Latest news with #HRDive
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Aon fired employee with ADHD who wanted to work in the office full time, lawsuit alleges
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Professional services firm Aon allegedly fired an employee because she has attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, after she requested and received an accommodation to work in the office, according to a July 23 lawsuit. Per the complaint in Gomez v. Aon Private Risk Management Insurance Agency, Inc., the employee worked as an account specialist. She alleged that a recruiter told her she could work in the office full time to accommodate her ADHD, but after she was hired, she was allegedly informed the role was mostly remote and full-time in-office work wasn't possible. Because of her ADHD, the employee had trouble performing and learning effectively, she alleged. She emailed her manager, who allegedly told her this may not be a 'fit environment' for her, and placed her on a performance improvement plan. She formally requested an accommodation but was fired shortly after the request was approved and she began working in the office, the lawsuit said. Dive Insight: The employee filed her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging she experienced discrimination and harassment and was ultimately fired due to her ADHD. She also claimed she was initially denied a reasonable accommodation and retaliated against because she asked for one. Aon did not respond to a request for a comment. Compliance issues surrounding reasonable accommodation are always evolving, even as the ADA marks its 35th anniversary. Remote work, or 'telework,' stands out as an example, although the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has long recognized it as a reasonable accommodation, according to an EEOC guidance. While the Aon lawsuit offers a twist — the employee alleged she was discriminated against because she requested an accommodation to work in the office, not remotely — the best practices for staying ADA compliant are the same. One critical step is for the employer and the employee to engage in an 'interactive process,' so the employer can understand why an accommodation is needed and what alternatives are possible if the request poses an undue hardship, the EEOC explains. A $22.1 million jury award in July 2024 against Wells Fargo shows how costly it can be to deny a request without engaging in an interactive process or fully exploring the issues. In the Wells Fargo case, a director asked for an accommodation to work from home because his impairment required frequent and quick access to a restroom. His managers allegedly eliminated his role before the matter was resolved. The judge determined there was a dispute over whether Wells Fargo engaged in 'genuine discourse' about the employee's request and said it would have to be resolved by a jury. Employers should also keep in mind that, while allowing an employee to change work locations can be a reasonable accommodation, they may have to modify a work rule or policy for this to happen, EEOC's guidance points out. This issue arose a few years ago, when three City of Berkeley, California, commission members asked to attend meetings remotely from their homes to accommodate their disabilities. The city said they could, but allegedly only if they publicly listed their home address as a meeting place and let the public inside to attend, ostensibly because of a state rule. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Berkeley for violating the ADA. Under the settlement, the city changed its policy to allow the requirements to be waived for disability-related concerns. In the Aon case, the employee said she explained to her manager that her ADHD kept her from performing to her full potential because she was working from home. She twice asked for an accommodation to work in the office full time, but the requests were denied, and she was allegedly told the policy only allowed her to work in the office one day a week. She then submitted a formal request and submitted medical documentation. Although the request was approved, and her performance allegedly improved, she was still fired, the lawsuit said. Recommended Reading The ADA at 30: A landmark civil rights law that still has room to grow Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Hiring is in ‘an AI doom loop,' Greenhouse CEO says
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Two-thirds of U.S. job candidates say they're struggling to land a role in an intensely competitive labor market — and only 7% believe the market favors them, according to a July 17 report from Greenhouse, a hiring platform. Job seekers reported challenges such as hiring automation, employer ghosting and bias. In turn, candidates are responding by using artificial intelligence tools, resume hacks and interview tricks to get attention. 'Hiring is stuck in an AI doom loop,' Daniel Chait, CEO and co-founder of Greenhouse, said in a statement. 'We don't need more friction or hoops to jump through; we need a hiring process that allows people's true selves to come through more clearly and more completely,' Chait added. 'A more human and three-dimensional hiring process that helps candidates showcase their skills and focus their job search is the only way to cut through the chaos and connect the right people to the right roles.' In a survey of more than 2,200 active job seekers in the U.S., U.K. and Ireland, 72% said they've encountered 'bait-and-switch' tactics during the hiring process, where the job they applied for turned out to be different from the offered position. Workers said employment uncertainty, reduced hours and job losses led them to look for a new role. In an attempt to become more competitive, 59% of candidates said they've altered their resumes, and among those, 45% said they've embellished their qualifications. Job seekers also said they're turning to AI to remain competitive, with 67% of U.S. candidates using AI during the job hunt. While 45% use AI to prepare for interviews, 28% use it to create fake work samples, and 22% use automated bots to submit applications. With the growth of AI use in hiring, more than a quarter of candidates said it's even harder to stand out, and nearly a third have claimed AI skills they don't have. As the hiring process grows even more competitive, 10% of job seekers said they've lied on their resume, typically about dates of employment, years of experience and job responsibilities in previous roles, according to an AI Resume Builder report. Only 21% said they regret lying, and 92% said their lies were never discovered. Ghosting appears to go both ways — while 63% of candidates surveyed by Greenhouse said they're often left in the dark after interviews, about half said they've ghosted an employer as well. Among Gen Z job seekers, 73% said they've walked away mid-process, including 26% after receiving an offer.
