Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on January 14, 2009May 18, 2021

Ford Still Waiting to Hire Lower-Wage UAW Workers

As Ford Motor Co. enters discussions for additional United Auto Workers givebacks, the automaker will have to wait at least a year to hire its first lower-paid, two-tier workers.


Ford manufacturing chief Joe Hinrichs told Automotive News at the Detroit auto show Monday, January 12, that it will be 2010 before Ford can start to hire new workers at wages and benefits that are half of those paid veteran workers.


Current workers earn about $28 an hour.


Ford employs about 47,000 hourly workers covered by the contract.
Slow industry sales and the slumping economy are preventing Ford from availing itself of the new-hire provisions permitted in the 2007 UAW contracts with the Detroit Three, Hinrichs said.


Contractually, new hires paid at the lower-tier level can constitute up to 20 percent of Ford’s hourly workforce. But using current assumptions about an industry recovery, Ford estimates it will take “a few years” to get to that level, Hinrichs said.


As a provision of the recent federal $17.4 billion bailout package, General Motors and Chrysler have been ordered to bring their compensation in line with the Japanese transplants. Ford is looking to piggyback on any UAW labor changes to stay competitive with GM and Chrysler.


Hinrichs said Ford’s labor cost gap with the Japanese transplants is about $9 per hour in wages and benefits. Ford UAW workers earn all-in compensation of about $58 an hour versus $49 an hour for the Japanese transplants, he said.
Hinrichs said Ford is discussing the contracts with the UAW daily as GM and Chrysler seek to meet a February deadline to tell Congress how they will meet their loan requirements. Hinrichs said he met this weekend with UAW president Ron Gettelfinger.


Ford has not asked for federal loans, but the company has said it wants a $9 billion line of credit available from the government if vehicle sales deteriorate dramatically in 2009.


The tier-two provisions in the 2007 UAW contracts were meant to close the labor-cost gap. If Ford could get the maximum 20 percent of its UAW workforce on the second-tier wage, the company would trail the Japanese in labor costs by just $4 to $5 per hour, Hinrichs said. But getting to that level will take years, he said. U.S. vehicle production in 2009 is expected to drop 25 to 30 percent against an already depressed 2008.


Hinrichs declined to discuss its negotiating strategy with the UAW. But he did say that one potential area of cost savings is in skilled trades.


In 2006 and 2007, local plant-operating agreements with the UAW cut skilled-trade classifications from more than 100 to the low 20s, Hinrichs said. But there could be additional changes on that front to cut costs and improve manufacturing flexibility, he said.


Hinrichs said it has yet to be determined whether Ford will offer additional hourly buyouts and retirement incentives. He said production cuts have given Ford a temporary surplus of workers. But Ford wants to avoid paying up to $140,000 in cash for workers to leave, only to have to hire workers in an uptick, he said.


During 2008, Ford offered two hourly buyouts. Hinrichs said 7,000 workers took the buyouts.


Filed by Amy Wilson and David Barkholz of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on January 14, 2009June 27, 2018

Motorola Eliminates Additional 4,000 jobs

Motorola Inc. is cutting an additional 4,000 jobs, including 3,000 in its struggling mobile-phone business, as its financial outlook darkens. The layoffs will begin immediately, the company said Wednesday, January 14.


Analysts have long predicted that Motorola would have to drastically cut jobs because its phone sales have tumbled. The company announced in October that it would cut 3,000 jobs, including 2,000 in mobile devices.


The company said it now expects fourth-quarter revenue of about $7.1 billion, compared with the $7.5 billion analysts were forecasting. Motorola will lose 1 to 2 cents per share, excluding charges, the company said. Analysts were expecting earnings of 3 cents per share, according to Thomson FirstCall.


(For more, read “Motorola Puts DB Plans, 401(k) Match on Hold.”)


Filed by John Pletz of Crain’s Chicago Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posted on January 14, 2009June 27, 2018

A Youthful Migration Prompts Companies to Relocate

As younger workers increasingly vote with their feet by migrating to the central cores of U.S. cities, some companies and HR professionals appear to be following them.


