The law requires an employer to post a notice describing the Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability or genetic information.
The “EEO is the Law” poster, prepared by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), summarizes these laws and explains how an employee or applicant can file a complaint if s/he believes that s/he has been the victim of discrimination. EEOC’s poster is available in English, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish.
These posters should be placed in a conspicuous location in the workplace where notices to applicants and employees are customarily posted. In addition to posting the enclosed poster, employers are encouraged to post the electronic notice on their internal web sites in a conspicuous location. In most cases, electronic posting supplements physical posting but does not itself fulfill the employer’s basic obligation to physically post the required information in its workplaces. In some situations (e.g., for employees who telework and do not visit the employer’s workplace on a regular basis), it may be required in addition to physical posting.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that notices of Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination be made available in a location that is accessible to applicants and employees with disabilities that limit mobility.
Printed notices should also be made available in an accessible format, as needed, to persons with disabilities that limit the ability to see or read. Notices can be recorded on an audio file, provided in an electronic format that can be utilized by screen-reading technology or read to applicants or employees with disabilities that limit seeing or reading ability. A screen-readable electronic format is available below.
If you have an older copy of the Poster, you can print the supplement below and post it alongside EEOC’s September 2002 “EEO is the Law” poster or OFCCP’s August 2008 “EEO is the Law” poster.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
with population figures from the 2010 U.S. census, estimates for 2013, as well as a complete list of the more than 17,000 towns, including those that no longer exist.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
This reprint generally retains the section numbers originally created by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-596, 84 Stat 1590. This document includes some editorial changes, such as changing the format to make it easier to read, correcting typographical errors, and updating some of the margin notes. Because Congress enacted amendments to the Act since 1970, this version differs from the original version of the OSH Act. It also differs slightly from the version published in the United States Code at 29 U.S.C. 661 et seq . For example, this reprint refers to the statute as the “Act” rather than the “chapter.”
This reprint reflects the provisions of the OSH Act that are in effect as of January 1, 2004. Citations to Public Laws which made important amendments to the OSH Act since 1970 are set forth in the margins and explanatory notes are included below.
NOTE: Some provisions of the OSH Act may be affected by the enactment of, or amendments to, other statutes. Section 17(h)(1), 29 U.S.C. 666, is an example. The original provision amended section 1114 of title 18 of the United States Code to include employees of “the Department of Labor assigned to perform investigative, inspection, or law enforcement functions” within the list of persons protected by the provisions to allow prosecution of persons who have killed or attempted to kill an officer or employee of the U.S. government while performing official duties. This reprint sets forth the text of section 17(h) as enacted in 1970. However, since 1970, Congress has enacted multiple amendments to 18 U.S.C. 1114. The current version does not specifically include the Department of Labor in a list; rather it states that “Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance shall be punished . . .” as provided by the statute. Readers are reminded that the official version of statutes can be found in the current volumes of the United States Code, and more extensive historical notes can be found in the current volumes of the United States Code Annotated.
Amendments
On January 2, 1974, section 2(c) of Pub. L. 93-237 replaced the phrase “7(b)(6)” in section 28(d) of the OSH Act with “7(b)(5)”. 87 Stat. 1023. Note: The text of Section 28 (Economic Assistance to Small Business) amended Sections 7(b) and Section 4(c)(1) of the Small Business Act. Because these amendments are no longer current, the text of section 28 is omitted in this reprint. For the current version, see 15 U.S.C. 636.
In 1977, the U.S. entered into the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, Sept. 7, 1977, U.S.-Panama, T.I.A.S. 10030, 33 U.S.T. 39. In 1979, Congress enacted implementing legislation. Panama Canal Act of 1979, Pub. L. 96-70, 93 Stat. 452 (1979). Although no corresponding amendment to the OSH Act was enacted, the Canal Zone ceased to exist in 1979. The U.S. continued to manage, operate and facilitate the transit of ships through the Canal under the authority of the Panama Canal Treaty until December 31, 1999, at which time authority over the Canal was transferred to the Republic of Panama.
On March 27, 1978, Pub. L. 95-251, 92 Stat. 183, replaced the term “hearing examiner(s)” with “administrative law judge(s)” in all federal laws, including sections 12(e), 12(j), and 12(k) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 661.
