Discrimination Attorneys

Planning for cheaper homes

I agree with Oliver Marc Hartwich (Slippery Slope) that soaring house prices do more harm than good. But I disagree with his solution, which was to build lots more houses, and finance the affordable ones through the planning system. The government says it wants to increase the number of homes built each year from 150,000 to 200,000 by 2016, but doesn’t specify the type of tenure. The people on housing waiting lists and in overcrowded or temporary accommodation will never be able to benefit from the vast majority of those homes. They need old-fashioned subsidised (whisper it, even council) housing. And yet, in London and the south east in particular, because of inflated land prices the majority of “affordable” housing is provided by section 106 agreements through the planning system, a sort of cat-and-mouse game, where local authorities set thresholds and targets and developers try to circumvent them.

So when Oliver Marc Hartwich wants to loosen planning controls because young people cannot get on the housing ladder, the result will not be an upsurge of subsidised family housing or even low-cost private starter homes. Two alternatives may happen: a plethora of inadequately sized and densely packed apartments, that will be sold as buy-to-let, doing very little for those in need and nothing for the community; or nine executive homes for every affordable one. That is not worth sacrificing green belt for.
Judith Martin, member, South East Forum for Sustainability (writing in a personal capacity)

· As a 64-year-old lifelong Guardian reader I was driven to protest for the first time about the astoundingly arrogant article by Oliver Marc Hartwich. Margaret Thatcher would be thrilled to see her policies recommended in the Society section of the Guardian with no editorial warning or retraction. As one of his disdained rural middle class “profiteers” of house price escalation, I am forced to live in an overpriced house, over-taxed and under-served by local authorities. If the house was sold I would have to live somewhere. My children will pay inheritance tax and there would be a net loss. Meanwhile, despite “restrictive planners”, new towns are being forced upon us in flood plains in an area of outstanding natural beauty with no public consultation, no available jobs or facilities. Has the writer ever looked beyond his city pad to see the reality of country life? Has he heard of the environmental sprawl into what is left of our agricultural land? I am horrified that the Guardian has given space to such drivel. I hope an equivalent two-thirds page will be dedicated to a contradiction of every wild bit of dogma. Dr WP Jones-Key, Sidmouth, Devon

More : guardian.co.uk

The case of Toyota Motors v. Williams, which the Supreme Court decided on January 8, virtually wipes out a legal remedy for millions of workers who face job discrimination because of a physical impairment. The unanimous opinion by Sandra Day O’Connor was a serious blow to the already reeling Americans with Disabilities Act and reflected how indifferent our society, courts and legislature are to the issue of disability discrimination.

Ella Williams developed carpal tunnel syndrome from doing repetitive tasks at the Toyota plant where she worked in Kentucky. When she sued Toyota for disability discrimination for refusing to give her work she could do that didn’t involve exacerbating her injury, the auto company argued that Williams was not “disabled” and thus had no right to use the law. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Williams’s condition did not constitute a “disability” because she could still perform tasks “central to daily life” such as cooking her meals or brushing her teeth.

Source : thenation.com

For employers, discrimination and harassment complaints by employees are often made without warning. The first an employer may hear of a complaint is on the resignation of an employee, which is sometimes followed by a letter from the employee’s solicitor.

It is not surprising that employees subjected to discrimination and harassment feel vulnerable or intimidated and are reluctant to complain until they feel forced to resign. Discrimination and harassment do not require intent, and can be committed unthinkingly by a company, its management or its employees. Due to differences in factors such as age, sex, background and expectations, an employee who is discriminated against or harassed will often be the only person who perceives that discrimination or harassment has occurred.

By the time an employer receives an allegation or complaint, the damage has often already been done. The company has lost the skills and experience of an employee it has hired and trained and will most likely need to recruit a replacement. Worse still, it may face a claim resulting in financial liability, adverse publicity, potentially serious allegations against individual managers or employees, and loss of morale amongst employees who may feel they have been similarly treated or who sympathise with their former colleague.