Given the priority companies are placing on boosting their recruitment and retention of workers ages 25 to 34, it is no surprise that some companies are taking steps to better connect with those city-bound young adults, even going so far as to move the company.


“I am hearing from HR managers that they are having a devil of a time getting people to fill the jobs in some locations, and it is because the place where young people want to live is different from where the previous generation wanted to live,” says Joe Cortright, an economist at Impresa Inc., a consulting firm in Portland, Oregon. Cortright has been studying the migration of the 25- to 34-year-old age group, which includes Millennials (usually defined as the group born from 1980 to 2000) and younger members of Generation X (born 1965 to 1979).


“Employers with whom we are working have found that there is a generational shift, and that the places where you found your current workers are not necessarily the places where you are going to find your next generation of workers,” Cortright says.


The scale of the change is hard to miss. Look at just about any city and there’s anecdotal evidence of the surge in the attractiveness of near-downtown locations for highly recruited younger workers. The anecdotal evidence is borne out by hard data.


Cortright’s analysis of Census Bureau data shows that in 2000, 25- to 34-year-olds were 34 percent more likely than the general population to live in close-in neighborhoods in the nation’s metro areas, up sharply from the 12 percent who were more likely to reside there in 1990. Signs are that the central-city percentage has continued to rise in the eight years since the 2000 Census data was collected.


“This represents a huge increase in the relative attractiveness of central neighborhoods to young adults,” says Cortright, whose analysis focused on close-in neighborhoods (within three miles of the central business district of a metropolitan area) that generally correspond to the commercial heart and densest neighborhoods in each city.


In addition, the rising “priority of place” for younger workers was underscored in a 2006 study by the Segmentation Co. division of Yankelovich, a marketing consulting firm. Sixty-five percent of 1,000 respondents ages 24 to 35 said they preferred to “look for a job in the place that I would like to live” rather than “look for the best job I can find, the place where it is located is secondary.”


“Sure, there will be some employers that will do fine in a small-town or suburban setting, but, in general, you are going to find a richer vein of talented young people in vibrant urban cores, and it will be easier to recruit them to places that have lots of the amenities that appeal to them,” Cortright says.


Examples have been cropping up of companies choosing to move operations to central-city locations in close proximity to neighborhoods attractive to younger workers. Many are in Chicago, which has seen striking growth in this demographic segment. From 1990 to 2000, the population of 25- to 34-year-olds within three miles of downtown Chicago grew 15.5 percent, the fifth-highest percentage in the United States. In Chicago, a person age 25 to 34 is 1.79 times more likely to live in Chicago’s urban center than is the general population.


One company that shifted to take advantage of such numbers is CareerBuilder.com. Until several years ago, its company headquarters was in Rosemont, Illinois, a Chicago suburb near O’Hare International Airport. When explosive growth beginning in 2003 forced CareerBuilder to look for more space, the company decided to keep the suburban office but also relocate headquarters and a major share of other local operations to a site in Chicago’s downtown Loop.


“The downtown location definitely helps us more effectively broaden our candidate pool beyond just the immediate Chicago area,” says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder.


“When you are looking at the college recruiting scene, it is a far more compelling employment proposition for a Millennial candidate to be thinking of a job in the Chicago city center and to be able to tell them, ‘You’ll be in the city and you can work hard and play hard,’ ” Haefner says. “It does not carry the same dazzle to say, ‘You will be conveniently located near O’Hare airport.’ “


There’s a similar story at Navteq, the digital map firm acquired by Nokia in 2007. Founded in Silicon Valley in 1985, Navteq relocated its headquarters from California to Rosemont in the 1990s to take advantage of Chicago’s central location.


“For us, the initial attraction of Chicago was O’Hare, which makes it a fabulous location if you are a global company, and fantastic nationally too,” says Kelly A. Smith, Navteq’s senior vice president of corporate marketing. Smith has had a bird’s-eye view of the near-doubling of the number of Navteq’s employees since she joined the company in 2001.


