Posts Tagged ‘retaliation’
Saturday, December 20th, 2014
The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) ruled that McDonald’s, the corporation, acting through its franchisees, violated the rights of its workers who were protesting for higher wages, specifically a $15 hourly wage.
Fast food workers have increasingly and visibly been conducting protests for higher wages and better working conditions for the past two years. Local owners of McDonald’s franchises have retaliated against those workers with punishment by reducing hours, threats, surveillance, interrogations and restrictions on talking with union organizers, and terminations.
Advocates for the workers filed 291 charges against corporate McDonald’s. The NRLB found merit in 78 of them while others are still under investigation.
Corporate McDonald’s claims it has no control over what local owners do. It wants to dodge responsibility for the denial of workers rights. However, the NLRB agreed with groups like Jobs With Justice that the corporation dictates to franchisees very detailed operating standards to maintain consistency across various McDonald’s locations.
So, when a local McDonald’s punishes workers for protesting peacefully and acting together to improve their work lives it is now assumed that the local owner is acting as an agent for the corporate McDonald’s. The NLRB ruled that the franchisees are joint owners.
Regional hearings are set to begin in early 2015 with a settlement deadline of March 30, 2015.
Tags: $15, franchisees, higher wages, Jobs With Justice, McDonalds, mistreatment, NLRB, retaliation
Posted in Employers Gone Wild: Doing Bad Things, Related Phenomena, WBI Education | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, June 26th, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is done for the year. Decisions have been rendered. The court gutted the civil rights movement by neutering the Voting Rights Act (Shame on them!) . The court granted LGBT proponents unprecedented rights (Yea!). Two decisions regarding employment law clearly sided with employers and once again stuck it to working men and women.
Case #1: Retaliation Changed to Suit Employer Defendants
In the Univ of Texas v. Nassar (No 12-484), SCOTUS (in a 5-4 vote on June 24, 2013) limits retaliation claims to situations in which the plaintiff can show that the the only employer motivating factor is the desire to retaliate. Justice Kennedy opined that there are two standards — lessened causation and but-for. In cases where the practice of retaliation was motivated by several factors, one of which was race, color, religion, sex or national origin, lessened causation applies. In reality, many factors do apply. The Court called these “mixed-motive” cases.
In this case, a woman supervisor at the University of Texas Medical School, Beth Levine, MD (pictured on the left), harassed Naiel Nassar, MD, a physician of Middle Eastern descent. Nassar was working at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas and was an Associate Professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center. In 2004, he inherited a new department head, Levine, known to comment “MiddleEasterners are lazy.” He was promised a post at the hospital even after he resigned his academic job. Nassar’s resignation letter cited Levine’s harassment as the reason. A Dr. Fitz who received the Nassar resignation letter felt he had to defend and exonerate his colleague Levine. Fitz convinced the hospital to withdraw its job offer to Nassar. Nassar filed two claims — discrimination by Levine and retaliation by the University that cost him his hospital position.
The five conservative justices actually stated that the lessening causation standard “could contribute to the filing of frivolous claims.” The opinion cites EEOC statistics about the “nearly doubled” frequency of retaliation claims in the past 15 years. They equate retaliation claims with baseless claims. They seem motivated, on behalf of corporations against which these retaliation claims are filed, to reduce those numbers that bother corporate defendants.
Tags: antidiscrimination laws, Ball State, discrimination, dissenting opinion, employer responsibility, Justice Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Nassar, retaliation, supervisor defined, Title VII, University of Texas, US Supreme Court, Vance, vicarious liability
Posted in Fairness & Social Justice Denied, Rulings by Courts, Tutorials About Bullying, WBI Education, Workplace Bullying Laws | No Archived Comments | Post A Comment (
Wednesday, August 1st, 2012
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) “is responsible for protecting and promoting the public health … (to) assure that patients and providers have timely and continued access to safe, effective, and high-quality medical devices and safe radiation-emitting products.” The CDRH also “facilitate(s) medical device innovation by … providing industry with predictable, consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory pathways.” The first part of the mission, a regulatory role, is easily compromised by the partnering role with manufacturers.
Ethical FDA physicians and scientists launched “Device-gate” in Jan. 2009. They wrote to President Obama that top FDA managers intimidated and coerced and ordered them to approve faulty devices (stents, breast implants, MRIs and other machines) known to be unsafe, including emitting unsafe levels of radiation!
For their reporting the threat to public safety, codified in the CDRH mission, these whistleblowers were retaliated against by administrators. Besides notifying the President, they sent evidence to members of Congress and some media. Most have lost their jobs. (No surprise to bullied targets who dare report their abuse.)
Tags: Dr. Robert C. Smith, Dr. Ronald Kavanagh, FDA, medical devices, public safety, retaliation, U.S. government, whistleblowers
Posted in Employers Gone Wild: Doing Bad Things | 1 Archived Comment | Post A Comment (
Sunday, September 6th, 2009
According to the WBI survey of 422 respondents, the proposition that bullies are being purged by employers during the recession [see WSJ column] is debunked. Bullies lose their jobs at a rate under 2%, while 44% of bullied targets lose their jobs. Retaliation is the most common consequence for targets. Bullies (still) abuse with impunity.
Friday, July 17th, 2009
The report of an Army criminal investigation of management at the Arlington National Cemetery is covered by Mark Benjamin for Salon.com. The unauthorized theft and misuse of an employee’s e-mail account was just part of a larger bullying tale. The bullying followed the all-too-predictable pattern of the ethical worker trampled by tyrannical boss working through an immediate supervisor (a woman) accustomed to operating with impunity. The retaliation against the worker for standing up and daring to file a complaint was termination. A pattern the boss had followed for years.
Tags: Arlington, Gina Gray, Phyllis White, retaliation, Thurman Higgenbotham, woman-on-woman
Posted in Employers Gone Wild: Doing Bad Things, Tutorials About Bullying | 3 Archived Comments | Post A Comment (