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Employer settles claims that it refused to promote Black employee, fired her after bias complaint
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: A Maryland retirement community will pay $85,000 to settle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that it refused to promote a Black manager and subsequently fired her when she complained of discrimination, EEOC said in a press release Tuesday. Per the 2024 complaint, the plaintiff sought promotion to a vice president or executive director position, but was told that she was ineligible because she lacked a bachelor's degree. She alleged Westminster Ingleside King Farm Presbyterian Retirement Communities nonetheless employed a White employee who lacked a bachelor's degree as its VP of HR and promoted another White employee with the same job title as the plaintiff to an executive director role. The plaintiff later received a bachelor's degree, but EEOC claimed her supervisor ignored the plaintiff's promotion request. It also alleged she received a 'false' written warning from HR, after which the plaintiff expressed a desire to file a race discrimination charge. She was terminated shortly afterward. EEOC alleged violations of federal laws including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As part of its consent decree with EEOC, the employer did not admit wrongdoing. Dive Insight: The EEOC noted that retaliation — such as that alleged in the Westminster Ingleside lawsuit — is unlawful irrespective of the validity of an employee's claims. Such complaints 'can be early warning signs for employers,' Debra Lawrence, regional attorney at EEOC, said in the press release. 'What employers should never do is treat complaints as the problem or take adverse action against the complainant.' According to agency enforcement guidance, employers may not retaliate against employees for opposing unlawful equal employment opportunity practices. This opposition may include actions such as complaining or threatening to complain about alleged discrimination against oneself or others. Retaliation has formed the basis of previous EEOC settlements with employers, including a 2024 agreement between the agency and an employer that it alleged retaliated against three employees — including an HR manager — for raising concerns about discriminatory workplace treatment. Employers should swiftly and thoroughly investigate employee complaints — with the assistance of an external investigator if necessary, an employment law attorney wrote in an op-ed to HR Dive in March.