On October 13, 1978, Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 1221, which redesignated section numbers concerning personnel matters and compensation, resulted in the substitution of section 5372 of Title 5 for section 5362 in section 12(e) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 661.
On October 17, 1979, Pub. L. 96-88, Title V, section 509(b), 93 Stat. 668, 695, redesignated references to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of Health and Human Services and redesignated references to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
On September 13, 1982, Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), 96 Stat. 877, 1067, effectively substituted “Section 3324(a) and (b) of Title 31” for “Section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 529)” in section 22 (e)(8), 29 U.S.C. 671, relating to NIOSH procurement authority.
On December 21, 1982, Pub. L. 97-375, 96 Stat. 1819, deleted the sentence in section 19(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 668, that directed the President of the United States to transmit annual reports of the activities of federal agencies to the House of Representatives and the Senate.
On October 12, 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, Chapter II, 98 Stat. 1837, 1987, (commonly referred to as the “Sentencing Reform Act of 1984”) instituted a classification system for criminal offenses punishable under the United States Code. Under this system, an offense with imprisonment terms of “six months or less but more than thirty days,” such as that found in 29 U.S.C. 666(e) for a willful violation of the OSH Act, is classified as a criminal “Class B misdemeanor.” 18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(7).
The criminal code increases the monetary penalties for criminal misdemeanors beyond what is provided for in the OSH Act: a fine for a Class B misdemeanor resulting in death, for example, is not more than $250,000 for an individual, and is not more than $500,000 for an organization. 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(4), (c)(4). The criminal code also provides for authorized terms of probation for both individuals and organizations. 18 U.S.C. 3551, 3561. The term of imprisonment for individuals is the same as that authorized by the OSH Act. 18 U.S.C. 3581(b)(7).
On November 8, 1984, Pub. L. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3335, deleted the last sentence in section 11(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660, that required petitions filed under the subsection to be heard expeditiously.
On November 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, amended section 17 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 666, by increasing the penalties in section 17(a) from $10,000 for each violation to “$70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation,” and increased the limitation on penalties in sections (b), (c), (d), and (i) from $1,000 to $7,000.
On October 26, 1992, Pub. L. 102-522, 106 Stat. 3410, 3420, added to Title 29, section 671a “Workers’ Family Protection” to grant authority to the Director of NIOSH to evaluate, investigate and if necessary, for the Secretary of Labor to regulate employee transported releases of hazardous material that result from contamination on the employee’s clothing or person and may adversely affect the health and safety of workers and their families. Note: section 671a was enacted as section 209 of the Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992, but it is reprinted here because it is codified within the chapter that comprises the OSH Act.
On October 28, 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672, 3924, amended section 22 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 671, by adding subsection (g), which requires NIOSH to institute a training grant program for lead-based paint activities.
On July 5, 1994, section 7(b) of Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745, repealed section 31 of the OSH Act, “Emergency Locator Beacons.” Section 1(e) of the same Public Law, however, enacted a modified version of section 31 of the OSH Act. This provision, titled “Emergency Locator Transmitters,” is codified at 49 U.S.C. 44712.
On December 21, 1995, Section 3003 of Pub. L. 104-66, 109 Stat. 707, as amended, effective May 15, 2000, terminated the provisions relating to the transmittal to Congress of reports under section 26 of the OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. 675.
On July 16, 1998, Pub. L. 105-197, 112 Stat. 638, amended section 21 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 670, by adding subsection (d), which required the Secretary to establish a compliance assistance program by which employers can consult with state personnel regarding the application of and compliance with OSHA standards.
On July 16, 1998, Pub. L. 105-198, 112 Stat. 640, amended section 8 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 657, by adding subsection (h), which forbids the Secretary to use the results of enforcement activities to evaluate the employees involved in such enforcement or to impose quotas or goals.
On September 29, 1998, Pub. L. 105-241, 112 Stat. 1572, amended sections 3(5) and 19(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652 and 668, to include the United States Postal Service as an “employer” subject to OSHA enforcement.
On June 12, 2002, Pub. L. 107-188, Title I, Section 153, 116 Stat. 631, Congress enacted 29 U.S.C. 669a, to expand research on the “health and safety of workers who are at risk for bioterrorist threats or attacks in the workplace.”
