Search

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 provided victims of intentional discrimination with the right to seek compensatory and punitive damages and the right for either party in such actions to demand a jury trial. Congress intended the Act to be a pro-plaintiff measure, but may have inadvertently created a conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving plaintiffs without the option of pursuing their claims as a class action. Because of concerns about predominance and a potential violation of the Reexamination Clause of the Seventh Amendment, some courts have refused to certify classes under any provision of Rule 23. This course of action, however, is not inevitable. By reconceptualizing the meaning of predominance or aggressively applying principles of collateral estoppel, the federal courts can comply with the certification rules and the Constitution and fulfill the intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The Supreme Court added another guideline to its divergent body of case law on the problem of whether and how workers may waive their right to federal court to decide a statutory discrimination claim. On Nov 16, 1998, the high court unanimously declared in the case of Wright versus Universal Maritime Service Corp that the plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate his Americans with Disabilities Act claim under the general arbitration clause in his other collective bargaining agreement if there is no clear and unmistakable waiver of his right to bring his claim to a federal forum. The decision,however, did little to elucidate many of the ultimate issues pertaining to arbitration of statutory claims. The case also leaves open the potential that union-negotiated waivers could be found valid at a future date.

Inculcating diversity principles in the city's long-range planning and day-to-day thinking is part of Edmonton's management strategy to ensure a totally productive and dedicated work force. During the past few [...]

The US Supreme Court found in Schleier that the taxpayers settlement of an Age Discrimination in Employment Act suit was not excludible from income under IRC section 104(a)(2), but the Court was not clear on when discrimination awards may be excluded. Under IRC section 104(a)(2), damages for personal injuries are excluded from income. The majority in Schleier appeared at times to claim that discrimination claims could never result in a personal injury, but the more likely interpretation is that the discrimination claims must be brought under comprehensive tort schemes and not statutes limited to lost wages and liquidated damages.

The IRS has issued revenue ruling 93-88 which excludes awards for discrimination from taxation. This ruling solves many problems for settlements of gender or racial bias claims. However, the IRS still considers age discrimination settlements taxable, and tax planning must consider this. Other tax planning opportunities may shift consensual terminations of employment toward classifications of payments as nontaxable bias settlements.

The Supreme Court did not decide that all damage payments in discrimination cases are taxation, although it did declare some damages are taxable income in United States v Burke. In that case, sexual discrimination recovery was made under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Techniques exist for minimizing income tax by allocating such claims among other claims which often arise in discrimination cases.

HHS: Civil Rights Restoration Act. Final rule. The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services reaffirms that the receipt of federal assistance obliges recipients to [...]

Workers who harass Arab-Americans or engage in ethnic intimidation, and employers who look the other way, do so at their peril, say law-enforcement officials and human-resources consultants. Ethnic intimidation is [...]

Looking to take advantage to potential business opportunities in urban areas, a Hartford-based insurer and an independent agent association announced the national release of an educational program aimed at helping [...]

A publicity campaign to reduce discrimination against people with mental health problems will be launched by the Department of Health this spring. '`MIND OUT for mental health' aims to target [...]

The United Kingdom government has put forward proposals for a code of practice for children with special educational needs in July 2001. The code tackles issues of discrimination faced by these pupils in mainstream schools.