On the other hand, “the decision to move from Rosemont to downtown was about the vitality of the city center and about being able to attract world-class talent from anywhere,” Smith says. “We recruit at several major engineering schools in the Midwest for the R&D area of our business, and being in the downtown city center with its vibrant attractiveness—and so much to do—helps us with that age group, as well as every other age group.”


With its lease due to expire in 2009, the Mullen advertising agency in Wenham, Massachusetts, had outgrown its current location and began looking at downtown Boston locations.


“In terms of talent, the advertising agency business is evolving to a point where technology plays a bigger role than ever. Our business is a blend of creative content, technology and distribution systems,” says David Swaebe, vice president for agency communications at Mullen, where 65 percent of employees are under 35. “We want to make sure that we are competitive in terms of attracting technologically savvy, culturally connected people, and you are more likely to find people like that the closer that you are in an urban environment.”


The upcoming move already has paid personnel dividends for Mullen.


“I have hired two creative people, one from San Francisco and one from the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and the fact that we are going to be in downtown Boston was a major incentive for them to come here,” Swaebe says.


The factors driving this unprecedented concentration of young adults to the nation’s city centers include younger workers delaying marriage, their expectation of decreased job tenure and increased employment volatility, and an increased emphasis on a balance between work and lifestyle. The result is much greater interest among 25- to 34-year-olds in the opportunities for relationships, entertainment and stimulation that characterize vibrant city neighborhoods.


“You repeatedly hear them talk about lifestyle and work balance,” says Janet Sun, vice president of marketing and content at Experience Inc., a college-focused career network headquartered in Boston. “They work to live, as opposed to live to work. As a result, after-work time is especially important to them. Sometimes it is a social environment that they are looking for. Other times it is cultural, or volunteer work, or even professional-related activities. Those things have become more important to them, and those kinds of activities would be richer in a city area rather than in a suburban or rural location.”


The importance of a vital social scene is underscored in the findings of arecently conducted Experience Inc. survey. The most popular reason that respondents gave for relocating was career opportunities (44 percent), followed by social scene (19 percent) and family (6 percent). When asked, “If you received a fantastic job that would require relocation, what would stop you … what would be some of the barriers?” the No. 1 factor was cost of living (33 percent), then family (21 percent) and lack of social scene (20 percent).


With this in mind, one relatively straightforward step companies and communities can take to attract Millennials and younger Gen X’ers is to make it easy for them to get information about the community and resources they are likely to find attractive.


Economic development group World Business Chicago created a DVD titled “Cooler by the Lake” that is targeted at college seniors and first-year graduate students and is offered to recruiters from local companies to distribute on college campuses. Not only does the disc include information about cultural, business, recreational and dining venues, it also includes a listing of Chicago bars that hold weekly “mini-reunions” and broadcast sports events for alumni of various Big 10 universities.


These types of resources, Sun says, can help candidates “see that there is stuff that they can do, or that they will be able to connect with recent grads and help make it more of a community rather than just a place to work.”


“The last thing you want as a young person is to move to a city, leave your family 300 miles away, without knowing that there is some sort of social environment into which you can fit,” she says.

Posted on January 13, 2009June 27, 2018

Violence Overseas Keeps Some Medical Tourists at Home

Terrorists attacks in India. Hamas rockets in Israel. Kidnappings in Mexico.


Not the kinds of headlines that help sell risk-averse employers on the idea of sending employees abroad for medical care. The threat of violence is one reason few employers have signed up with companies that offer low-cost medical care at foreign hospitals and even fewer are sending employees overseas, medical tourism operators say.


Despite cost savings in elective surgeries such as hip replacements, employers remain concerned about liabilities—medical and otherwise—related to receiving health care overseas.


One medical tourism company, Calabasas, California-based Planet Hospital, has signed up five employers. But after the November terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Planet Hospital’s employer clients said they wanted to cross India off their list.


What started out as interest in medical tourism has yet to translate into sending employees abroad.


“They sign up but they don’t execute,” said Planet Hospital founder Rudy Rupak. “The employer says, ‘We’re not going to do this until we’re absolutely protected against malpractice.’ But you’re not going to get absolute protection even in America. If a person wants to sue, they’re going to sue.”