More : accessmylibrary.com

This article examines wage discrimination during the initial stages of employment using panel data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Women with disabilities are twice disadvantaged in the labor market: They face possible discrimination based on both gender and disability status. This article focuses on transitions into new employment. Two key variables indicate the circumstances in which a woman starts working at a new employer: (a) a planned employment transition or (b) finding employment after leaving a former employer for an unplanned reason or after being unemployed. The empirical evidence suggests that wage discrimination is prevalent; discrimination occurs across personal and employment characteristics. Although employment transitions resulted in lower wages, reasonable scenarios that involve personal choices as opposed to discrimination could not be eliminated. For instance, a worker with disabilities may change employers and accept a lower wage if she gains nonwage benefits (e.g., accommodations or health insurance).

Until the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in 1990, most workers could be fired, not hired, paid lower wages, or denied promotions because of a disability. Women with disabilities were particularly vulnerable to discrimination because employers could wrap their prejudices concerning gender and disabilities together; a woman could easily incur an adverse employment event while the employer claimed it was because of her disability.

From the late 1980s through the present, the trend in the United States has been toward greater acceptance of the abilities of workers with disabilities. If workers with disabilities are given the proper resources (e.g., accommodations), they are able to work productively and become self-sufficient. This is referred to as the empowerment or participatory decision-making model. If obstacles did not exist, people with disabilities would be as productive as other employees. The empowerment model led to other models that focus on removing obstacles. For instance, the technology model focuses on ways to overcome physical obstacles; research on the effect of assistive devices and wheelchair friendliness (or other accommodations) on successful outcomes would be included in this model (Turnbull & Stowe, 2001).

More : accessmylibrary.com

Wal-Mart was recently busted for disability discrimination in hiring - again. In January the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed lawsuit against the retail giant for discriminating against Steven J. Bradley, when he applied for a job at Wal-Mart in Richmond, Missouri. Bradley has cerebral palsy and uses crutches or a wheelchair as mobility aids.

Wal-Mart refused to reach a settlement so the EEOC filed suit using the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking lost wages and benefits, compensatory and punitive damages and a job for Bradley.

It was just back in 2001 that Wal-Mart and the EEOC reached a $6.8 million consent decree which resolved 13 lawsuits the commission had pending against the corporation in 11 states, including Missouri.

Ten years after passage of the ADA Wal-Mart’s illegal pre-employment questionnaire, “Matrix of Essential Job Functions,” violated employment discrimination provisions (ADA) by seeking disability-related information from applicants before making conditional offers of employment.

More : zmag.org

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was enacted in 1967 with the primary goals “to promote the employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment” (ADEA, 1967: 29 U.S.C. [section] 621 (b)). It is the subject of approximately 16,000 annual charge receipts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as substantial court litigation (EEOC, 2001). (1) The limited empirical research on the impacts of the ADEA finds that it has positive effects on the employment of protected workers (Neumark and Stock, 1999; Adams, 2000). However, legal scholars have raised questions about the ability of the ADEA to protect older workers from employment discrimination and posit that some older workers may instead be better protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Frier, 1993; Posner, 1995).

Frier (1993) notes that gaps in coverage of the ADEA based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs), and exceptions made for factors other than age exempt some older workers from protection under the ADEA (for example, an employer does not violate the ADEA if he discharges an employee on the basis of an age-related disability). These workers may be eligible for protection under disability discrimination laws, however, because some of the characteristics that often accompany age (e.g., frailty, mild cognitive impairment, or failing hearing or vision) may fall under the provisions of disability discrimination legislation that does not include a BFOQ exception but instead applies to any qualified individual with a disability. In this sense, Frier argues, the ADA makes a BFOQ defense under the ADEA more difficult because some age-related employment problems could be solved by reasonable accommodations.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Although age in itself is not considered a disability under the ADA, the language of the act clearly acknowledges that disability and age are correlated, noting, “some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older” (ADA, 1990: 42 U.S.C. [section] 12101 (2) (a) (1)). Indeed, as Figure 1 shows, the positive relationship between age and disability status is quite striking, hovering below 10% for those under age 40, but rising fairly dramatically starting around age 45, and affecting one-quarter of the population by age 60 and one-third of the population by age 65. As noted by Posner (1995, p. 339), “The interaction between [the ADA and ADEA] has yet to be explored by the courts …. The ADA may succeed in helping older workers where the ADEA has been ineffective.” The interaction between these two types of laws has yet to be explored by empirical researchers as well. Given Frier’s argument, whether the protective effect of age discrimination laws is affected when age laws are coupled with disability discrimination laws is of particular interest. In addition, because prohibitions against discrimination in firing and reasonable accommodation requirements in disability discrimination laws raise the cost of employing the disabled, whether the coupling of the laws is associated with net increases in employment or earnings of protected workers is also of interest.

More : accessmylibrary.com

MANY small businesses are still flouting a law that came into effect a year-and-a-half ago to give disabled people equal access to goods and services.

Disability-rights campaigners, charities and access consultants have all concluded that the Disability Discrimination Act, the final part of which came into force in October 2004, has no teeth and is letting businesses off the hook.

The act requires firms to make “reasonable adjustments” to premises or services to make them accessible to disabled people. Firms that fail to comply face fines of up to £50,000.

But the Disability Rights Commission, the body responsible for promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people, believes that many small businesses are doing little to comply with the act.

Alyson Rose at the commission, said: “Progress is still slow and the picture is very mixed, despite the law being in place for more than a year.

More : timesonline.co.uk

Abstract: This article argues that new legislation implementing the Framework Employment Directive prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation will make no impact on employers’ practices and behaviour, unless they are underpinned by enforcement mechanisms similar to those provided under the current anti-discrimination law. In this regard, the article explores the existing framework for enforcement of anti-discrimination law by existing equality bodies in the UK and in Germany and supports the proposals for the establishment of single Equality Commissions in both countries. The article states that the issues of enforcing the new grounds of anti-discrimination should be addressed before the new Commissions come into existence.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Development in EC Law

The European legislature has used its powers under the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty signed in 1997 to take a major new step in anti-discrimination law. The recent European Directive 2000/78/EC in employment prohibits discrimination on five new grounds, namely religion, belief, disability, sexual orientation and age.

Directive 2000/43/EC prohibits discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin in a wide range of fields such as employment, education, the provision of goods and services and social protection. A previous Directive 76/207/EC was modernised by this new directive. Altogether there are now eight grounds of anti-discrimination, six of which refer only to employment law, and two of which refer also to the provision of goods and services.

More : accessmylibrary.com

This paper investigates the price of discrimination and the identity of discriminators in Australia, using data from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. To the extent that Becker’s (1971) theory is correct, we anticipate greater levels of discrimination in less competitive sectors of the economy. The data do not support that notion. We also investigate whether the price of discrimination varies by identity of discriminator. Overall the price of discrimination is about A $15,000.

Keywords: Human Rights, Discrimination.

JEL Codes: J15, J71

1 Introduction

In a recent speech Pru Goward, the (Australian) Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, indicated that discrimination is inefficient. In particular she argued that:

Any departure from … equality … demeans not only women but men and diminishes our whole community. It also distorts the efficient working of the Australian economy, … [U]tilising all human resources effectively, fairly and profitably for the individual and the organisation, makes great business sense (Goward 2001).

More : accessmylibrary.com

When Rick Williams left the civil service three years ago he hit the phones in search of a new job. But as soon he mentioned that he was blind to recruitment agencies, their responses were far from encouraging.

“One said: ‘There are specialist agencies for people like you’. It was quite clear they weren’t interested,” says Mr Williams.

Any employment agency denying a disabled person access to their services today would be liable to fall foul of the newly amended Disability Discrimination Act, which came into force in October last year.

