Results matching “caregiver”

Around the web, January 16 - PointOfLaw Forum

Employment-law edition:

  • Something wicked this way comes - Congress's 2010 employment law agenda [Hyman, Ohio Employer's Law]
  • New volume, "Labor Rights in the Era of Globalization" [Workplace Prof]
  • Not your father's New Hampshire: new Granite State plant-closing law goes beyond federal requirements [Michael Fox]
  • "Top 10 Wage-and-Hour Settlements Tally 44% More in 2009" [ABA Journal on Seyfarth paper]
  • Smuggling the "workplace bullying" crusade into ... hospital accreditation? [Michael Fox]
  • "Caregivers as a Protected Class?" [new paper on "family responsibilities discrimination"; Workplace Prof]

Attack on arbitration moves forward in the U.S. Senate - PointOfLaw Forum

Of all the anti-arbitration bills in Congress this year, long considered the most likely to pass is the one to vitiate pre-dispute abritration clauses in nursing home contracts -- the appeal to emotion is stronger. Once you get the legislative precedent, the future bills will move more easily.

So it's no surprise that today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out S.2838, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (introduced by Sen. Mel Martinez, the Florida Republican and trial lawyer).

The American Association of Justice hailed the bill's progress in a release, quoting AAJ President Les Weisbrod: "The practice of mandatory arbitration in nursing home contracts is one that preys on vulnerable seniors and their families when they are making tough decisions about long-term care. It is a system deliberately designed to take advantage of the weakest members of our society in order to pad the profits of greedy nursing home corporations."

The American Health Care Association issued a release criticizing the legislation, citing a "diverse coalition of senior, caregiver and taxpayer advocacy groups." Bruce Yarwood, President and CEO of the AHCA said: "This new legislation ostensibly helping seniors has drawn an unusually diverse, broad cross section of opposition because it not only undermines seniors' care needs, it restricts consumers' ability to exercise free choice." Lisa Rickard of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform gets her say, as well.

This could become one of the trial lawyers' real successes this session, helping to return to past practices the kept disputes in the courts, lengthy and expensive.

UPDATE: Oh yes. The House Judiciary Committee voted out the companion bill, H.R. 6126, 17-10 on July 30th. And for previous posts on the subject of anti-arbitration legislation, go here.

NYC mulls "caregiver discrimination" law - PointOfLaw Forum

"Under a bill authored by the city's public advocate, Betsy Gotbaum, employees who are taking care of children, elderly relatives, or disabled family members would receive legal protections akin to those regarding race, gender, or religion." New York Sun reporter Benjamin Sarlin quotes me with critical comments on the idea. More on what is variously called "family responsibility discrimination" and "caregiver discrimination" can be found here.

"Family responsibilities discrimination" hits the Times - PointOfLaw Forum

The Sunday magazine just ran a big feature (via Elefant) highly sympathetic to the campaign to promote "caregiver discrimination" suits against employers when they don't do enough to accommodate workers whose responsibility for kids, aging relatives, etc. gets in the way of their job effort. We've been noting the campaign with alarm for a year now.

EEOC on "caregiver discrimination" - PointOfLaw Forum

No, Congress has never seen fit to pass any general law prohibiting employers from according higher pay or faster promotions to employees whose commitment to the job is undiluted by family responsibilities at home. Which means advocates of such a prohibition are left to cobble together elements of sex discrimination law, family leave, disparate impact, disabled-rights law and so forth in hopes of attaining the same approximate result. The EEOC's new "Guidance on the Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities" may or may not hurry this process along. (A number of local jurisdictions, including Alaska, D.C., and various county and city governments, do have explicit bans.) Tresa Baldas at the NLJ covers the EEOC initiative and the rising volume of suits in this area; Richard Bales discusses here and here, and Michael Fox here, while the WorkLife Law Blog is devoted to promoting bans of this sort.

"Caregiver discrimination" - PointOfLaw Forum

Oh joy, here comes another whole sector of employment discrimination law developing without any clear legislative charter and imposing unpredictable obligations on employers: "family responsibilities discrimination". �Discrimination based on caregiving is not an expressed category,� said Joan C. Williams, executive director of [the Center for WorkLife Law at Hastings College of Law]. �It�s a reflection of the creativity of lawyers who have set up a new subcategory of litigation within existing workplace discrimination laws.� More here, too.

Caregiver discrimination suits - PointOfLaw Forum

Per the NLJ, an employment lawyer sees "tremendous growth" in the category; one highly publicized case was recently filed against Novartis.

1