The company has for months been working on providing liability insurance to employers against being sued by employees who experience medical complications. Rupak said Los Angeles-based clothing retailer American Apparel recently signed up for the service. But the company is restricting its options to Mexico, despite a recent string of high-profile kidnappings in the country.


Employers, though, are often more concerned than employees about safety risks, said Tom Keesling, president of Indus Health, a Raleigh, North Carolina-based medical tourism company focused on India.


“While we might say an employer may be hesitant because of worldwide unrest, we know that when employees are asked to assess that risk themselves we know they want to go,” Keesling said.


That’s because often the incentive for individuals is cost. In the U.S., a hip-replacement surgery can cost $30,000 to $40,000 for uninsured patients, according to BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, compared with about $9,000 in India and $12,000 in Singapore.


But unless employees are uninsured or underinsured—that is, they have high out-of-pocket costs associated with surgeries—there is no financial incentive steering them overseas for care.


In 2007, some 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for care, according to estimates by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, which is part of the Deloitte audit and advisory firm. Most were uninsured or underinsured individuals. A few were employees whose firms gave them an incentive to go.


Keesling said he has one corporate customer that has sent 15 employees overseas for care. The client did not want to be named because of a backlash that occurred against Blue Ridge Paper, a North Carolina company whose efforts to send an employee abroad for care created a public uproar.


Still, Keesling said that during the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November, he had four clients in India. While everyone else worried, the patients, who were far away at a hospital in Bangalore, were not, Keesling said.


He said subsequent trips to India were not canceled.


“Patients knew about what was going on in India, but there wasn’t enough concern to cancel flights,” Keesling said. “Nobody canceled.”


Russell Bigler, CEO of the Self Insured Schools of California, which manages benefits for public school districts in Central California’s Kern County, said he had considered medical tourism but decided against it.


Though he had been in Thailand this fall when the airport was shut down by anti-government protesters, his decision had nothing to do with global instability. Benefit design is why his 250,000 members do not have the option to go overseas. Teachers and other beneficiaries of the heath plan do not have the high out-of-pocket costs that would make surgery outside the U.S. worthwhile.


“The deductibles, the co-insurance [are] not big enough to warrant something like that,” he said. “It’s for a company that’s self-insured that has $5,000 deductibles.”


—Jeremy Smerd


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on January 13, 2009June 27, 2018

Canadian Plan Funded Status at All-Time Low

Canadian pension plan solvency is at historical lows, according to an analysis by Watson Wyatt Worldwide.


The pension funding ratio for Canadian defined-benefit plans declined 27 percentage points to 69 percent in 2008. Funded status declined 11 percentage points in the fourth quarter, according to the analysis. The yearly decline is the lowest since pension funding ratios started being measured in the mid-1980s, according to Laura Samaroo, a Watson Wyatt retirement practice leader. The previous low was 75 percent in September 2002 and March 2003.


“Canadian pension plans are certainly reflecting the declines in financial markets,” David Burke, Watson Wyatt retirement practice director, said in a news release. “What’s most troubling is that the significantly higher pension contributions that will be required to offset sizable investment losses are placing additional strain on companies and negatively impacting corporate capital investment plans for 2009 and beyond.”


Defined-contribution plans also showed significant losses, with account values dropping 10 to 20 percent, according to Watson Wyatt.


“As defined-contribution plan participants watch their account balances fall, their anxiety levels are likely to rise,” Dan Morrison, a Watson Wyatt senior retirement and investment consultant, said in the news release. “And with investment losses making retirement less affordable, expected retirements may be deferred or, worse yet, employees may retire on the job—struggling to be productive and engaged.”


Similarly, a report by investment consultant Mercer shows a 23-percentage-point decline in the Mercer Pension Health index to 59 percent for Canadian plans. The index reflects the funding ratio for a model pension plan.


“Most equity markets fell by more than 30 percent last year in local currency,” Yvan Breton, a business leader for Mercer’s Canadian investment consulting business, said in a news release. “Even for plans that benefited from the fall in the Canadian dollar because they did not hedge foreign currency exposure, pension fund assets were hit hard in 2008.”


