Pub Date : 2003-07-01DOI: 10.2190/46U9-T06L-8M32-PEFM
H. Steensma, W. Breukelen, M. Sturm
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how a mixed method of turnover research, combining advantages of traditional methods while reducing the disadvantages, may improve the fitness-for-use of turnover research for organizations. In a survey study, an exit group of former employees who had left an organization voluntarily was compared with a group of employees who were still working in the organization. Then, the comparison group was split into two subgroups. The true-comparison group was composed of employees who had a low intention of quitting. The potential-turnover group was formed by employees with a high intention of leaving the organization. Results show that, in general, no differences exist between the exit group and the potential-turnover group in mean scores on variables that (according to theory) determine turnover. But the exit group and the true-comparison group differ sharply. Implications for turnover research are discussed. Much of the literature suggests that employee turnover is related to unmet expectations, pre-existing intentions, and notions relating to perceived justice. Our study examines factors associated with employee turnover. However, the main purpose of the study was to demonstrate the advantages of a specific research
{"title":"STUDYING EMPLOYEE TURNOVER BY SPLITTING UP THE USUAL COMPARISON GROUP","authors":"H. Steensma, W. Breukelen, M. Sturm","doi":"10.2190/46U9-T06L-8M32-PEFM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/46U9-T06L-8M32-PEFM","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how a mixed method of turnover research, combining advantages of traditional methods while reducing the disadvantages, may improve the fitness-for-use of turnover research for organizations. In a survey study, an exit group of former employees who had left an organization voluntarily was compared with a group of employees who were still working in the organization. Then, the comparison group was split into two subgroups. The true-comparison group was composed of employees who had a low intention of quitting. The potential-turnover group was formed by employees with a high intention of leaving the organization. Results show that, in general, no differences exist between the exit group and the potential-turnover group in mean scores on variables that (according to theory) determine turnover. But the exit group and the true-comparison group differ sharply. Implications for turnover research are discussed. Much of the literature suggests that employee turnover is related to unmet expectations, pre-existing intentions, and notions relating to perceived justice. Our study examines factors associated with employee turnover. However, the main purpose of the study was to demonstrate the advantages of a specific research","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125501374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-07-01DOI: 10.2190/5A8R-0642-DD6N-6E37
C. F. Cohen, Murray E. Cohen
{"title":"DEFINING DISABILITY: MITIGATING MEASURES AND THE ADA","authors":"C. F. Cohen, Murray E. Cohen","doi":"10.2190/5A8R-0642-DD6N-6E37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/5A8R-0642-DD6N-6E37","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121491659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-07-01DOI: 10.2190/9J8A-3THM-1J12-R0L1
L. S. Kleiman, Darrin S. Kass
This article provides an overview of recent court cases involving adverse employment actions that were influenced by an employee’s pregnant condition. It is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases so that they will be better able to make employment decisions that comply with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The information reported in this article was gleaned by reviewing all cases decided at the circuit court level and published from January 1999 to June 2004. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits pregnancy discrimination at the workplace. Enacted in 1978, the law states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work” [1, p. 1]. Because this law defines pregnancy discrimination in very general terms, it does not provide employers with a clear guide for implementing specific policies and practices. Such guidance is better provided by the case law. That is, an employer should refer to past court decisions when trying to determine the legality of an adverse employment action taken against a woman who is protected by the PDA.
