Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
National Origin Discrimination
Amidst a workforce characterized by rapidly changing demographics, employers and employees are faced with many challenges, including providing a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. Based on the 2010 Census, 40 million foreign-born individuals live in the United States, and account for 12.9% of the total population. A decade ago, those figures were 31.1 million and 11.1% respectively, and in 1990, 19.8 million and 7.9% respectively. In addition, almost 20.7% of the population over 5 years old speaks a language other than English at home, and of these, 62% speak Spanish or Spanish Creole. A decade ago, those numbers were 17.9% and 59.8%, respectively.
These demographic shifts play out across the country in all aspects of life, but in particular, in the workplace. Recent data published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that filings alleging national origin discrimination have increased from 8,327 in fiscal year 2005 to 10,883 in fiscal year 2012, though as a total percentage of claims filed, they have remained relatively stable between 11%-12% over that period.
In part based on these demographic changes and increased charge filings, the EEOC included “Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers” as a priority in its December 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan. In addition to filing litigation alleging national origin discrimination, the EEOC held a public meeting on Nov. 13, 2013 to hear testimony regarding whether, and how, it should update its Compliance Manual chapter, which discusses national origin discrimination. The EEOC last updated this section in December 2002 following the 9/11 attacks. The meeting largely focused on language-related issues, including English-only policies, fluency requirements, and accent-related claims. A secondary emphasis focused on national origin harassment claims. The Commissioners heard testimony from advocates and management representatives alike to discuss the many challenges in today's workplace related to national origin discrimination. While it is unclear whether the EEOC will revise its national origin guidance, generally speaking, an initial step for such changes is to hold a public meeting to solicit views from the regulated community.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?