Filed by Timothy Inklebarger of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.
 

Posted on January 12, 2009June 27, 2018

NYC Civil Employees’ Total Compensation Averages Six Figures

It pays to be an employee of the city of New York.


Firefighters earned an average of $186,464 last year in total compensation. The city’s police officers pulled in $164,045. Teachers and other school officials earned an average of $112,852, and all other workers received an average of $101,096, including salary and fringe benefits.


With a $7 billion city budget deficit looming in 2011, a report released Thursday, January 8, by nonpartisan private research group the Citizens Budget Commission highlighted how the cost of Big Apple public employees far outstrips the compensation of other public workers in the state as well as private workers.


New York City public employees cost taxpayers an average $107,000 per person in 2008, with fringe benefits such as health care and pension contributions totaling $37,600. The report, based on publicly available material from the city’s Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Labor Department statistics, says total compensation has grown 63 percent since 2000. Fringe benefits have gone up 182 percent, led by a 700 percent increase in pension costs.


Since 2000, the city’s average contribution to pensions grew to $20,333 from $2,530 for full-time employees. The growth was sparked by a recalculation of pension fund assets and lower-than-expected investment returns that showed a need for greater contributions.


The report stated that health care benefit costs had doubled since 2000. By contrast, private-sector workers’ fringe benefits increased by 40 percent and state workers’ benefits rose 52 percent since 2000.


“These skyrocketing costs are stunning,” CBC president Carol Kellermann said in a statement. “And they impose an enormous, and growing, burden on increasingly strained taxpayers. Corrective action is essential and can no longer be delayed.”


The city offers workers defined-benefit pension plans and does not require workers to contribute to health insurance premiums.


Since 2000, employee contributions toward premiums have jumped 119 percent nationally, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.


While health insurance costs were the same for all employees, wages varied based on profession. Firefighters and police officers earned more because of lucrative overtime assignments.


—Jeremy Smerd



Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


Posted on January 12, 2009June 27, 2018

New York Governor to Propose Extended Health Coverage Eligibility

New York Gov. David Paterson said Wednesday, January 7, that he will propose legislation to require employers purchasing health insurance coverage from commercial insurers to extend coverage to dependents up to age 29.


Under the proposal, all dependent family members 18 to 29 would be entitled to continued coverage under their parents’ employment-based health care plan. While employers could require employees to pick up the full cost of the extended coverage, the cost likely would be significantly less compared to coverage in the personal-lines market.


Paterson said his proposal is aimed at reducing the number of New Yorkers without health insurance, noting that 31 percent of the state’s uninsured are residents 19 to 29.


Numerous states have passed similar measures in recent years, including neighboring New Jersey, which allows employees’ dependents to retain coverage to age 31.


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on January 12, 2009June 27, 2018

Wellness Programs Benefit From Management Support

Workplace wellness programs that incorporate goal-setting and receive management support are twice as likely to improve employee activity levels as merely providing information to employees on the health benefits of exercise, a study has found.


The study compared the activity levels of 1,442 Home Depot Inc.’s employees who participated in the retailer’s 12-week “Move to Improve” program with a control group.


The control group took health risk appraisals designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and received monthly newsletters describing the health benefits of physical activity.


The study group was divided into teams and was asked to set both personal and team goals that included weekly increases in the frequency of 10-minute exercise breaks and in the number of pedometer steps. Senior managers endorsed the program and encouraged middle managers to support employee participation, and participants received small incentives for meeting goals. The program also incorporated environmental prompts, such as signs posted in high-traffic areas throughout the work sites that encouraged physical activity.


By the sixth week of the study, 51 percent of the study group participants logged at least five 30-minute moderate exercise sessions or two to three 20-minute vigorous exercise sessions weekly, compared with only 25 percent of the control group. Moreover, study group participants sustained that level of activity through the end of the 12-week study, with few dropouts, according to the study’s lead author, Rod Dishman, a professor of exercise science at the University of Georgia.


“The biggest pleasant surprise was the steady and sustained progress,” he said in a statement.


