Sentences with phrase «employees against discrimination»

The state of Oregon has passed laws that protect employees against discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Today, employment and civil rights laws protect employees against discrimination — including age.

Not exact matches

Outten & Golden have also represented employees in gender discrimination lawsuits against Goldman Sachs and Microsoft.

«In start - up companies, it's all about «who do I trust» and sometimes nepotism will come in,» Fraedrich says, and family - run businesses have to be especially vigilant against an ethical lapse that could lead at best to employee dissatisfaction and at worst to a discrimination suit.

In 29 states, it «s still not explicitly illegal to discriminate against both employees and prospective hires based on sexual orientation — and 32 states allow workplace discrimination based on gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest civil rights organization.

By making it clear that discrimination against LGBT employees is prohibited, employers will better position themselves to recruit not only the estimated three percent of the population that identifies as LGBT, but also other candidates, particularly millennials, who expect to work in a diverse and inclusive workplace,» Phillis said in emailed comments.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief in an appeals court case, arguing against workplace discrimination protection for employees who are gay.

Researchers say the Williams Institute findings on workplace discrimination are consistent with other 2010 and 2011 studies, which show a continuing pattern of discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees.

It is the policy of Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to provide equal opportunity in employment throughout the corporation for all qualified applicants and employees without discrimination against any person because of a person's race, color, religion (including religious dress and grooming practices), sex / gender (including pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions and breast feeding), national origin, ancestry, gender identity, gender expression, legally - protected medical condition, physical or mental disability, age, military or veteran status, marital status, sexual orientation, genetic information or any other basis protected by applicable law.

This week, The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) announced that it had filed a human rights complaint against Canadian mainstay Air Canada, alleging «systemic discrimination and harassment» against its members.

Employment practices liability insurance, or EPLI as you may have heard it called, provides protection to companies who have employees against claims by current or former employees for things like discrimination, wrongful termination, or sexual harassment.

«While these serious allegations against XPO Logistics do not involve Verizon employees, Verizon has zero tolerance for discrimination and sexual harassment, and we expect our suppliers to abide by these standards,» Varettoni said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY.

Also requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation to provide appropriate private space that is not a bathroom stall, and prohibits discrimination against an employee who exercises or attempts to exercise the rights provided under this act.

These policies were found not to constitute direct discrimination against the employees, as it did not target them on the basis of their specific religion.

The U.S. Justice Department has filed court papers in a New York case arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

For instance, 40 % quotas on all electoral lists, harsher punishments for men in cases of domestic violence, special judicial and economic assistance for women who are victims of gender violence, a requirement for corporations with more than 250 employees to have their own equality plan aimed at eliminating discrimination against women, etc..

In February 2018, Schneiderman brought a civil rights lawsuit against The Weinstein Company, alleging the company «repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.»

«As alleged in our complaint, The Weinstein Company repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination,» state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in court papers filed against Weinstein and the company.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) filed a lawsuit against the business and the brothers who founded it, saying the company violated employees» rights by «failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.»

And two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Weinstein Co., stating that the studio «repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination.»

«NELA NY is against the current Senate and Governor's bill in their present form and we urge them to pass meaningful legislation that advances protections for employees who are victims of unlawful discrimination,» said Miriam Clark, president of NELA NY, in a statement.

Since last year, the» Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003» have been in place in the U.K. to protect all employees against both direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.

The United Kingdom's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995 makes it illegal for employers and education providers to discriminate against disabled employees and students.

A former employee of a company co-founded by genomics pioneer J. Craig Venter has filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination against the firm's female employees — and alleging harassment by Venter himself.

«While ASHG applauds efforts to improve employee wellness, employee protections against genetic discrimination established by GINA must not be sacrificed to achieve this,» said Dr. Cox.

The high court will also use an employment - discrimination case from the private sector to clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal job - discrimination law, covers retaliation by employers against former employees as well as job applicants...

provisions for responding to acts of harassment, bullying, and / or discrimination against students by employees or students pursuant to clause (b) of this subparagraph which, with respect to such acts against students by students, incorporate a progressive model of student discipline that includes measured, balanced and age - appropriate remedies and procedures that make appropriate use of prevention, education, intervention and discipline, and considers among other things, the nature and severity of the offending student's behavior (s), the developmental age of the student, the previous disciplinary record of the student and other extenuating circumstances, and the impact the student's behaviors had on the individual (s) who was physically injured and / or emotionally harmed.

guidelines and programs for in - service education programs for all district staff members to ensure effective implementation of school policy on school conduct and discipline, including but not limited to, guidelines on promoting a safe and supportive school climate while discouraging, among other things, harassment, bullying and discrimination against students by students and / or school employees; and including safe and supportive school climate concepts in the curriculum and classroom management; and

The original passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protected employees against age discrimination but limited protection to workers between the ages of 40 and 65 and allowed employer benefit plans to include mandatoDiscrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protected employees against age discrimination but limited protection to workers between the ages of 40 and 65 and allowed employer benefit plans to include mandatodiscrimination but limited protection to workers between the ages of 40 and 65 and allowed employer benefit plans to include mandatory age limits.