Jurisdictional Note
Although no corresponding amendments to the OSH Act have been made, OSHA no longer exercises jurisdiction over the entity formerly known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The Trust Territory, which consisted of the Former
Japanese Mandated Islands, was established in 1947 by the Security Council of the United Nations, and administered by the United States. Trusteeship Agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated Islands, Apr. 2-July 18, 1947, 61 Stat. 3301, T.I.A.S. 1665, 8 U.N.T.S. 189.
From 1947 to 1994, the people of these islands exercised the right of self-determination conveyed by the Trusteeship four times, resulting in the division of the Trust Territory into four separate entities. Three entities: the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, became “Freely Associated States,” to which U.S. Federal Law does not apply. Since the OSH Act is a generally applicable law that applies to Guam, it applies to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, which elected to become a “Flag Territory” of the United States. See Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, Article V, section 502(a) as contained in Pub. L. 94-24, 90 Stat. 263 (Mar. 24, 1976)[citations to amendments omitted]; 48 U.S.C. 1801 and note (1976); s ee also Saipan Stevedore Co., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’Compensation Programs, 133 F.3d 717, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)(Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act applies to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to section 502(a) of the Covenant because the Act has general application to the states and to Guam). For up-to-date information on the legal status of these freely associated states and territories, contact the Office of Insular Affairs of the Department of the Interior. (Web address: http://www.doi.gov/oia/)
Omitted Text. Reasons for textual deletions vary. Some deletions may result from amendments to the OSH Act; others to subsequent amendments to other statutes which the original provisions of the OSH Act may have amended in 1970. In some instances, the original provision of the OSH Act was date-limited and is no longer operative.
The text of section 12(c), 29 U.S.C. 661, is omitted. Subsection (c) amended sections 5314 and 5315 of Title 5, United States Code, to add the positions of Chairman and members of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
The text of section 27, 29 U.S.C. 676, is omitted. Section 27 listed Congressional findings on workers’ compensation and established the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws, which ceased to exist ninety days after the submission of its final report, which was due no later than July 31, 1972.
The text of section 28 (Economic Assistance to Small Business) amended sections 7(b) and section 4(c)(1) of the Small Business Act to allow for small business loans in order to comply with applicable standards. Because these amendments are no longer current, the text is omitted here. For the current version see 15 U.S.C. 636.
The text of section 29, (Additional Assistant Secretary of Labor), created an Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, and section 30 (Additional Positions) created additional positions within the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in order to carry out the provisions of the OSH Act. The text of these sections is omitted here because it no longer reflects the current statutory provisions for staffing and pay. For current
provisions, see 29 U.S.C. 553 and 5 U.S.C. 5108 (c).
Section 31 of the original OSH Act amended 49 U.S.C. 1421 by inserting a section entitled “Emergency Locator Beacons.” The text of that section is omitted in this reprint because Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat.745, (July 5, 1994), repealed the text of section 31 and enacted a modified version of the provision, entitled “Emergency Locator Transmitters,” which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 44712.
Notes on other legislation affecting the administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Sometimes legislation does not directly amend the OSH Act, but does place requirements on the Secretary of Labor either to act or to refrain from acting under the authority of the OSH Act. Included below are some examples of such legislation. Please note that this is not intended to be a comprehensive list.
STANDARDS PROMULGATION.
For example, legislation may require the Secretary to promulgate specific standards pursuant to authority under section 6 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655. Some examples include the following:
Hazardous Waste Operations. Pub. L. 99-499, Title I, section 126(a)-(f), 100 Stat. 1613 (1986), as amended by Pub. L. 100-202, section 101(f), Title II, section 201, 101 Stat. 1329 (1987), required the Secretary of Labor to promulgate standards concerning hazardous waste operations.
Chemical Process Safety Management. Pub. L. 101-549, Title III, section 304, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990), required the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to promulgate a chemical process safety standard.
Hazardous Materials. Pub. L. 101-615, section 29, 104 Stat. 3244 (1990), required the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretaries of Transportation and Treasury, to issue specific standards concerning the handling of hazardous materials.
Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Pub. L. 102-170, Title I, section 100, 105 Stat. 1107 (1991), required the Secretary of Labor to promulgate a final Bloodborne Pathogens standard.
Lead Standard. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-550, Title X, sections 1031 and 1032, 106 Stat. 3672 (1992), required the Secretary of Labor to issue an interim final lead standard.
EXTENSION OF COVERAGE.
Sometimes a statute may make some OSH Act provisions applicable to certain entities that are not subject to those provisions by the terms of the OSH Act. For example, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3, (1995), extended certain OSH Act coverage, such as the duty to comply with Section 5 of the OSH Act, to the Legislative Branch. Among other provisions, this legislation authorizes the General Counsel of the Office of Compliance within the Legislative Branch to exercise the authority granted to the Secretary of Labor in the OSH Act to inspect places of employment and issue a citation or notice to correct the violation found. This statute does not make all the provisions of the OSH Act applicable to the Legislative Branch. Another example is the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, Title IX, Section 947, Pub. L. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066 (2003), which requires public hospitals not otherwise subject to the OSH Act to comply with OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030. This statute provides for the imposition and collection of civil money penalties by the Department of Health and Human Services in the event that a hospital fails to comply with OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard.
PROGRAM CHANGES ENACTED THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION.
Sometimes an appropriations statute may allow or restrict certain substantive actions by OSHA or the Secretary of Labor. For example, sometimes an appropriations statute may restrict the use of money appropriated to run the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Department of Labor. One example of such a restriction, that has been included in OSHA’s appropriation for many years, limits the applicability of OSHA requirements with respect to farming operations that employ ten or fewer workers and do not maintain a temporary labor camp. Another example is a restriction that limits OSHA’s authority to conduct certain enforcement activity with respect to employers of ten or fewer employees in low hazard industries. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. 108-199, Div. E – Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2004, Title I – Department of Labor, 118 Stat. 3 (2004). Sometimes an appropriations statute may allow OSHA to retain some money collected to use for occupational safety and health training or grants. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Div. E, Title I, cited above, allows OSHA to retain up to $750,000 of training institute course tuition fees per fiscal year for such uses. For the statutory text of currently applicable appropriations provisions, consult the OSHA appropriations statute for the fiscal year in question.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development
I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.” The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.
II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document. A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.”
III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.
IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.
V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.
VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.
VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.
VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).
IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs. X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
Following a series of TSDF losses, starting in 2005 at Environmental Quality (EQ) in Romulus, Michigan to a more recent fatality and serious burn injury at Heritage WTI in East Liverpool, Ohio in December 2011, the CSB has recommended the NFPA “develop a fire protection standard for TSDFs addressing fire prevention, detection, control, and suppression requirements.” The applicability of NFPA codes and standards to hazardous wastes and TSDFs was not clear.In 2013, the NFPA Hazardous Chemicals Technical Committee created a task group to further investigate the TSDF fire problem in the context of the NFPA 400 Hazardous Materials Code. The task group identified the need for additional research regarding TSDF incidents in the form of a gap analysis. This code fund project, through the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), was created to gather information on TSDF losses including causes and contributing factors; to identify trends and challenges unique to TSDFs; to review the fire codes in the context of TSDFs; to identify gaps, both real and perceived, by Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and others; and propose a strategy for implementing code language with the existing MAQ per control area approach to fundamental requirements, fire prevention and fire protection for TSDFs containing a cross section of hazardous materials.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
Federal Agency Alleges Company Failed to Hire Bi-Racial Applicant Because of His Race
MINNEAPOLIS – A manufacturing company based in New Ulm, Minn., violated civil rights law by failing to hire an applicant who is bi-racial (African-American and white) because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed here today.
According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, the EEOC’s pre-suit administrative investigation revealed that Windings, Inc., refused to hire Tommie Kimball for a vacant assembler position, and instead hired a white applicant.
Kimball applied for a vacant assembler job and interviewed with the company on Jan. 9, 2014, the EEOC said. Kimball was qualified for the job as he passed the job-related assessment tests, and had previous work experience as an assembler. Windings did not hire Kimball for the job, and instead hired a white applicant. The EEOC alleges that Kimball was not hired because of his race.
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on race. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Windings, Inc.; Civil Action No. 15-cv-02901) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay and compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
“Federal law is crystal-clear: Employers may not refuse to hire individuals because of their race,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “The EEOC will vigorously fight to eliminate this sort of injustice.”