{"title":"JUSTIFYING PREGNANCY-RELATED EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS UNDER THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT","authors":"L. S. Kleiman, Darrin S. Kass","doi":"10.2190/9J8A-3THM-1J12-R0L1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/9J8A-3THM-1J12-R0L1","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of recent court cases involving adverse employment actions that were influenced by an employee’s pregnant condition. It is intended to provide employers with a better understanding of how the courts adjudicate these types of cases so that they will be better able to make employment decisions that comply with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The information reported in this article was gleaned by reviewing all cases decided at the circuit court level and published from January 1999 to June 2004. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits pregnancy discrimination at the workplace. Enacted in 1978, the law states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work” [1, p. 1]. Because this law defines pregnancy discrimination in very general terms, it does not provide employers with a clear guide for implementing specific policies and practices. Such guidance is better provided by the case law. That is, an employer should refer to past court decisions when trying to determine the legality of an adverse employment action taken against a woman who is protected by the PDA.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122589984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-07-01DOI: 10.2190/FGA9-6CX3-2Y6U-BCJP
E. Stevens, H. Findley, R. Pullen
{"title":"RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW GOVERNING EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS: A MIXED BAG","authors":"E. Stevens, H. Findley, R. Pullen","doi":"10.2190/FGA9-6CX3-2Y6U-BCJP","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/FGA9-6CX3-2Y6U-BCJP","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115516299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2003-03-01DOI: 10.2190/65KY-LBDH-QNB4-B4YG
Kathleen L. Pereles, E. Pereles
Since the decisions in the Trilogy cases were handed down by the Supreme Court on June 23, 1960, the dominant policy of the courts has been to defer to the decision of the arbitrator and uphold the arbitration award. However, there have always been reasons for judicial review of arbitration rewards; and, in some cases, reasons to vacate or overturn an award. This article focuses on the interpretation and status of a rationale often used by the courts when overturning or vacating an arbitration award: the public policy exception. We present the current interpretation of the public policy exception in the unionized segment of the private sector and the historical evolution of the exception, and we focus on strategies for both parties (employers and unions) to either use or defend against the public policy exception. The purposes of the arbitration provision in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) negotiated by the employer and the union which represents the employees are to preserve labor peace and to provide industrial justice. Typically, the employer’s acceptance of the arbitration clause is considered a quid pro quo for the union’s acceptance of a no-strike clause, that is, the union gives up its right to strike during the period of the contract and the employer agrees to take disputes to arbitration and to abide by the decision made by the jointly selected arbitrator [1, 2]. To preserve these objectives, the dominant policy of the courts has been to
{"title":"ARBITRAL FINALITY: THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION","authors":"Kathleen L. Pereles, E. Pereles","doi":"10.2190/65KY-LBDH-QNB4-B4YG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/65KY-LBDH-QNB4-B4YG","url":null,"abstract":"Since the decisions in the Trilogy cases were handed down by the Supreme Court on June 23, 1960, the dominant policy of the courts has been to defer to the decision of the arbitrator and uphold the arbitration award. However, there have always been reasons for judicial review of arbitration rewards; and, in some cases, reasons to vacate or overturn an award. This article focuses on the interpretation and status of a rationale often used by the courts when overturning or vacating an arbitration award: the public policy exception. We present the current interpretation of the public policy exception in the unionized segment of the private sector and the historical evolution of the exception, and we focus on strategies for both parties (employers and unions) to either use or defend against the public policy exception. The purposes of the arbitration provision in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) negotiated by the employer and the union which represents the employees are to preserve labor peace and to provide industrial justice. Typically, the employer’s acceptance of the arbitration clause is considered a quid pro quo for the union’s acceptance of a no-strike clause, that is, the union gives up its right to strike during the period of the contract and the employer agrees to take disputes to arbitration and to abide by the decision made by the jointly selected arbitrator [1, 2]. To preserve these objectives, the dominant policy of the courts has been to","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130203118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-10-01DOI: 10.2190/CFGY-DCBX-KWCH-X3HR
H. Findley, Earl E. Ingram, Sebrena Moten
After a long period of period of sustained economic growth, the U.S. economy has experienced a recession and remains sluggish, and layoffs and plant closings are on the rise. Consequently, it is prudent to review the relevant plant-closing legislation (Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Act), attendant regulations, and subsequent court interpretations. Some seventy appeals court and Supreme Court cases were identified and reviewed. While there are several legal pitfalls firms must avoid to comply with the act, a variety of options are available to organizations that will not force them to meet the act’s 60-days notice requirement. After the longest growth period in American history, the U.S. economy went into recession in the third quarter of 2001 and then came the aftershocks of the attacks of September 11, and the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These events, among others, have led to layoffs in a host of industries. While the economy has shown some improvement, it remains sluggish and layoffs abound. Business bankruptcies are at an all-time high [1] and in the July of 2003 government report, unemployment was over 6% [2]. Interestingly, a seldom-studied federal statute, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), was enacted by Congress more than 10 years ago to address plant closings and mass layoffs in the United States. This
{"title":"THE WARN ACT AND ITS LEGAL HISTORY","authors":"H. Findley, Earl E. Ingram, Sebrena Moten","doi":"10.2190/CFGY-DCBX-KWCH-X3HR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/CFGY-DCBX-KWCH-X3HR","url":null,"abstract":"After a long period of period of sustained economic growth, the U.S. economy has experienced a recession and remains sluggish, and layoffs and plant closings are on the rise. Consequently, it is prudent to review the relevant plant-closing legislation (Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Act), attendant regulations, and subsequent court interpretations. Some seventy appeals court and Supreme Court cases were identified and reviewed. While there are several legal pitfalls firms must avoid to comply with the act, a variety of options are available to organizations that will not force them to meet the act’s 60-days notice requirement. After the longest growth period in American history, the U.S. economy went into recession in the third quarter of 2001 and then came the aftershocks of the attacks of September 11, and the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These events, among others, have led to layoffs in a host of industries. While the economy has shown some improvement, it remains sluggish and layoffs abound. Business bankruptcies are at an all-time high [1] and in the July of 2003 government report, unemployment was over 6% [2]. Interestingly, a seldom-studied federal statute, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), was enacted by Congress more than 10 years ago to address plant closings and mass layoffs in the United States. This","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"865 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133580351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-10-01DOI: 10.2190/4JJX-B5NE-8H30-V74H
Nels E. Nelson
This study examines the experience of a large nonunion hospital that adopted arbitration as the final step of its grievance procedure. It focuses on the reasons for the adoption of the process despite the usual opposition of nonunion employers to arbitration and looks at the operation of the procedure, including the role of the employee advisor, who was hired and paid by the hospital to represent employees in arbitration. The study considers the reasons for the demise of arbitration after 25 years of apparently successful operation. It ends with a number of conclusions about nonunion arbitration procedures based on the experience at the hospital as well as reports regarding other nonunion arbitration systems. The arbitration of workplace disputes has been the rule for union-represented employees for many years. A significant reason for the adoption of the process was the National War Labor Board’s policy during World War II of encouraging employers and unions to include binding arbitration in their contracts. This practice is reflected by the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 1949 83% of the contracts in its files required the arbitration of unresolved grievances [1, p. 18]. At the same time a very limited number of nonunion employers adopted arbitration for employment-related matters. In 1950, Bambrick and Speed studied 57 nonunion companies that had grievance procedures and found only two that included arbitration [2]. Thirty-six years later, McCabe surveyed 78 nonunion members of the National Association of Manufacturers and found that six had arbitration [3].
