A recent news headline told the story of two nurses who were involved in a scuffle with the father of a newborn inside a New York hospital--apparently, the father was a high profile member of the Kennedy family. The conflict was triggered when he began to carry his infant son out of the hospital without the usual authorized procedures--at which point one of the nurses attempted to block him from leaving.
Tags: Health & Safety, OSHA, Workplace violence
Boards of directors are responsible for corporate governance of their companies, although the companies’ executives oversee most day-to-day activities. To ensure that these executives perform properly, the boards oversee them, and establish compensation and incentives intended to encourage and reward appropriate activities. State corporation laws and federal and state securities laws, have traditionally left boards to decide how to meet these responsibilities.
Tags: Corporate Governance, SEC
Many thought the SEC staff would recommend to the commissioners of the SEC an approach that would either require a certain path to migrate U.S. registrants from generally accepted accounting principles that are developed and issued in the United States (U.S. GAAP) to IFRS or some other path. However, the SEC staff made no such formal recommendation.
Tags: SEC, Accounting & Tax, Audit Standards, US GAAP, GAAP
On July 1, 2012, the “Codification” of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) “celebrated” its third birthday. While CPAs around the world probably did not recognize this event by having cake or singing “Happy Birthday,” or giving gifts, it does prove that conservative accountants can make adjustments to the way they perform their research. Normally, CPAs do not like change but they accepted the FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification reasonably well. If the United States opts for change and decides to follow the accounting rules of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) rather than accounting rules of the FASB, the U.S. accounting profession will likely adapt as well—with a wrinkle here and there.
Tags: Accounting & Tax, Audit Standards, US GAAP, GAAP
On June 26, the federal District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major decision, upholding four rulings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All four rulings expand the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The case is Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA.1
Tags: Health & Safety, California Legislation, Environmental, EPA
Here is Part II of my Ten Commandments of insurance claims which should be followed by all claims people working to fulfill the promises made by an insurer in an insurance policy. They are intended to provide direction to every person involved in claims handling, for the benefit of insurers, and the public.
The following are the first 5 of my Ten Commandments of insurance that should be followed by all claims adjusters working to fulfill the promises made by an insurer in an insurance policy. They are intended to provide direction to every person involved in insurance claims, for the benefit of insurers, and the public.
While the standard setter for accounting principles in the United States is the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), many countries outside the United States follow accounting standards set by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). For the past several years, the FASB and the IASB have been working hard to unite or “converge” their accounting principles such that, effectively, only one set of rules exists. Until recently, the process has worked reasonably well, but now, in the process of developing the standards for insurance contract accounting, the efforts toward conformity have hit a snag—maybe temporarily, maybe not. This snag, together with other developments mentioned below, appears to be slowing down the convergence of accounting standards.
Tags: SEC, Accounting & Tax, Insurance
If you then ordered this employee to accept the transfer, you could possibly find yourself in court, as the County Sheriff’s Office did in Hillsborough, Florida. You might also be found guilty of pregnancy discrimination in violation of federal and state law, and ordered to compensate her with back pay, as well as pay additional damages for inflicting emotional distress on the woman you thought you were helping. This spring the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did just that, affirming a jury verdict awarding $80,000 in back pay plus $10,000 compensation for emotional distress, based on prevailing employment law, and pregnancy discrimination.
The case is Holland v. Gee.[i] Lisa Holland had worked for three years as a data processing telecommunications technician (DP Tech) in the Sheriff’s Office, where David Gee was the County Sheriff. In November 2006, three years after joining the Office, Holland disclosed her pregnancy to her supervisor, Teresa Sterns. Sterns later testified:
‘I’ve thought about this quite a bit, and I’m sure that part of my decision was that as a mother, with knowing the history of her miscarriage, knowing how my pregnancy was rather difficult, I — I can only assume that part of that decision was that I felt it was — it was to be nice and to give Lisa a desk job. Concerned [sic] with her pregnancy was part of my reasoning. It was not the official reasoning, but it was certainly part of what I felt was — was right.’
At trial, several co-workers testified that the Help Desk tasks are less technical and more administrative, involving telephone conversation, rather than on-site visits. Accordingly, some of the Help Desk DP Techs had lower pay grades than that of Ms. Holland, and at least one co-worker testified that he would have considered such a transfer to be a demotion.
Ms. Holland objected to the move but was transferred anyway; she was eventually terminated for what the Sheriff characterized as performance and morale issues.