“Move to Improve: A Randomized Workplace Trial to Increase Physical Activity” will be published in the February 2009 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, and is available to subscribers at www.ajpm-online.net.

Filed by Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on January 12, 2009June 27, 2018

Employer Groups Push for Health Care Reform, Reject Mandatory Employer-Provided Insurance

Employer groups are pushing for health care reform to be part of the massive stimulus package being crafted by the incoming Barack Obama administration and Congress.


In addition to helping laid-off workers pay to continue receiving their employers’ group health insurance, the federal government should make health care reform a centerpiece of any comprehensive stimulus plan, said the American Benefits Council in a 44-point health reform proposal released Monday, January 12.


“Health care system reform is not an obstacle to economic recovery; it’s a fundamental component of it,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents private-employer benefits plans.


The council stated that the $2.1 trillion health care system needed to be changed to improve the quality and cost of medical care by building on the employer-based health care system, which provides insurance to 150 million Americans.


“All Americans should have coverage, partly because it will reduce cost shifting for unfunded care and because it’s the right thing to do,” said Wilma Schopp, head of human resources for Monsanto Co. and chairwoman of the council’s Health Reform Task Force. “We want to build on the strengths of the employer-based system, not undermine it. It’s the best foundation we have for reform, and we need to make sure it remains solid.”


The council said it supported a law enacted in Massachusetts that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The group said the best mechanism to ensure that individuals obtain coverage was to automatically enroll uninsured people into plans, offer subsidies to make coverage more affordable, and provide at least one plan per state that would guarantee coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.


The group flatly rejected, however, calls to require employers to provide coverage. In Massachusetts, employers with more than 10 employees that do not provide coverage are required to pay $295 per employee annually into a health care fund. The benefits council said its combination of reforms would make it easier for people to purchase insurance on their own, eliminating the requirement that employers do so on behalf of their employees.


“We are firm believers in the importance and value of employers providing coverage, but to take it one step further and require every other employer did not seem like the appropriate course to take,” Klein said. “When you look at comprehensive health reform, not just coverage alone, you do not need to say that an employer mandate is the way you are going to get there.”


The benefits council, which did not say how much it thought health care reform would cost the federal government, said current law allowing employers to provide health care tax-free has worked and should be extended to individuals. The federal government should use the stimulus package to redouble its efforts to create a nationwide health information network, employer groups said Monday.


The National Business Group on Health endorsed the incoming Obama administration’s plans to spend $50 billion over five years to expand health information technology, including digitizing all health records by 2014. That date was also set by the George W. Bush administration.


The group also supported spending part of the $775 billion proposed stimulus bill to help laid-off workers maintain their company health insurance.


Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, whose members include 63 of the Fortune 100 companies, said the legislation in the stimulus bill should provide funding for doctors in small practices to set up health IT that works across various computer systems.


Darling acknowledged that federal aid to help the jobless maintain their company health plan, known as COBRA, would add substantially to the stimulus price tag.


With all the emphasis on “shovel-ready” infrastructure and other capital projects, Darling urged Congress not to lose sight of the benefits of spending on medical research that could result in better treatment and lower costs.


“It could get lost in the shuffle,” she said. Health IT and research spending “increases the productivity of the economy.”


—Jeremy Smerd and Mark Schoeff Jr.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posted on January 12, 2009June 27, 2018

High Court to Hear Case on Hiring Test Bias

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a public entity was justified in refusing to certify the results of two fire department promotional exams on grounds that the tests may have had a disparate impact on African-Americans.


According to the 2006 district court decision in Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano, it appeared the results of a captain’s test given in 2003 by the New Haven, Connecticut, Fire Department meant no blacks and at most two Hispanics would be eligible for promotion. The results of a lieutenant’s test indicated that neither blacks nor Hispanics would be promoted.


After the New Haven Civil Service Board failed to certify the tests’ results, 17 white and one Hispanic candidates filed suit, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other charges.


The district court granted New Haven’s motion for summary judgment, which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in June 2008.


In its brief opinion, the appellate court said plaintiff Frank Ricci did not have a valid Title VII claim. “To the contrary, because the board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.”


Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 … Page 591 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress