Report: Employers Try to Support LGBT Rights Around the Globe

​Global employers that want to promote diversity and inclusion can support lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees and advocate for LGBT rights, even in countries with policies and attitudes that are hostile to those rights—if they approach their activities with care.

A report from the Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at New York University School of Law provides a guide for multinational organizations to support a diverse workforce in anti-LGBT jurisdictions.

The paper, Opening Up the Word: How Multinational Organizations Can Ascend the Maturity Curve on LGBT Rights, is based on interviews with 30 leaders and employees around the world from companies supporting LGBT rights, including EY, Microsoft and Dow Chemical, and it shows companies how they can assess the risks in a particular country and decide how to respond. Global companies typically choose one of the following approaches:

  • A “when in Rome” stance, in which exceptions are made to their pro-LGBT policies to comply with local norms.
  • An “embassy” approach, in which the employer follows pro-LGBT policies and practices in-house without seeking to influence the culture outside the business.
  •  The “advocate” outlook, in which the company aims to make changes in society by lobbying the government or supporting activists.

“Companies can and routinely do operate in all three models across different office locations,” the report said, acknowledging that companies can’t operate in the advocate model in every country.

Assessing Dangers

Companies often are afraid to support LGBT rights in hostile areas, said David Glasgow, the NYU center’s executive director and study co-author. They may be nervous about client or manager reactions, government crackdowns or safety risks.

“In many cases, those concerns are overblown,” he added.

Some places do present real dangers, he noted, but “part of the purpose of the report is to help companies assess what is the real danger.”

The extent to which companies can show support for LGBT rights depends in part on the policies and practices in a given country. The report recommends companies assess risks from legal, social and company-environment standpoints, looking not only at a given country but also at differences in social and cultural norms within countries.

“In some places, just getting to [the] embassy [approach] would be a huge win,” such as offering inclusive policies and partner benefits, “whereas in other places, there’s an opportunity to keep pushing along the curve and become an advocate,” Glasgow said.

Roughly 70 countries outlaw homosexual activity, and in 13 of those, it is punishable by death. However, according to the paper, the leader of one of those countries, Brunei, has said it won’t enforce such a severe penalty.

Only a quarter of nations offer protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and about that many accept marriage equality, the report said.

“There is no doubt that we experience belonging differently in each of our communities, and we know that we have to respect the cultures of the countries that we operate in. But when it comes to the workplace, it is important to break down the barriers that divide individuals by encouraging consistent communication and creating teams that are unified by diverse strengths and backgrounds,” said Karyn Twaronite, EY’s global diversity and inclusiveness officer.

“In today’s social climate, organizations play a key role in making employees feel safe and like they belong in the workplace,” she said. “Despite the complexities that come with advocating for LGBT rights in countries that may not adhere to certain values, company leadership can help provide employees with safe spaces to be themselves,” regardless of location.

However, in some countries, coming out at work may be dangerous. Glasgow said that in Saudi Arabia, for example, doing anything specifically related to LGBT rights is too risky, even internally.

“If someone comes out at work, they’re put at risk outside of work. A colleague could report them to the religious police, and they could get arrested,” he said.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Introduction to the Global Human Resources Discipline]

Building Alliances

In countries where pro-LGBT activity is too risky, Glasgow said, companies can look at what they might do to “build capacity” for a more inclusive work environment in the meantime.

They might start groups or events for LGBT allies, so there is no pressure on participants to come out, or on gender inclusion, as there’s often a connection between homophobic and misogynistic attitudes, Glasgow said. Employers also can use technology to start looping in employees in LGBT-hostile locales to what other offices are doing with regard to LGBT rights, he said.

The report suggested that companies lay the groundwork by cultivating internal grassroots and leadership allies, raising awareness through basic sexual-diversity training, and providing insight on the value of a supportive LGBT environment, including its importance to Millennial workers.

In restrictive countries with some leeway, employers might be able to engage in “subtle or creative actions internally” that push toward advocacy, the report said.

In Singapore, the government prohibits foreign companies from participating in the local Pink Dot event, the country’s version of a Pride celebration, according to Glasgow. Dow, nonetheless, hosted an internal Pink Dot Day.

It was “one of the more well-attended events they had had in recent times” and the type of activity companies can undertake to promote an inclusive in-house environment, Glasgow said.

Beyond any ethical or humane arguments for inclusivity, why should companies go to such lengths to advocate for LGBT rights? “There’s a strong business case for LGBT inclusion, as there is for all forms of diversity and inclusion,” he stated. If corporations don’t provide a welcoming and inclusive environment to LGBT people, he said, they will lose talent to more-welcoming companies.

Dinah Wisenberg Brin is a freelance reporter and writer based in Philadelphia.

New Rule May Allow Some Federal Contractors to Not Hire LGBT Workers

​The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced a proposed rule Aug. 14 that would grant religious organizations under contract with the federal government the right to make employment decisions consistent with their religious beliefs. Advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals criticized the proposal as an attempt to permit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We’ve gathered articles on the proposed rule and related topics from SHRM Online and other trusted media outlets.

Proposed Rule Seeks to Protect Religious Institutions

Officials from the Department of Labor (DOL) said religious institutions such as Christian colleges had not been seeking government contracts out of fear that they would violate federal requirements. “When we talked to stakeholders, we were informed that many religious organizations were not participating in the procurement process because of concerns that OFCCP would not fairly or correctly enforce the law related to the religious employer exemption,” a DOL official said. But American Civil Liberties Union Senior Legislative Counsel Ian Thompson said, “Once again, the Trump administration is shamefully working to license taxpayer-funded discrimination in the name of religion. … We will work to stop this rule that seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace.”

(Politico)

Health Care Workers Have Right to Refuse Treatments Because of Faith

The proposal follows a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services final rule issued May 2 that granted health care workers the right to refuse to provide certain medical procedures, including abortion, if they have faith-based objections. Transgender individuals feared that the rule would make it easier for providers to refuse transition-related care based on religious beliefs. They also voiced concern that the rule would make it easier for health care providers to refuse routine care based on patients’ gender identity.

(SHRM Online)

Department of Justice Is Trying to Persuade EEOC to Reverse Its Stance 

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice was reportedly trying to persuade the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reverse its stance on LGBT rights. The EEOC has taken the position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity while the Justice Department takes the opposite view. The EEOC is unlikely to reverse its position given that two of its three commissioners have come out in favor of the agency’s stance. Sharon Gustafson, the EEOC’s new general counsel, could bypass the commissioners and sign Justice’s brief in three Supreme Court cases that will settle the dispute but court observers doubt she will try to resolve the issues before the high court does.

(Bloomberg)

Cases Before the Court

On Oct. 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two consolidated cases—Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda—that address whether Title VII bans sexual orientation discrimination. It also will hear arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC over whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. In the case involving a transgender plaintiff, a lower court ruled that the employer’s termination of an employee who announced she was transitioning to a woman was not protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court also determined that Title VII prohibits transgender discrimination based on sex and sex stereotypes.

(SHRM Online)

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Employing Transgender Workers]

Court Sided with Baker Who Refused to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

In the OFCCP’s announcement of its proposed rule, it noted that it was relying partly on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission that a baker lawfully refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his sincerely held religious beliefs. But the ruling was extremely narrow and should not be interpreted to mean that sexual-orientation discrimination is acceptable in the workplace, said Lisa McGlynn, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Tampa, Fla.

(SHRM Online)

3 Things to Do Before Moving In Together

Author: PeopleFinders on August 12th, 2019

Spread the love

Moving in with a partner is a big commitment. You need to make sure you’re ready for anything and everything that might come your way. After all, if things go south, you’re going to have to essentially re-frame everything you’re doing right now.

For many people, it’s also a step that solidifies commitment. You may not be married to your partner, but moving in together still merges your lives in a very real way. That’s why you need to make sure you’ve taken a step back and looked at all the other important things before making that all-important move.

Three things you should do before taking the plunge:

  • Communicate, communicate, communicate
  • Figure out the money
  • Check out the neighborhood of your shared home

Talk About It, a Lot

This isn’t something you should do on a whim. Moving in with anyone is a big deal. Moving in with a romantic partner is even more so. Whether you’ve lived with partners before, or this is your first time, you should make sure you know why you’re doing it, why they’re doing it, and what each of your intentions is in regards to the relationship in general.

Ideally, you should have at least a few months of talking about things before you pack up and move. Recognize that you should both be equally excited to take this leap. If you feel like your partner is pushing you into it before you’re ready, or you realize that he or she seems reluctant to move into this next step in the relationship, back off and do some more soul searching.

Hammer Out Finances

No one likes to talk about money, but it’s crucial if you’re going to live with your partner. When you get married, your finances may combine by default; the things you own, your partner may also sort of own. But that may not apply if you’re just living together. (You’ll want to check the laws in your state to find out for sure.)

Are you going to combine your finances, or do you intend to keep things mostly separate? Are you going to split all the home-related costs, or are you going to each pay certain things? What about utilities, such as internet access?

Essentially, you need to determine how your finances are going to work, and you need to figure it out long before you move in. Use the few months building up to your move-in to figure out exact numbers here.

Check the Neighborhood

If you’re the one moving into your partner’s home, you need to make sure the neighborhood your partner lives in is safe. It’s true that your partner probably feels safe. But that might just be because certain warning signs are completely normal after living there for so long. Keeping yourself safe is a top priority here, and to do that, you should try and use a site like PeopleFinders.

With PeopleFinders, you can try and check to see if an address is safe. Use the address lookup tool to try and get more information about the actual property you’re going to be living in. From there, you can also attempt to look up your neighbors’ properties. Starting with that, you may also be able to access their criminal records, try to make sure there are no sex offenders living nearby, and generally try to confirm if it’s good place in which to live.

Conclusion

Living together before getting married can be a good way to make sure you fit together without tying the knot legally. However, although it’s much more common nowadays than it was a few decades ago, it’s still just as big of a deal.

Before you move in with your partner, check PeopleFinders to try and make sure it’s the best move for you. Read the PeopleFinders blog to learn even more ways to stay safe each day.

Image attribution: Kzenon – stock.adobe.com

Tags: ,

Categorized in: Relationships

Garden Plaza of Greenbriar Cove to Pay $92,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Bias Lawsuit

Retirement Community Discriminated Against Two Employees by Demanding They Work on Sabbath, Federal Agency Charged 

CHATTANOOGA-Century Park Associates, LLC, d/b/a Garden Plaza at Greenbriar Cove (Century), operating a senior and assisted living community in Ooltewah, Tennessee, will pay $92,586.50 in monetary damages and agree to injunctive relief to settle a
religious bias lawsuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today. 

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Century required two employees to work on their Sabbath in violation of their religious beliefs. The two employees, members of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown
Saturday. Although the employees offered to work on Sundays, Century told the employees they had to agree to work on Saturdays as part of a new work schedule. When the two employees refused to work on Saturdays due to their religious beliefs,
Century asked them to resign. The two employees resigned at Century’s request.   

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from denying a reasonable accommodation to an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Century Park
Associates
, LLC, d/b/a Garden Plaza at Greenbriar Cove, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00231) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Southern Division, after first attempting to reach a
pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

Besides monetary relief, Garden Plaza entered into a two-year consent decree requiring Garden Plaza to train its employees, including human resources and management personnel, on the requirements of Title VII.  Garden Plaza agreed to report
complaints of religious discrimination and requests for religious accommodations to the EEOC and permit the EEOC to monitor Garden Plaza’s compliance with the decree. Garden Plaza denied any liability or wrongdoing in the suit.

“Employers should not force employees to choose between their job and their religious beliefs,” said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “Making reasonable accommodations to employees’ religious beliefs,
except where it poses an undue hardship, is not just reasonable.  It’s required by federal law.”

Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of the Memphis District Office which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Tennessee, and portions of Mississippi said, “when an employee tells his employer his religious belief conflicts with a work policy,
the employer has an obligation under Title VII to have a conversation with the employee to determine whether it may reasonably accommodate the employee unless it causes an undue hardship.” 

According to its website, Century operates over 40 retirement communities in 20 states.  It provides seniors with a comfortable and active place to call home.   

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employ­ment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.  Stay connected with the latest EEOC
news by subscribing to our email updates.

Foodtown Supermarket to Pay $285,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Workers  Were Unlawfully Harassed by Supervisor, Federal Agency Charged

NEW YORK – 82-10 Baxter  Ave. Food Corp., doing business as Foodtown, will pay $285,000 and furnish  other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the
federal agency announced today.

According to EEOC’s  lawsuit, a department manager of the Elmhurst, N.Y., supermarket physically and  verbally sexually harassed two female workers under his supervision at the  facility, then fired them because they resisted his
advances. The harassment  included comments about their appearance, propositions for sex, forced  kissing, and other unwanted touching. The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. 82-10 Baxter  Ave. Food Corp. d/b/a Foodtown (a/k/a Foodtown of
Baxter Avenue) (E.D.N.Y. Case  No. 18-cv-05100) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on  Sept. 30, 2018, after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through  its conciliation process.

The three-year consent  decree resolving the case provides that, in addition to paying $285,000, the  company will adopt new policies and procedures to prevent and report sexual  harassment and will train its managers and staff on
identifying and preventing  sexual harassment and retaliation. The policies and staff training will be  available in Spanish. The decree also requires that the company investigate any  complaints of sexual harassment it receives and
provide copies of its  investigations to the EEOC. The EEOC will monitor the company’s compliance with  these obligations and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the next  three years.

“Employers should take  seriously their responsibility to prevent sexual harassment of their  employees,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Jeffrey Burstein.  “If they don’t, the EEOC will take action, including litigation when
necessary.  Many employees, especially low-wage and immigrant  workers, fear reporting sexual harassment. It took great courage for  these women to come forward and participate in this case.”

EEOC New York District Director Kevin  Berry added, “The conduct at issue in this case was egregious. We are glad the company agreed to adopt policies and  provide crucial training that will educate its workforce.”

The New York District Office of the  EEOC is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative  enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in New York, northern New  Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and  Maine.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the  workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More  information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC 
news by subscribing to our email updates.

How Safe is Your Neighborhood?

Author: PeopleFinders on August 12th, 2019

Spread the love

Everyone wants to live in a place that’s as safe as possible. It’s only natural that you’d want your family to have the best in life, and that means living in a place where you all feel safe and comfortable. However, many neighborhoods across the country are flat-out dangerous, and it’s best to avoid them.

When you’re moving, it’s important to keep the safety of the neighborhood you’re moving to in mind. How do you make sure you’re moving into a safe neighborhood? Use these tips to make sure you’re not caught off guard by the lack of security in your new neighborhood:

  • Pay attention to local news
  • Talk to your new neighbors
  • Look into property records and neighbor backgrounds

Read Local News Stories

This is more useful a tip if you’re moving to an entirely new city, but it can be helpful for individual neighborhoods as well. Determine the identity of local news stations and papers, for starters. Local news stations are great for learning more about the city you’ll be moving to, and you’ll probably want to keep up with them once you move. Check the websites for these sources daily leading up to your move.

Do some research into your new digs. Read news stories that mention exact neighborhoods or streets. Then, look up those areas in relation to where you’ll be living to see if you should have reason to be worried. Of course, crime happens everywhere; no area is immune. However, if you notice a large amount of crime in a certain area, make note for future reference.

Talk to Your Neighbors

Neighbors are an amazing resource, but an unfortunately underutilized one. Most people nowadays don’t know much about their neighbors at all. A quick “hello” every once in a while is the closest most Americans get to “knowing” their neighbors, which is a shame.

To combat this, some people have developed neighborhood social networking sites, where you can connect with people in your area using a platform that’s comfortable. These sites can be an amazing way to meet neighbors once you’ve already moved in and are getting situated in your new neighborhood.

Check Public Records

If you want to be absolutely sure you’re moving into a good neighborhood, you need to use something with a depth of resources. You can’t necessarily rely upon haphazard research or talking to neighbors once you’ve already moved in. For more objective info, you can research your neighborhood using an online public records search; PeopleFinders is one of the best ways to do that.

With PeopleFinders, you may be able to get all the information you need to try and make sure you’re moving to a safe location. Performing an address lookup may allow you to see information about those who live at a particular location, as well as information about the property itself. You can also perform a background check on nearby neighbors to try and see if they have a nefarious criminal past.

Conclusion

Whether you’re merely moving with your partner for work or you’re planning to settle down with a gaggle of kids, safety is an important facet of determining where you’re going to live. Of course, it’s important to take into account the price of the home, the proximity to schools and urban areas, and the features the home has. However, at the end of the day, safety is perhaps the most important part of determining where you’re going to live.

With PeopleFinders, you can feel comfortable with the place you’ve chosen to live, whether it’s a short stay or you plan to make it your forever home. As you get comfortable in your new home, make sure you stay up to date with the PeopleFinders blog to get more ideas on how to stay safe.

Image attribution: Daxiao Productions – stock.adobe.com

Tags: , , , ,

Categorized in: People Data

EEOC Mediation Program Turns 20; N.Y. District Names Reinman Supervisory ADR Coordinator

NEW YORK – Attorney and mediator David L. Reinman has been appointed as supervisory ADR (alternative dispute resolution) coordinator for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) New York District, the federal agency
announced.

Over the past 20 years, the EEOC’s mediation program continues to enhance the Commission’s efforts to resolve discrimination charges in a timely manner. In FY 2018 mediations secured over $165.8 million in benefits for discrimination victims
nationally.

Nationally about two-thirds of EEOC mediation efforts were successful in FY 2018. Moreover, in FY 2018, the mediation program achieved a participant satisfaction rate of 97.2%.

Mediation offers an alternative to the traditional investigative or litigation process. The use of mediation is a key component of the EEOC’s efforts to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. Mediation is offered to facilitate early
resolution. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for both parties and is strictly confidential at every stage. During a mediation session, a neutral facilitator helps the parties negotiate resolution of disputes, a win-win outcome for
everyone involved.

Reinman has been a staff mediator at the New York District for nearly five years. Previously he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and worked with the U.S. Department of Justice. He came to the EEOC in August 2014. He earned his J.D. from California
Western School of Law and his LL.M. in dispute resolution from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

“We are excited that Mr. Reinman will now be leading our team of mediators,” said EEOC New York District Director Kevin Berry. “He has been central to our major mediation achievements over recent years.”

Reinman said, “It is an honor and privilege to serve as this District’s ADR Coordinator. We stand committed to providing employees, employers and their representatives with an effective means of resolving their employment disputes through a
cost-free, fair and neutral mediation process.”

The EEOC’s New York District includes all of New England, New York and most of New Jersey.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by
subscribing to our email updates.

El Tio Tex-Mex Grill to Pay $40,000 to Settle EEOC Harassment Lawsuit

Virginia Eatery Routinely Subjected Gay Male Server and His Straight Friend to Homophobic Taunts and Epithets, Federal Agency Charged

WASHINGTON – Mejia Corporation, doing business as El Tio Tex-Mex Grill, a restaurant in Gainesville, Va., will pay $40,000 and provide significant equitable relief to settle a harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

In its lawsuit, EEOC charged that El Tio employees, including other servers and kitchen staff, routinely subjected a gay male server to unwelcome harassing and offensive behavior that included the use of homophobic epithets and taunts about his
sexuality. The same employees similarly harassed the server’s straight friend, a busser, based on their friendship. Both the server and the busser reported the harassment to El Tio’s management multiple times, but management ignored their
complaints, failed to take reasonable measures to curb the harassment, and neglected to implement any anti-harassment policies or training, the EEOC alleged.  As a result, the harassment persisted.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination because of sex, including harassment. The EEOC filed suit against El Tio in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EEOC v. Mejia Corp., d/b/a El Tio Tex-Mex
Grill, Case No. 1:18-cv-01226-MSN), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

To settle the case, the parties entered into a three-year consent decree. Under the decree, El Tio will pay $40,000 in monetary relief to the server and the busser. The decree also enjoins El Tio from engaging in sex discrimination or retaliation
in the future. The company will also draft and distribute to its employees a complaint procedure and harassment policy and train its supervisors and employees on the new policies, as well as workplace harassment issues.

“The EEOC is committed to ensuring that no employee or applicant is discriminated against or harassed based on sexual orientation,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “We are gratified that El Tio worked with the EEOC to reach an
amicable resolution of this lawsuit. The consent decree includes significant equitable relief that will benefit all company employees.”

Mindy Weinstein, acting director of the Washington Field Office, added, “We commend these employees who bravely stood up for what is right and changed this workplace for the better as a result.”

The Washington Field Office has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia and the Virginia counties of Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford and Warren; and the independent Virginia cities of
Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and Winchester.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Pier 1 Imports Reaches Agreement with EEOC

Company Resolves Failure-to-Hire Racial Discrimination Charge

LOS ANGELES – Pier 1 Imports, an international home furnishings and specialty retailer in the U.S. and Canada, has reached an agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) through its conciliation process to resolve a
race discrimination charge for $20,000 and injunc­tive relief, the federal agency announced today.