The Court opinion relates a range of conflicting testimony about who said what, who did or didn’t do what, and the reasons for what occurred. Throughout the case the Sheriff’s Office denied any discriminatory intent, and offered its own testimony to contend that each decision was based on reasons that were non-discriminatory. However, management employees offered differing recollections of what had transpired, and why. In fact some of them changed their stories during the course of the investigation, trial, and court appeal.
This case was tried in federal court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits a wide range of workplace discrimination, including discrimination “based on sex”), under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and under comparable Florida state law.
Because there was no clear written evidence of discrimination, the trial court followed precedent for dealing with the circumstantial evidence. It reviewed the plaintiff’s initial ‘prima facie’ case arguments, followed by the defendant’s counter-arguments, in order to determine if it was even possible that discrimination had occurred. In this case, neither side won at the preliminary stage, as both sides presented extensive testimony, and both cross-examined opposing witnesses vigorously. The trial judge decided that neither side had provided enough evidence to win as a matter of law, and let the matter go to a jury to decide.
The jury believed and agreed with plaintiff Ms. Holland’s arguments that discrimination occurred. The trial judge denied motions by the defendant, the Sheriff’s Office, and on appeal the Eleventh Circuit upheld these determinations.
In upholding the jury’s decision the Eleventh Circuit cited back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 pregnancy discrimination decision in International Union v. Johnson Controls. In that landmark decision, the Supreme Court found that based on employment law and pregnancy discrimination, the employer’s “fetal protection policy” discriminated against pregnant and “fertile” females by denying them work in its battery assembly areas, presumably to prevent their exposure to lead. In that decision, the court found the employer’s policy was motivated at least in part by a desire to avoid the costs of exposure-reducing measures in the workplace. In the current case, the Eleventh Circuit did not dispute that the Sheriff’s Office motivations might be “benign,” but did reaffirm the Supreme Court’s observation that “[c]oncern for a woman’s existing or potential offspring historically has been the excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.”
The Holland v. Gee decision reaffirms that employers cannot change working conditions for pregnant employees, even if the decision is based on a belief that these employees need safer or easier working conditions. Instead, this Court decision reaffirms decades of precedent requiring that the workplace must generally be safe for all employees. The decision does not reach the equally important point that the employee may have the right to request such an accommodation, particularly if that individual’s pregnancy produces a temporary disability that triggers the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Employers make decisions on behalf of employees for a variety of reasons, but the reasons for such decisions are moot when the results tread on employment law and/or pregnancy discrimination or other discrimination. As an employer, it is important to understand the implications of your employment decisions before making them. Here are some employment law and pregnancy discrimination issues to consider in order to protect your company from accusations of running a discriminatory workplace.
Does my organization have a policy prohibiting discrimination, including sex discrimination, based on pregnancy?
Does my organization have a policy prohibiting discrimination, including discrimination based on disability?
- If so, does the policy affirm the organization’s willingness to offer appropriate accommodations to qualified employees with a disability, including temporary disability (which can occur during pregnancy, or during or after serious illnesses)?
Does my organization provide training to supervisors and managers in legal duties regarding employment law to avoid discrimination, and do the organization’s policies comply with these duties and procedures to ensure compliance?
Download the checklist Sex Discrimination Policy: Best Practices for Employers
About the Author
Jon Elliott is President of Touchstone Environmental and has been a major contributor to STP’s product range for over 25 years. He was involved in developing 16 existing products, and writes quarterly updates for them all. Go to the STP Publishers website for a copy of his book, Workplace Violence Prevention: A Practical Guide.
Mr. Elliott has a diverse educational background. In addition to his Juris Doctor (University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1981), he holds a Master of Public Policy (Goldman School of Public Policy [GSPP], UC Berkeley, 1980), and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Princeton University, 1977).
Mr. Elliott is active in professional and community organizations. In addition, he is a past chairman of the Board of Directors of the GSPP Alumni Association, and past member of the Executive Committee of the State Bar of California's Environmental Law Section (including past chair of its Legislative Committee).
You may contact Mr. Elliott directly at: tei@ix.netcom.com.
Tags: Corporate Governance, Employer Best Practices, Employee Rights, EEOC, Title VII
If a person fires bullets at a car and unintentionally kills someone seated inside, does that constitute an 'occurrence’ for the purpose of insurance coverage? One Mississippi case follows the thread of that question. This year an appeals court was asked to determine whether a shooting that caused the “accidental death” of a person is an “occurrence” as defined in a home insurance policy, and/or whether an illegal act exclusion should apply. Here is a brief summary of the case.