However, greater legal protection and greater awareness of disability generally have failed to allay serious concerns that recruitment agencies are continuing to treat disabled people unfairly.

More : guardian.co.uk

The Visteon Corporation, a leading maker of auto parts, agreed to pay $415,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The payment resolves E.E.O.C. claims that Visteon and its former parent, Ford Motor, refused to hire 11 job applicants based on pre-employment physical exams in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The applicants had sought jobs at two Visteon plants in Michigan. Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000. Visteon also agreed to spend $200,000 over the next five years to train employees on disability policies.

Source : query.nytimes.com

The Disability Rights Commission has revealed that workplace discrimination accounted for more than half of the cases it supported last year.Employers’ failure to make adjustments for disabled workers made up more than a third of those cases.

A spokesman for the DfWP told ePolitix.com: “The basic legislative framework to protect workers from discrimination is there - and from October 2004 this will cover even more workers.

“It comes down to all of us, and in particular employers, to consider our behaviour and attitudes to ensure that discrimination has no place in the workplace.

“Disabled people represent a sizable - often highly skilled - part of the workforce, so an inclusive workplace is not just commonsense, it makes good business sense.”

More : epolitix.com

Poverty among disabled people is a common problem, but many experts feel it is seriously underestimated.

The government offers various forms of assistance, including additional benefits and support schemes for disabled workers and their employers, but campaigners say much of this help is poorly understood by the target audiences.

In addition, a report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that disabled people on benefits are £800 a month short of being able to fund an acceptable quality of life. Disabled workers on minimum wages are also significantly short of the income required for them to have a life comparable to that of able-bodied people.

While official statistics indicate 30 per cent of disabled people are in poverty, these are based on income and do not take account of additional costs of disability, such as extra transport expenses and adapting homes. Lorna Reith, chief executive of the Disability Alliance, helped with the JRF report. She says because benefits paid to the disabled are typically higher than for the able-bodied, it distorts the true extent of poverty - the extra is more than eaten up by additional costs disabled people face in maintaining their living standards.

More : guardian.co.uk

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Wednesday filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against HCA Inc., saying the hospital system has failed to reasonably accommodate a visually impaired secretary.

The agency charged that since October 2002, HCA’s Research Medical Center has refused to provide reasonable

Source : accessmylibrary.com

The appellant Prison Service appealed against a decision of the employment tribunal that it had discriminated against the respondent (J), who had been employed as a prison psychologist, for reasons relating to her disability. When J had started the job she told the Prison Service that she had two physical disabilities and she was provided with special equipment. From an early stage some of her colleagues, and a probation officer (H), allegedly bullied her, making hostile comments about her and her claim to be disabled. An investigation carried out by the Prison Service and, because of H’s involvement, the Probation Service, upheld the complaints against a prison employee and H, but found insufficient grounds for action against the other employees. The Probation Service did not discipline H or remove her from the prison where J worked, and the prison governor decided that it would jeopardise relations with the Probation Service if he excluded H against their wishes. J received two pieces of anonymous mail, an in-house magazine supporting minority ethnic groups and a prison leaflet about harassment, bullying and discrimination. J thought they were suspicious and raised the issue with management, who thought it was likely to have an innocent explanation. J then received a third item sent anonymously, a newspaper advertisement for disability aids, at which point management arranged for the monitoring of her post. No further such items were received. J’s employment was characterised by significant periods of sick leave, by her wish not to return to that prison, by her dissatisfaction with her treatment by management, and by the Prison Service’s concerns about her performance. Her mental health declined until it reached the point where it qualified as a disability. When she had been off work for around 10 months she was dismissed on the basis of medical advice that there was no prospect of her returning in the foreseeable future.