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
AI may diminish demand for high-wage skills like data analysis, research finds
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: As artificial intelligence and automation redefine work, today's high-wage skills — including data analysis and process monitoring where AI has demonstrated strong capabilities — may diminish in demand and dip in salary, according to research by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI and the Digital Economy Lab. In contrast, skills requiring human interaction and coordination — such as prioritizing and organizing work and training, teaching and effective communication — will grow in importance and command higher pay, the research, publicized July 7, found. Researchers also identified a mismatch between AI's capabilities and what workers want, which may hinder AI's successful integration into the workplace, according to the report. What workers want, the study found, is to work collaboratively with AI. Dive Insight: For the study, researchers surveyed 1,500 workers about what they wanted from AI and compared this to insight from 52 AI experts about what AI is capable of doing. The findings identified significant mismatches, revealing tasks that warranted reconsideration for automation, a media release explained. For example, in 41% of tasks, including writing creative content and preparing meeting agendas, AI implementation was either unwanted or technically not possible, the researchers said. Other tasks, such as monitoring budgets and creating production schedules, fell into an opportunity zone — highly desired but not yet technically possible, the study found. 'As AI systems become increasingly capable, decisions about how to deploy them in the workplace are often driven by what is technically feasible — workers are the ones most affected by these changes and the ones the economy ultimately relies on,' Yijia Shao, project leader and a Ph.D. student at Stanford Computer Science Department, stated in the release. Bringing employee perspectives to the table is critical to building systems they will embrace, Shao said. It also helps reveal overlooked opportunities for AI and guides 'more human-centered innovation, which in turn benefits technological development.' Organizations that ignore human-centric factors could end up implementing AI and generative AI tools without being completely clear on strategy or business goals, AI leaders at Deloitte Consulting cautioned in an April op-ed for HR Dive. Instead of rushing to beat out competitors, organizations should first understand generative AI's best use case for their business, the consultants advised. This gives HR leaders a better idea of what the company's talent and staffing needs may be, they said. Ultimately, the result of a company's AI investment will depend on human capabilities like cognizance, curiosity and collaboration, the consultants emphasized. Employers are recognizing this, according to a June report from talent assessment firm TestGorilla. Among more than 1,000 U.S. and U.K. hiring decisionmakers surveyed, 3 in 5 told TestGorilla that soft skills are more important today than five years ago. More than 70% said evaluating candidates on both hard and soft skills leads to better results, the survey found. Employers want people who can think critically, adapt and collaborate, TestGorilla's CEO noted. Recommended Reading How companies are planning for AI disruption Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Stanford researcher was harassed, fired due to antisemitism, lawsuit alleges
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. An Israeli researcher sued Stanford University July 10 for allegedly allowing colleagues, amid campus-wide antisemitism, to subject him to a hostile work environment and cause him to be fired because he is Jewish and Israeli. Per the complaint in Laps v. Leland Stanford Junior University, a few months after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the researcher was hired to work on an insulin project in a campus lab at the private, Palo Alto, California, university. The researcher claimed when he started working, a lab assistant who associated with Palestinian activists told him not to talk to her, tried to isolate him from co-workers, delayed his supplies and tampered with his research. He also alleged that in an effort to get him to leave, individuals, including the lab director, falsely told him a student had filed a sexual harassment charge against him. After the university confirmed the charge was a ruse and no claim had been made, the researcher filed a discrimination complaint detailing the antisemitic-based hostility he was experiencing. In response, the lab director fired him, locked him out of the lab and threatened immigration consequences if he didn't leave, the lawsuit alleged. He then filed a retaliation charge against the lab director. Stanford allegedly delayed investigating his complaints and narrowly reviewed his claims before concluding no wrongdoing occurred, according to the lawsuit. Through a WhatsApp group, the researcher learned other Israeli and Jewish students and researchers were experiencing similar hostility, including from a graduate student who warned the group about using a floor in a main campus building besieged with anti-Israel signs and protests, the lawsuit said. The researcher sued Stanford for religious and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also sued the lab director for defamation and the university for breach of contract. In an email to HR Dive, a university representative stated, 'Stanford takes any allegation of antisemitism very seriously. In this instance and based on all the allegations that [the researcher] reported directly to the institution, a thorough investigation found that they were unsubstantiated.' Combating antisemitism, particularly on U.S. college campuses in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel, has been a priority of the Trump Administration. In March, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services and Education, and the General Services Administration announced steps they would be taking to protect individuals against antisemitism at U.S. universities. For example, as part of a federal task force, DOJ launched a Title VII investigation into the state-run University of California system to determine whether UC engaged in a pattern or practice of allowing an antisemitic hostile work environment to exist on its campuses. Additionally, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas encouraged employees who experienced antisemitism on college campuses to submit a charge of discrimination. Also in March, HHS, ED and GSA initiated a comprehensive review of New York City-based Columbia University's federal contracts and grants in light of Columbia's 'ongoing inaction in the face of relentless harassment of Jewish students,' a press release said. Recommended Reading EEOC: Psychiatric center allegedly prioritized, promoted less qualified male therapist over female co-workers Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
