Latest news with #employmentlaw
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda
RNZ News
17-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Law that lets workers discuss salary set to pass
Do you know how much your work colleagues earn? A new bill that looks set to pass into law, may mean you can find out. The bill, from Labour MP Camilla Belich, would mean employers can't enforce gag orders if staff want to talk about their salaries, even if they have a pay secrecy clause in their contract. So far it has had the support of the National party and passed its second reading last night, meaning it's a step closer to becoming law. Employment lawyer Steph Dhyrberg spoke to Melissa Chan-Green. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
15-07-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Work: What's in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Workers earning over $180k won't be able to pursue an 'unjustified dismissal' under the new legislation. Photo: 123RF Law commentator Charles McGuinness, of McGuinness Employment Law based in Wellington joins Kathryn to discuss what's in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that's been introduced to Parliament. Charles McGuinness is an employment lawyer in Wellington
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Jonathan Melmed Named to LABJ's 2025 "Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys" List
Jonathan Melmed Named Los Angeles Business Journal's 2025 Leaders of Influence LOS ANGELES, July 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Melmed Law Group is proud to announce that Jonathan Melmed has been selected by the Los Angeles Business Journal as one of its 2025 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys. This annual list highlights attorneys in the Los Angeles region who are recognized for their exceptional litigation skills and commitment to their clients. Jonathan Melmed was selected for his strong track record in employment law and his dedication to representing employees in complex class actions and high-stakes individual cases. As the founder of Melmed Law Group, he has led numerous cases involving wage and hour violations, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. This recognition reflects the continued impact Melmed Law Group has in protecting employee rights and holding companies accountable across California and beyond. About Melmed Law GroupMelmed Law Group is a leading employment law firm based in Los Angeles, California. The firm specializes in representing employees in cases involving workplace harassment, discrimination, wrongful termination, wage theft, and other employment-related matters. Founded by Jonathan Melmed, the firm is committed to protecting the rights of workers and achieving justice for those who have been wronged by their employers. Media Contact:Paniz RadEmail: paniz@
Telegraph
13-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Rayner's employment law forcing ‘stealth tax' on workers
's employment law reforms will act as a £5 billion 'stealth tax' on workers, a report has warned. The Deputy Prime Minister is planning a raft of reforms that will make it easier for workers to strike and introduce new 'day-one' rights against unfair dismissal and zero-hours contracts. But they will also work to suppress wages, effectively taxing employees by increasing costs for their bosses, according to analysis by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). The think tank said smaller pay rises will equate to a £5 billion 'stealth payroll tax', based on the Government's own impact assessment of the cost on workers. Business groups have already raised the alarm over the reforms, which they say will make firms more reluctant to hire workers. The Employment Rights Bill, which returns to the Commons on Monday, contains measures to make it easier for workers to form unions and launch strike action. Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, said they would result in 1970s-style union militancy and hammer struggling businesses. 'Labour's love-in with the unions is dragging Britain back to the worst economic mistakes of the 1970s,' he said. 'The so-called Employment Rights Bill is nothing more than a Trojan horse for union power and state interference. 'Far from protecting workers, it will price people out of jobs, deterring investment and sending small businesses to the wall.' In June, the Conservatives pledged to scrap the Bill if they return to office, warning the plans would 'grind our economy to a halt'. The IEA's report, by Prof J.R. Shackleton, argues that the plans will 'put the public through the wringer' and 'extort more pay from the government – which means, of course, the taxpayer'. The Telegraph understands the workers' rights plan has already been the subject of dispute between Ms Rayner and the Treasury, which is concerned about the impact on business confidence and economic growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility, Britain's independent fiscal watchdog, has said they will have a 'probably net negative' impact on a range of economic indicators, including employment, prices, and productivity. The Government's impact assessment found that the reforms will result in £5 billion higher costs for businesses, which the IEA said would be passed to workers in the form of lower wages. Ms Rayner has argued that the new rules will boost living standards, giving the public an 'upgrade to our growth prospects and the reforms our economy so desperately needs'. 'Billions in hidden costs' The professor of economics at the University of Buckingham said: 'Politicians love to announce new employment 'rights' because they think employers pay the bill – but that's an illusion. 'Every mandate, from parental leave to holiday entitlements, acts like a stealth tax that gets passed back to workers through smaller pay rises than they would otherwise receive. The only difference is that no money is raised for the Exchequer,' said Prof Shackleton. 'The Employment Rights Bill will make this much worse, imposing billions in hidden costs that workers will ultimately bear themselves. 'The Government is not protecting workers – it is harming them and undermining its own alleged number one priority to boost economic growth.' A government spokesman said: 'Too many workers are trapped in insecure, low-paid work, with weak protections that are poorly enforced. 'Through our transformative Plan for Change, this government will deliver the biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation, contributing to economic growth, and our measures have strong support from businesses and the public.'