The EEOC charged that an applicant was denied a position as an assistant manager at the company’s Montclair, Calif., location after a criminal background check was conducted. The EEOC’s investigation determined that the company’s use of criminal
records limited the employment opportunity of the job applicant based on his race, black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Without admitting liability and to demonstrate its support of Title VII, the Fort Worth, Texas-based company agreed to enter into a two-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC and the alleged victim, thereby avoiding litigation. In addition to
the $20,000 the company will pay the complainant, Pier 1 Imports has reaffirmed its commitment to Title VII by revising its policies and procedures, eliminating its background screening process, and removing the conviction question from its
employment application. The EEOC will monitor compliance with this agreement.

 “Employers should review their criminal background check policies to ensure they are inclusive for all qualified candidates, regardless of race,” said Rosa Viramontes, director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office. “We commend Pier 1
Imports for resolving this matter without litigation and for putting in place measures to prevent discrimination during the hiring and promotion process.”

Christine Murray, executive vice president, human resources and chief human resources officer at Pier 1, said, “We are pleased to resolve this matter and remain committed to providing equal employment opportunities to associates and applicants
for employment.”

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of the six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by
subscribing to our email updates.

Tips to Always Stay on Top of Scams

Author: PeopleFinders on August 8th, 2019

Spread the love

It seems like scams are more common than ever nowadays. People are losing more to scammers than ever, and it’s largely because the internet has allowed new scams to be created every day. In 2018, American consumers lost nearly $1.5 billion to scams, a massive increase of 38% compared to 2017.

So, how do you make sure you’re safe when scams are always growing and changing? Here are the five most important things to remember to keep yourself out of trouble, no matter what type of scam is targeting you.

1. Don’t Wire Money to Anyone You Don’t Know

Most of the time, a scammer will ask that you send money using a wire transfer. This is a classic part of most scams because it’s so useful and effective.

When used for legitimate purposes, wire transfers can be a great way to send money to people, because they’re nearly immediate and generally secure. However, they’re also essentially permanent and untraceable, making them a perfect tool for hackers.

So, if someone you don’t know asks you to wire money, be skeptical.

2. Don’t Pay Using Strange Methods Like Gift Cards

Another common form of payment scam is gift card payments. It may seem strange, but the general concept is similar to scammers asking you to wire money. You’ll be asked to buy gift cards in a specific amount, and then provide the card numbers and other security numbers.

There may be a variety of different explanations for this. Maybe the scammer insists that he or she doesn’t have a bank account, needs the money immediately, or is otherwise unable to use cash.

No matter what you’re paying for, try your best to use certified payment companies or other well-known methods. Never provide payment using gift cards.

3. Check and Double-Check Web Addresses

Phishing scams take a number of different forms. But a common one has to do with using web addresses that are almost identical to official companies and businesses that you trust.

A scammer impersonating Amazon may use the URL www.annazon.com; the two N’s look similar enough to an M that you might not notice if you’re clicking haphazardly. Before you actively click, just hover your cursor over it first. If the actual URL does not match the one shown in the embedded link in an email, on a web page or from a message online, do not click on it. Odds are it’s a scam.

4. Do an Internet Search Before You Accept Any Offers

You probably think you know how to determine whether something is a scam. But it’s not always that easy. If you get an offer in your email inbox, you may be too excited about it to make sure it’s legitimate before accepting it.

Unfortunately, if you decide to accept a sketchy offer too quickly, you may end up losing money to scammers and hackers. No matter what you’re planning to accept, from a small gift to sweepstakes win, do a quick internet search  to verify its legitimacy before replying.

5. Use a People Search Engine to Check for Scammers

Scammers aren’t generally going to give their real names. More often, a scammer will make up a fake name or use a real person’s identity from halfway across the country. Anytime someone contacts you out of the blue, you should try to verify the person’s identity. There’s no better way to do that than by using PeopleFinders.

PeopleFinders contains all the tools you need to try and fend off scammers and hackers. Use the reverse phone lookup feature to try and make sure you know who’s calling your phone. Perform a people search to see if the name lines up with the story you’re getting.

Then, after it’s all said and done, use the PeopleFinders blog for more information that can help you be prepared the next time something doesn’t quite add up.

Conclusion

It’s hard to avoid scams; they’re so frequent in today’s day and age. And the money people are losing to scammers continues to climb. However, with the right tools and a little bit of common sense, you can make sure you stay safe from all the scams out there.

Image attribution: Aris Suwanmalee – stock.adobe.com

Tags: ,

Categorized in: Scams