State AGs Warn the EEOC over Gross Federal Overreach

The chief legal officers representing Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia warned the EEOC that their position on criminal background checks violating Title VII is invalid.

What is Title VII?  That is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically it prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

The EEOC issued Guidance in April of 2012 stating that a neutral policy of using prior criminal convictions as part of a job screening has a “disparate impact” on minorities.  Even though this policy has been routinely criticized, they have continued to file lawsuits using this policy as their basis.

The critiques for this policy are:

  • The EEOC’s guidance would illegitimately expand Title VII protection to former criminals.”
  • The EEOC does not have the authority to create a policy of shielding individuals from their criminal history, that would have to be  created by Congress.
  • The “individualized assessment” that the EEOC has required would be financially ruinous for employers.

Once again, the EEOC exceeds the authority granted to them by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and attempts to create the law instead of enforcing the law as written.

The full article is here, please take a look and make your own decisions.

EEOC Ordered to pay $750K due to ‘unreasonable’ lawsuit

The EEOC often has an “Sue First, Ask questions later” approach, especially in a case in 2011 which involved a Temporary Staffing Firm.  The Fall out from that case hit in 2012, when the an lower court “awarded Peoplemark $752,000 in attorney’s fees and costs after the agency pursued an “unreasonable and meritless litigation strategy” in a racial discrimination claim against the staffing company.

In this case, the EEOC was given the facts necessary to prove that the case was without merit, and then decided to continue to prosecute.  The Judge wrote:

“This is one of those cases where the complaint turned out to be without foundation from the beginning.  Once the EEOC became aware that its assertion that Peoplemark categorically refused to hire any person with a criminal record was not true, or once the EEOC should have known that, it was unreasonable for the EEOC to continue to litigate on the basis of that claim, thereby driving up defendant’s costs, because it knew it would not be able to prove its case.”

This prime example of a lack of Government Oversight on the EEOC, and how they waste your tax dollars.  Take a look at the article from the HR Morning article, and decide on yourself of the merits or foolishness of this lawsuit.

The EEOC May Find You Unreasonable If You’re Not Traumatized by Single Insensitive Email

The Court system is our check and balance against the Judicial and Executive branch of the Government.  So, how is it that the Court system does not consider a single insensitive workplace email or remark to be Insensitive, but the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, considers it to be “Religious harassment” and a fine of around $30,000 – 40,000.

Hans Bader discusses this situation in his article on the CNSNews.com.  In it he discusses how the EEOC’s rulings have been found to disregard the guidelines and prior case law that exists when it is contrary to the EEOC’s decisions.  In this particular case, the ruling from the EEOC was “inconsistent not only with court rulings, but also the language of the relevant status, which only bans harassment when it is sufficiently pervasive as to affect ‘terms’ or ‘conditions of employment’“.

Thankfully the Court’s due have a say in these rulings, and the EEOC has been restrained, but this is immense overreaching on their part.

The original article is here – https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-bader/eeoc-may-find-you-unreasonable-if-youre-not-traumatized-single-insensitive

EEOC: An Agency on the Wrong Track?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been in the news, but you may not have heard about the Litigation Failures, Misfocused Priorities that have raised concerns about the important Anti-Discrimination Agency.

We are spotlighting a report from the US Senate that documents many concerns and issues that were brought to light in 2014.  From the Report’s Executive Summary:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) serves an important role in our nation’s workplaces. Under the leadership of five commissioners and a general counsel, EEOC is charged with protecting employees from discrimination at work through enforcement of equal opportunity employment laws. The commission investigates allegations of discrimination and seeks to mediate cases, allowing lawsuits to go forward if settlements are unsuccessful. The general counsel pursues allegations of discrimination in court and has been deputized by the commission to initiate litigation in many instances. The commission also issues guidance to inform the public about how it believes employers should interpret and apply the laws.