本研究考察了一家大型非工会医院采用仲裁作为其申诉程序的最后一步的经验。它侧重于不顾非工会雇主通常反对仲裁而采用这一程序的原因，并研究了该程序的运作，包括由医院雇用并支付报酬代表雇员参加仲裁的雇员顾问的作用。该研究考虑了仲裁在25年明显成功运作后消亡的原因。最后，根据医院的经验以及关于其他非工会仲裁系统的报告，得出了一些关于非工会仲裁程序的结论。多年来，劳资纠纷的仲裁一直是工会代表雇员的规则。采用仲裁程序的一个重要原因是二战期间国家战时劳工委员会鼓励雇主和工会在合同中加入有约束力的仲裁的政策。美国劳工统计局(Bureau of Labor Statistics)报告称，1949年，其档案中83%的合同要求对未解决的不满进行仲裁[1，第18页]，这反映了这种做法。与此同时，数量非常有限的非工会雇主就与就业有关的事项采用了仲裁。1950年，Bambrick和Speed研究了57家有申诉程序的非工会公司，发现只有两家公司包含仲裁[2]。36年后，McCabe调查了全国制造商协会的78名非工会成员，发现其中6人进行了仲裁[3]。
{"title":"ARBITRATION AT A LARGE NONUNION HOSPITAL","authors":"Nels E. Nelson","doi":"10.2190/4JJX-B5NE-8H30-V74H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/4JJX-B5NE-8H30-V74H","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the experience of a large nonunion hospital that adopted arbitration as the final step of its grievance procedure. It focuses on the reasons for the adoption of the process despite the usual opposition of nonunion employers to arbitration and looks at the operation of the procedure, including the role of the employee advisor, who was hired and paid by the hospital to represent employees in arbitration. The study considers the reasons for the demise of arbitration after 25 years of apparently successful operation. It ends with a number of conclusions about nonunion arbitration procedures based on the experience at the hospital as well as reports regarding other nonunion arbitration systems. The arbitration of workplace disputes has been the rule for union-represented employees for many years. A significant reason for the adoption of the process was the National War Labor Board’s policy during World War II of encouraging employers and unions to include binding arbitration in their contracts. This practice is reflected by the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 1949 83% of the contracts in its files required the arbitration of unresolved grievances [1, p. 18]. At the same time a very limited number of nonunion employers adopted arbitration for employment-related matters. In 1950, Bambrick and Speed studied 57 nonunion companies that had grievance procedures and found only two that included arbitration [2]. Thirty-six years later, McCabe surveyed 78 nonunion members of the National Association of Manufacturers and found that six had arbitration [3].","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114403173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-10-01DOI: 10.2190/B9XN-X4T8-VL1B-X96C
B. Little, Andrew Makee
Recent medical breakthroughs in medicine, such as the Human Genome Project, allow scientists to identify changes in a person’s genetic material or screen them for inherited traits or tendencies. Known as “markers,” these predispositions toward certain diseases predict the development of future diseases. This knowledge not only has the potential for the development of medical treatment, it also has the potential to allow someone’s genetic makeup to be known by other persons, who may make decisions affecting that person’s future. This article examines the current status of genetic information in the employment arena. It discusses legislative actions and judicial rulings that address the questions being raised by the parties involved in this issue, focusing on the efficacy of Americans with Disabilities Act to protect
{"title":"GENETIC DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE: THE ADA AND BEYOND","authors":"B. Little, Andrew Makee","doi":"10.2190/B9XN-X4T8-VL1B-X96C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/B9XN-X4T8-VL1B-X96C","url":null,"abstract":"Recent medical breakthroughs in medicine, such as the Human Genome Project, allow scientists to identify changes in a person’s genetic material or screen them for inherited traits or tendencies. Known as “markers,” these predispositions toward certain diseases predict the development of future diseases. This knowledge not only has the potential for the development of medical treatment, it also has the potential to allow someone’s genetic makeup to be known by other persons, who may make decisions affecting that person’s future. This article examines the current status of genetic information in the employment arena. It discusses legislative actions and judicial rulings that address the questions being raised by the parties involved in this issue, focusing on the efficacy of Americans with Disabilities Act to protect","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123104114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-10-01DOI: 10.2190/LLJ0-61PU-J8DG-029F
Ronald R. Tidd, N. Pigeon
Internet-connectivity is having a profound impact on the workplace. Employees use it to access data and information from global sources, communicate with others instantaneously regardless of physical proximity, work anytime, anywhere, so long as they have a digital device connected to the Internet. Alternatively, the technology can be used to subject coworkers to objectionable material, violate workers’ privacy, and convey the appearance of working when actually abusing Internet resources. This article discusses the existing laws regarding employee usage of an employer’s Internet resources and employer monitoring of that usage. Thus, it provides a foundation for understanding a body of law that is bound to evolve at an increasingly rapid rate and must be used by every organization to guide its employment and IT policies. The Internet may not be fueling a revolution in the marketplace, but it is certainly fueling an evolution in the workplace. More and more organizations are discovering the power of networked computers and connecting employees to each other and to the Internet. In this connected work environment, employees can: • access data and information from around the world; • communicate instantaneously with each other regardless of physical proximity; and • work anytime, anywhere, as long as they have a digital device that connects to the network.
