location. In many cases, under that link will be a short description of what is available at that link. Above the "Subject" entry will be an entry "Top" which returns you to the link from which you came. It may also contain entries for "Next" and "Previous" which allow you to navigate through the table entries without returning the category listing. All of the links and descriptions are on a single page. While this makes the initial download take longer, it allows you to
Extractions: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ) THOMAS W. SNELL, ) Appellant, ) DOCKET NUMBER ) AT-0752-98-0746-I-1 v. ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) Agency. ) DATE: July 2 1999 ) Roscoe E. Long, Esquire, Dunedin, Florida, for the appellant. Joseph R. Berezo, Miami, Florida, for the agency. BEFORE Ben L. Erdreich, Chairman Beth S. Slavet, Vice Chair Susanne T. Marshall, Member OPINION AND ORDER 1 The appellant has filed a petition for review asking us to reconsider the initial decision issued by the administrative judge. We GRANT the petition in part, DENY it in part, AFFIRM the initial decision AS MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order, and SUSTAIN the agency's demotion action. 2 We grant petitions such as this one only when significant new evidence is presented to us that was not available for consideration earlier or when the administrative judge made an error interpreting a law or regulation. The regulation that establishes this standard of review is found in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). 3 After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that there is no new, previously unavailable, evidence and that the administrative judge made no error in law or regulation that affects his findings on the charges, the specifications, or the penalty. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Therefore, we deny the petition for review insofar as the appellant claims error in the administrative judge's adjudication of the charges, specifications, and penalty. We grant the petition, however, to address the appellant's claim that the administrative judge did not address alleged affirmative defenses of retaliation for filing a prior Board appeal and claims of discrimination based on sex and age. Petition for Review File, Tab 1. 4 At the beginning of the hearing, the administrative judge stated that, at a prehearing conference, he advised the parties of their respective burdens of proof, and that the appellant indicated that the only affirmative defense he was not dropping was "a disparate treatment claim as to age." Hearing Tape (HT) 1, Side A. The administrative judge then asked the appellant if that was a "correct summary of [his] position as far as the affirmative defenses." Id. The appellant replied, "Yes." Id. The administrative judge also asked the appellant if he understood his burden of proof on such a claim, and the appellant responded, "Yes, Your Honor." Id. The administrative judge asked the appellant if he wanted to raise any additional issues. Id. The appellant said, "No." Id. 5 In light of the appellant's responses to the administrative judge's questions at the hearing, we find that the only affirmative defense that he did not abandon was his claim of age discrimination based on disparate treatment, and that he was put on notice of his burden of proof on such a claim. However, the initial decision makes no mention of this claim. We therefore will address it. See 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1). 6 In his petition for appeal, the appellant stated that he was "replaced with a young female." Initial Appeal File, Tab 1. He submitted no further evidence or argument either before or at the hearing about this employee, and he did not submit evidence or argument regarding any other employees. See id., Tab 9; HT 2, Side B; HT 3, Side A; HT 4, Sides A and B; HT 5, Side A. The only testimony given by the appellant at the hearing on his age discrimination claim was his statement that he was born on March 23, 1946. HT 2, Side B. 7 An appellant who claims discrimination based on disparate treatment must establish that: (1) He is a member of a protected class; (2) he was similarly situated to an individual who was not a member of his protected group; and (3) he was treated more harshly or disparately than the individual who was not a member of his protected group. Farmer v. U.S. Postal Service, 80 M.S.P.R. 205, ¶ 16 (1998). Where, as here, the record is fully developed, the inquiry shifts from whether the appellant made a prima facie case of discrimination to whether he met his ultimate burden of proving his affirmative defense. Jackson v. U.S. Postal Service, 79 M.S.P.R. 46, 53 (1998). 8 Given his undisputed date of birth, the appellant has shown that he is a member of a protected class (over age 40). 29 U.S.C. § 631. The appellant, however, failed to show that he was similarly situated to any comparison employee or that he was treated more harshly than any such employee. Thus, we find that he did not prove his affirmative defense of age discrimination based on disparate treatment. See Farmer, 80 M.S.P.R. at ¶ 17. ORDER 9 This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(c). NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS You have the right to request further review of this final decision. Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review You may request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to review this final decision on your discrimination claims. See Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). You must send your request to EEOC at the following address: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 19848 Washington, DC 20036 You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate United States district court. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f); 29 U.S.C. § 794a. Other Claims: Judicial Review If you do not want to request review of this final decision concerning your discrimination claims, but you do want to request review of the Board's decision without regard to your discrimination claims, you may request the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review this final decision on the other issues in your appeal. You must submit your request to the court at the following address: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, DC 20439 The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with the court no later than 60 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to court, you should refer to the federal law that gives you this right. It is found in 5 U.S.C. § 7703. You may read this law as well as review other related material at our web site, www.mspb.gov. FOR THE BOARD: Robert E. Taylor Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.
Extractions: In its petition for review, the agency asserts that the administrative judge erred in mitigating the penalty because the deciding official correctly considered the factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Administration , 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 306 (1981). Petition for Review File, Tab 1. It claims that the deciding official appropriately concluded that the appellants misconduct was intentional, even though it did not include an element of intent in its charges. Id . at 5. It further argues that the appellant did not present any mitigating factors in reply to the charges, and that the deciding official properly considered the nature and seriousness of the offenses, the appellants years of service with the agency, and the agencys loss of faith in his ability to perform his duties. Id . at 6. The agency also argues that the prior discipline excluded by the administrative judge may be considered in assessing the penalty because, among other things, it was not clear that such discipline was, in fact, the subject of a grievance.
Extractions: DiscriminationPersons with Limited-English Proficiency III. Compliance and Enforcement The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued the following guidance memorandum on national origin non-discrimination and Limited-English-Proficiency (LEP) to OCR staff to ensure consistent application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to health and social services programs funded by HHS. The import of the memorandum is that it addresses language assistance that may be required for effective communication between health and social service providers and persons of Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Pursuant to Title VI, such assistance is appropriate where language barriers cause LEP persons to be excluded from or denied equal access to HHS-funded programs. Sincerely