She brought various claims to the employment tribunal, which found that the Prison Service had, by failing to exclude H, failed to take action to prevent further harassment following the internal investigation, and that was discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 s. 3A(1). It further found that the Prison Service had failed to take appropriate and expeditious action about J’s mail, thereby exposing her to an act of harassment, which failure constituted a detriment under s. 4(2) and s. 5. The tribunal also held that the Prison Service had failed to consider or to make reasonable adjustments, principally by not finding J an alternative place of work, contrary to s. 4A, s. 3A and s. 18B, and that it had dismissed her for reasons relating to her disability that were not justified. The Prison Service submitted that

(1) its decision not to exclude H from the prison could not have constituted disability discrimination because it had not been taken for a reason that related to J’s disability;

More : telegraph.co.uk

The UK’s 45,000 public bodies face a fundamental change to the way they operate with the arrival of new disability legislation, which came into force today.

The new law was introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act of 2005 which amended the 1995 Act of the same name. It forces bodies to take the needs of disabled people into account when planning everything from buildings to websites.

The new Disability Equality Duty (DED) places a legal obligation on public bodies to consider the needs of the disabled when planning services. In carrying out their functions, the Act says public authorities must “have due regard” to needs that include eliminating discrimination and promoting positive attitudes towards disabled people.

Around 10 million people in the UK have rights under the Disability Discrimination Act, according to the Disability Rights Commission (DRC).

More : theregister.co.uk

A Long Island jury has ordered Wal-Mart to pay $7.5 million for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against a Centereach man.

The jury at the U.S. District Court in Central Islip deliberated for a full day before awarding Patrick Brady, a 21-year-old man who has cerebral palsy, $5 million in punitive damages and another $2.5 million to compensate him

Source : accessmylibrary.com

New England Patriots wide receiver Terry Glenn has sued the NFL, claiming a disability makes it difficult for him to adhere to certain rules in the league’s substance abuse policy.

The NFL said it is aware of the complaint, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Buffalo last week, but the league would not comment.

As first reported on the NFL Today on CBS and CBS Sportsline.com, Glenn filed the complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it did not specify what disability Glenn suffers.

Glenn claims he should not have been suspended by the NFL for the first four games of the season for violation of the substance abuse policy. He missed a drug test, left the team without permission the day the suspension was announced and then was suspended for the season by Patriots head coach Bill Belichick.

More : sportsillustrated.cnn.com

MPs have given the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) a rap over the knuckles for not doing enough to ensure disabled employees and clients can use its IT systems. However, some disability campaigners defend the department, claiming it sets an example on how to cater for disabled people.

Areport from the Commons work and pensions committee on the department’s management of IT projects says the department is “in danger of failing to meet its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act and needs to look carefully at how it administers IT projects in the future”. The committee’s report calls on the department to set out how it will “ensure its IT projects are fully in line with the highest standards of accessibility and to provide reassurance it will fully meet its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act”.

The criticism is embarrassing to the department because it is the sponsor of the act which, among other things, requires website owners to make reasonable adjustments to allow disabled people to use them. The DWP is adamant it has not broken its own law. “The department has never knowingly breached the act or any other legislation,” says a spokesperson. “Our aim is for all our IT systems to be accessible to disabled users, but where this is not the case an alternative means of accessing the service is made available.”

More : guardian.co.uk

Gordon Brown will today come under pressure to help small firms employ disabled workers, as industry groups make their Budget submissions to the government.

At a meeting with the chancellor, the British Chambers of Commerce will call for the government to extend its Access to Work Scheme, which helps firms with the costs of hiring employees with disabilities.

From 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act will mean that companies have to provide equal employment opportunities to disabled workers. Describing the Access to Work scheme as the government’s “best kept secret”, the BCC says that if firms do not continue to receive financial help with measures such as employing sign language interpreters and installing wheelchair ramps, the costs to small businesses of complying with the law will be enormous.

The Access to Work scheme, administered by the Employment Service, provides grants of up to 100% for the changes firms need to make to employ disabled workers. The BCC fears it may expire in 2004 and is calling on the government to beef it up and to make sure firms are better informed about the help available. They believe the scheme should be left in place once the Disability Discrimination Act becomes law.

More : guardian.co.uk