Today’s EEOC, however, is pursuing many questionable cases through sometimes overly aggressive means—and, as a result, has suffered significant court losses that are embarrassing to the agency and costly to taxpayers. Courts have found EEOC’s litigation tactics to be so egregious they have ordered EEOC to pay defendants’ attorney’s fees in ten cases since 2011. The courts have criticized EEOC for misuse of its authority, poor expert analysis, and pursuit of novel cases unsupported by law. Several courts have openly criticized EEOC for its failure to satisfy pre-litigation requirements, such as attempting to resolve discrimination disputes out of court; yet, the general counsel is leading an effort to prevent court review of such requirements.

These court losses also have come at a significant cost to victims of workplace discrimination. While EEOC’s monetary recoveries for victims through settlements are up, EEOC’s litigation has recovered almost $200 million less for victims than under the previous administration over the same time frame. In March 2014, EEOC reported almost 71,000 unresolved complaints of discrimination from individuals who filed charges with EEOC.

EEOC also has suffered from a troubling lack of transparency. In the past two and a half years, EEOC has ignored calls from current commissioners and Congress to allow public review of significant and controversial guidance prior to its adoption. Also, the Office of General Counsel has, since 2010, failed to issue its standard annual report, and the agency is being sued for violating the Freedom of Information Act.

This staff report will first explain the background and operation of EEOC. Next, the report will explore costly rebukes of EEOC’s recent litigation practices. The report will also discuss the ways in which EEOC has shown a lack of transparency.

Today’s EEOC has had successful enforcement efforts and court victories for victims of discrimination, but this report finds the agency is increasingly demonstrating poor judgment and using questionable tactics in pursuit of cases that are not fulfilling the EEOC’s objective of protecting employees from workplace discrimination.

Some of the important key findings of the report:

KEY FINDINGS

  • EEOC’s Office of General Counsel frequently initiates litigation without the benefit of a commission vote. In FY 2012, only three of 122 lawsuits filed by EEOC were brought to the commission for a vote. According to a former EEOC general counsel who served from 2003 to 2005, this represents a significant departure from the previous commission.
  • EEOC has been sanctioned by courts and ordered to pay attorney’s fees ten times since 2011 for untenable litigation and litigation strategies. (See Appendix 1.)
  • Monetary awards pursued in litigation for victims of discrimination are down from previous years. In FY 2012 and 2013, EEOC recovered $44.2 million and $38.6 million, respectively—the lowest recovery amounts in the past 16 years.
  • As of March 2014, EEOC had 70,781 unresolved discrimination charges pending.
  • EEOC’s credibility is at risk. As one commissioner described, EEOC’s “reputation and credibility has … suffered from several recent lawsuits where [EEOC was] not only sanctioned, but openly chastised by the courts.”
  • A federal court reprimanded EEOC for being “negligent in its discovery obligations, dilatory in cooperating with defense counsel, and somewhat cavalier in its responsibility to the United States District Court.”
  • EEOC caused a small employer to spend $100,000 attempting to comply with requests for information that, according to a federal judge, “EEOC had no authority to obtain.”
  • A unanimous three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found “[t]he EEOC continued to litigate . . . claims after it became clear there were no grounds upon which to proceed.”
  • EEOC is not consistently meeting its statutory mandate to attempt to resolve discrimination disputes out of court. One court found EEOC “blatantly contravene[d] Title VII’s emphasis on resolving disputes without resort to litigation,” and another found EEOC ignored its obligation to conciliate. EEOC’s general counsel is leading the fight to prevent court review of such efforts, and the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the issue this term.
  • Successful conciliations (i.e. resolution of a case outside of court) have decreased from 8,273 during the first five years of the previous administration to 6,967 during the same time period in the current administration.
  • Despite Office of Management and Budget best practices found in an agency bulletin and support from a majority of commissioners, EEOC does not allow the public to review or comment upon its draft guidance, even in cases of novel, significant or controversial  guidance. This is especially concerning because in two cases last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected substantive positions found in EEOC guidance.
  • Unlike prior years, EEOC’s Office of General Counsel has only published one annual report since 2010. These reports summarize the activities and litigation record of the Office of General Counsel.
  • EEOC is being sued for failing to meet statutory deadlines imposed by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and EEOC’s own FOIA regulations.