(ADEA) protected employees against age discrimination but limited protection to workers between the ages of 40 and 65 and allowed employer benefit plans to include mandatory age limits.

Much of the litigation our school attorneys handle involves allegations that a school district discriminated against an employee or a student, including claims pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act, Kansas Act Against Discrimination, Title VI or Title VII / Tiagainst an employee or a student, including claims pursuant to the Missouri Human Rights Act, Kansas Act Against Discrimination, Title VI or Title VII / TiAgainst Discrimination, Title VI or Title VII / Title IX.

The Reach Institute for School Leadership will neither retaliate nor discriminate against any employee or applicant because s / he has opposed any unlawful employment practice, filed a charge of employment discrimination, or testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to employment practices.

Under Ms. Wright's leadership, the Division is responsible for processing formal equal employment opportunity complaints of discrimination filed against the Department by employees, former employees, and applicants for employment.

In addition, DOCR is responsible for ensuring that DOT does not discriminate against its employees or applicants for employment, and that DOT conducts its programs and activities free of discrimination.

The Department of Transportation Civil Rights Offices are here to help eliminate, prevent, reduce, and remedy unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, and sexual orientation against beneficiaries and employees of the Department of Transportation.

...» Secondly, Title VII itself, especially through Section 704 (a)-- as the circuit court's opinion in Emporium Capwell noted — specifically protects the right to protest against racial discrimination in employment by protecting employee protests from employer retaliation.

Seattle Area Feline Rescue prohibits discrimination against its employees, volunteers, applicants for employment, and customers or other business associates on the basis of a person's race, religion, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, national origin, citizenship status, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, military or veteran status, any other characteristic protected by federal and applicable state laws.

Ensure respect for human rights and optimise our working conditions • Ensure equity amongst our employees while fighting against discrimination.

We are an Equal Employment Opportunity employer and as such do not discriminate against any applicant for employment or employee on the basis of race, color, religious creed, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, veteran status or any other classification protected by applicable discrimination laws.

They protect against discrimination and prohibitive workplace behavior so that employees can avoid working in a hostile work environment.

Check out Mike Fox's first impressions of an age discrimination lawsuit that former employee Rita Bastien brought against Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R - Co.).

In Canada, employees can make legal claims against employers for reprisal, constructive dismissal, harassment and discrimination when there is a loss of work due to rejecting the sexual advances of another employee or supervisor.

It has already been well - established in caselaw that employees can bring discrimination claims against parties in the workplace other than their employers.

Mary - Elizabeth is particularly proud to have assisted unions in combating discrimination in the workplace and in defending employees facing unjust discipline for speaking out against unsafe working conditions.

We provide services to our clients regarding Federal, New Jersey and New York statutes, including: Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, National Labor Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, Conscientious Employee Protection Act, New Jersey Family Leave Act, Civil Rights, ERISA, and Wage and Hour Law.

Furthermore, legislatures like the Equality Act 2010 and Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, outlaw any discrimination done on the basis of work status (against part - time workers, fixed - term employees, agency workers or union memberships.)

This paragraph of the bill raises the distinct possibility that, if this bill becomes law without changes, an employer might not be able to enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement if the employee's lawsuit alleges violations of the Law Against Discrimination.

In addition to the existing protection against discrimination and harassment based on prohibited grounds in human rights legislation, employees in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario will also benefit from Occupation Health and Safety legislation stipulations requiring workplace policies for violence and harassment.

Jonathan also concentrates on and advises US and multinational corporations and executives in all aspects of employment law, including drafting and negotiating employment and separation agreements, corporate restructurings and reductions in force, employment advice related to corporate transactions, internal corporate investigations, handbooks and policy manuals, sexual harassment and other sensitivity training, protecting against employee raiding and theft of confidential information, and compliance with all federal, state, and local discrimination laws.

The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that civil service employees do not have to show the reason why they were disadvantaged to progress their claims of indirect discrimination against their employer, the Home Office.