Justice Alita wrote the majorityopinion in a 5-to-4 decision holding that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an employee would be considered a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim. Historically the NLRB made these determinations based on its findings that a specific group of employees within an employer enjoyed a sufficient “community of interests” allowing them to adopt common bargaining objectives to effectively deal with their employers over their common issues relating to wages, hours and working conditions. Read the entire Article Here: Employers 2 Plaintiffs 0 As of June 24, 2013, it has become harder for employee plaintiffs to prove that an employer is liable for unlawful harassment and retaliation. In , the Supreme Court considered whether the vicarious liability rules which make a company liable for unlawfully discriminatory acts of its “supervisors” should apply to every harassment case where the employee proves that the harasser has the authority to direct and oversee a victim’s daily work, or only to those harassers who actually have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim. The Board has the authority to determine which employees will be included and which employees will be excluded from collective bargaining and voting units.Ready to get cooking with your commercial kitchen project? Many management clients express concern that their abilities to monitor employees’ use of their company information technology are limited by laws regarding employee “privacy rights.” They fear that if they take action against an employee whom they learn has been abusing the Company’s Internet access and using email programs for personal or even anti-management purposes, they may subject themselves to liability for invasion of employee “privacy rights.” Read the Entire Article: Here As of June 24, 2013, it has become harder for employee plaintiffs to prove that an employer is liable for unlawful harassment and retaliation. The Court in r considered the standard of proof under the retaliation provision of Title VII, 42 U. He held that Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to the more stringent “but-for” causation standard, rather than the lower standard for proving unlawful discrimination defined in the discrimination section of Title VII. Read the Entire Article Here NLRB’s New Brew Many managers and supervisors operate under the mistaken belief that part time employees have fewer rights than full time employees. In fact, the Department of Labor, and other agencies that enforce employment and anti-discrimination laws make no distinction between part time and full time employees.
Someone decided to test what it would look like to test out what reactions an ad from Fancy Feast would get from the Chatroulette demographic.
Speakers include BET, American Cancer Society, 5/3 Bank, Duke University, Sallie Mae, IBM, Darden, Georgia State University, Chris Brogan, Brian Fanzo, Ekaterina Walter, and more. For the uninitiated, is a video chat service that matches your video with a complete stranger.
Chatroulette is your friendly video gateway to the underbelly of the internet. When the site got global attention back in March they became one of the most visited sites on the web overnight. With all the nudity and men quickly clicking past anything that is not a pretty girl, we wonder how much depravity and rejection these marketers had to sort through to create the fun videos below.
Given the site’s androcentric demographics, FCUK both threw down the gauntlet for a serious challenge and targeted a very particular element of their consumer base.
The contest got picked up by sites like Perez Hilton, which gets millions of visitors, and it boosted traffic to the company’s blog by 300 percent.” via Inc.“A Newport Beach, California-based eyewear brand crowdsourced their Chatroulette presence by enticing users to send in their creepiest Sabre-related screenshots, with a no naughty parts clause, to win a pair of shades.