The full report is hereOr you can get it from the US Senate here.

 

 

New York State Constitution Convention

The media has been discussing the upcoming vote on the NY State Constitutional Convention, I believe it is important that we make an educated decision to vote for or against this.

Here are some facts about the convention and some websites to refer to for more information:

  • The current State Constitution was drafted in 1938
  • By law a vote to hold a constitutional convention must be held every 20 years.
    • Last convention was 1967 – all proposed changes were voted down
    • In 1997 it was voted down
  • Some view this as an opportunity to make changes, others see it as opening Pandora’s box.
  • If the vote is to hold a Constitutional Convention then:
    • Delegates (3 from each senate district and 15 others statewide) would be elected in 2018
    • Those delegates would meet in April of 2019 for the convention
    • any proposed changes would go before the voters in the 2019 November election.  No changes can occur to the constitution without statewide approval at the ballot box.
  • Backers are the NYState Bar Association and extremely liberal groups
  • Main stream Republicans, Democrats, and Conservatives are opposed to it
  • Even Unions are against it
  • NY City residents have the most to gain from this

The Constitutional Convention, is a topic that we need to be informed about if we are going to make an educated decision for or against.  Keep in mind, while the delegates would come together with unlimited abilities to propose amending the constitution in any and all ways.

What has not been emphasized is that any amendments approved by delegates would need to be ultimately approved by the voters. This is important to remember: No changes can occur to the constitution without statewide approval at the ballot box.

Please take a few moments to look at the following websites before voting on November 7th.

The New York post has a very well balanced look at the convention, including the potential special interest concerns, and the Conservative concerns.

A Pro-Constitutional Convention viewpoint is over at Syracuse.com.  Their stance is that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to use the convention to clean up Albany’s politics & corruption, revise the New York state Electoral system, and add term limits.

A Con-Constitiutional Convention viewpoint is at:  newyorkconcon.info.

Dr. Alveda King speaking in Rochester

Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martini Luther King Jr., will be speaking in Rochester on October 2nd, 2017 at 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church on 304 Joseph Avenue.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. King:

Alveda Celeste King (born January 22, 1951) is an American activist, author and former state representative for the 28th District in the Georgia House of Representatives.

She is a niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and daughter of civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King and his wife Naomi Barber King. She is a Fox News Channel contributor. She once served as a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a conservative Washington, D.C. think-tank. She is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives and the founder of Alveda King Ministries.
– From Wikipedia, for more details see Alveda King @ Wikipedia

Cover Image by Priests for Life.

Flag Day 2017 (VFW Ely-Fagan Post #1151)

Thank you, Members of the VFW Ely-Fagan Post #1151 for allowing us to participate.

Your continued service to our Nations Hero’s and their families is beyond appreciated. For more details about the Ely-Fagan American Legion Post #1151, please visit them at Ely-Fagan Post #1151. #Veterans #townofhenrietta #GOP

 

The History Of Flag Day

The Fourth of July was traditionally celebrated as America’s birthday, but the idea of an annual day specifically celebrating the Flag is believed to have first originated in 1885. BJ Cigrand, a schoolteacher, arranged for the pupils in the Fredonia, Wisconsin Public School, District 6, to observe June 14 (the 108th anniversary of the official adoption of The Stars and Stripes) as ‘Flag Birthday’. In numerous magazines and newspaper articles and public addresses over the following years, Cigrand continued to enthusiastically advocate the observance of June 14 as ‘Flag Birthday’, or ‘Flag Day’. On June 14, 1889, George Balch, a kindergarten teacher in New York City, planned appropriate ceremonies for the children of his school, and his idea of observing Flag Day was later adopted by the State Board of Education of New York. On June 14, 1891, the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia held a Flag Day celebration, and on June 14 of the following year, the New York Society of the Sons of the Revolution, celebrated Flag Day.

Visit the Here for more details.