For several days now, Gawker has been shining a light on hiring practices at American Apparel, a 10,000-worker garment manufacturer where “employee relations” is, apparently, a double entendre and provocative ads are the norm. Over the last few days, Gawker reported that the financially troubled, but oh-so-hip firm has a hiring and promotion policy that has more to do with high cheekbones than it does with almost anything else. For instance, Gawker wrote about a “full body head to toe” photo requirement for employee referrals, espoused during a manager conference call in May.
Yikes! Here it is two days before Valentine’s Day and not a romance story in sight on ERE.
U.S. EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Carol Miaskoff brought up a few points in her Florida presentation (see video, below) that raised questions among ERE members. I caught up with her on the phone to go over a few of those questions
In what amounts to a formality, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has put the last nail in the coffin of the “no match” rule, officially rescinding the much debated, but never implemented proposal. First announced two years ago in August and almost as quickly blocked by the courts, the “no match” rule required employers to fire workers who couldn’t resolve discrepancies in their Social Security information. The rule took its name from the letters the Social Security Administration sent to employers informing them there was no match between SSA records and what the employer provided. Homeland Security laid out a fairly rigorous series of steps that, if followed, immunized an employer from legal consequences for hiring the “no match” worker
As employers increasingly turn to RPOs they need to make sure the firm they hire is well grounded in fair hiring laws, because they could be held liable for the firm’s violations. “It’s a good best practice to have,” counsels Christopher Olmsted, a specialist in labor and employment law and partner in the San Diego firm Barker, Olmsted & Barnier .
Monster has settled a class action lawsuit brought in connection with the company’s stock options backdating scandal. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, Monster Worldwide says it will pay $4.25 million in full settlement of the action. “A substantial majority” of the money will come, the company says, from insurance “and contributions from another defendant.” The filing, Taylor v. McKelvey, et