{"title":"Employer and Employee Rights and Responsibilities in a Networked Office","authors":"Ronald R. Tidd, N. Pigeon","doi":"10.2190/LLJ0-61PU-J8DG-029F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/LLJ0-61PU-J8DG-029F","url":null,"abstract":"Internet-connectivity is having a profound impact on the workplace. Employees use it to access data and information from global sources, communicate with others instantaneously regardless of physical proximity, work anytime, anywhere, so long as they have a digital device connected to the Internet. Alternatively, the technology can be used to subject coworkers to objectionable material, violate workers’ privacy, and convey the appearance of working when actually abusing Internet resources. This article discusses the existing laws regarding employee usage of an employer’s Internet resources and employer monitoring of that usage. Thus, it provides a foundation for understanding a body of law that is bound to evolve at an increasingly rapid rate and must be used by every organization to guide its employment and IT policies. The Internet may not be fueling a revolution in the marketplace, but it is certainly fueling an evolution in the workplace. More and more organizations are discovering the power of networked computers and connecting employees to each other and to the Internet. In this connected work environment, employees can: • access data and information from around the world; • communicate instantaneously with each other regardless of physical proximity; and • work anytime, anywhere, as long as they have a digital device that connects to the network.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"65 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129601750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-10-01DOI: 10.2190/QUVN-UJGB-1JE6-FJ4W
Robert D. Lee
This article examines Title VII workplace discrimination in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, disasters. There were 63 federal court cases that alleged discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, and people from selected parts of the world such as the Middle East and South Asia. Discrimination was alleged to have occurred in failing to accommodate workers’ religious practices, in treating people unequally, and in allowing for the existence of hostile work environments. Some workers alleged they had been retaliated against for exercising their fights to file complaints of discrimination. The study did not find a major wave of discrimination cases and found the courts to be remarkably consistent in the application of the law. There is no doubt that the world changed on September 11, 2001 when terrorists crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. Since the terrorists had come from the Middle East, an immediate concern for many was whether there would be a severe backlash against anyone in the United States who had roots in the Middle East and/or was Muslim. Would a backlash be felt in the workplace? While the events of that single day in 2001 were extraordinarily dramatic, there were some other trends that had a bearing on the situation. Some observers perceived that the United States was experiencing a resurgence in religion and spirituality and that this trend was influencing the workplace through people “witnessing” for their faiths [1]. A second trend was the sizable growth in the Muslim population in the United States. Just as this population was expanding rapidly, the potential existed for a strong backlash against these very people.
{"title":"WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIMS, ARABS, AND OTHERS SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001","authors":"Robert D. Lee","doi":"10.2190/QUVN-UJGB-1JE6-FJ4W","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/QUVN-UJGB-1JE6-FJ4W","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines Title VII workplace discrimination in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, disasters. There were 63 federal court cases that alleged discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, and people from selected parts of the world such as the Middle East and South Asia. Discrimination was alleged to have occurred in failing to accommodate workers’ religious practices, in treating people unequally, and in allowing for the existence of hostile work environments. Some workers alleged they had been retaliated against for exercising their fights to file complaints of discrimination. The study did not find a major wave of discrimination cases and found the courts to be remarkably consistent in the application of the law. There is no doubt that the world changed on September 11, 2001 when terrorists crashed commercial airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. Since the terrorists had come from the Middle East, an immediate concern for many was whether there would be a severe backlash against anyone in the United States who had roots in the Middle East and/or was Muslim. Would a backlash be felt in the workplace? While the events of that single day in 2001 were extraordinarily dramatic, there were some other trends that had a bearing on the situation. Some observers perceived that the United States was experiencing a resurgence in religion and spirituality and that this trend was influencing the workplace through people “witnessing” for their faiths [1]. A second trend was the sizable growth in the Muslim population in the United States. Just as this population was expanding rapidly, the potential existed for a strong backlash against these very people.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133973563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：