The EEOC’s litigation will be led by Senior Trial Attorney Tina Burnside in its Minneapolis Area Office and supervised by Associate Regional Attorney Jean Kamp in the agency’s Chicago District Office. That office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and litigation in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
NHC Healthcare/Clinton, LLC Failed to Provide Pregnant Employee with a Reasonable Accommodation and Subsequently Fired Her, Federal Agency Charged
GREENVILLE, S.C. – NHC Healthcare/Clinton, LLC, a licensed nursing center that provides a wide array of skilled nursing, therapeutic and rehabilitative services, violated federal law when it failed to accommodate a pregnant employee and subsequently fired her because of her pregnancy and her disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed last week.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, around Feb. 21, 2002, NHC Healthcare hired Tonya Aria as a full-time licensed practical nurse (LPN) at its nursing center facility in Clinton, S.C. Aria suffers from paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), which, without medication, can cause rapid heart rate, numbness in the extremities, tunnel vision, and occasional blackouts. Aria’s PSVT is controlled by medication. NHC was aware of Aria’s medical condition.
In mid-December 2012, Aria learned she was pregnant and stopped taking her PSVT medicine due to possible side effects to her unborn child. As a result, Aria’s PSVT symptoms became uncontrolled. Additionally, Aria’s normal pregnancy symptoms, such as fatigue and nausea, were exacerbated by her PSVT. Due to her medical condition and pregnancy, Aria was placed on bed rest and written out of three days’ work in early January 2013. On Jan. 15, Aria was fired by the director of nursing because of absences related to her pregnancy and PSVT. The EEOC contends that NHC Healthcare refused to accommodate Aria by allowing her medical leave, and subsequently fired her because of her disability and pregnancy.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to provide disabled employees with reasonable accommodations unless doing so would be an undue hardship for the employer. Additionally, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to their pregnancies. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. NHC Healthcare/Clinton, LLC, Civil Action No.6:15-CV-02584-MGL-KFM) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay as well as compensatory damages and punitive damages for Aria. The EEOC also seeks injunctive relief.
“Federal laws protect employees who are pregnant as well as those who have a disability,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “In this case, Ms. Aria had a pre-existing disability and was pregnant when the events alleged in EEOC’s complaint occurred. However, employees who do not have a pre-existing disability, but who develop medical conditions that meet the ADA’s definition of ‘disability’ as a result of becoming pregnant, are also protected from disability discrimination. Employers must be aware of this intersection between Title VII’s pregnancy discrimination prohibition and the ADA.”
One of the six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) is for the Commission to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including issues involving the intersection between the ADA and pregnancy-related limitations.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
DALLAS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced the selection of Belinda McCallister as the new deputy director of its Dallas District Office.
“Belinda has a track record of technical excellence, outstanding leadership and communication skills, a work ethic beyond reproach and, most importantly, a commitment to EEOC,” said Janet Elizondo, director of the EEOC’s Dallas District. “Her desire for excellence and efficiency is displayed in all she does.”
McCallister has 25 years experience in the area of employment discrimination. She began her career with EEOC as a high school intern and has worked during her tenure as an investigator, enforcement supervisor, and director of the EEOC’s El Paso Area Office prior to her selection as deputy district director.
McCallister said, “My goal is to continue our pursuit of justice in the communities we serve. We cannot just stand by; we must continue to stand up and ensure that every individual is afforded equal opportunities in the workplace.”
The EEOC’s Dallas District takes and investigates charges of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability and genetic information, and it covers a geographic area that includes most of Texas (except southeast Texas) and the southern half of New Mexico.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information about the agency is available at www.eeoc.gov.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
Hunting Regulations Overview — Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Hunting License
A hunting license is required of any person, regardless of age, who hunts any animal, bird, frog or turtle in Texas (except furbearers, if the hunter possesses a trapper’s license.) See Hunting Licenses and Permits.
No license is required for nuisance fur-bearing animals, depredating hogs or coyotes.
Non-residents under 17 years of age may purchase and hunt with the Youth Hunting License.
Closed Season
For any species, the period of time, if any, when hunting that species is not permitted.
Hunter Orange
No hunter orange is required while hunting on private property, but it is recommended. Public hunting lands require 400 square inches of daylight florescent orange with 144 square inches appearing on both chest and back, and daylight florescent orange headwear must be worn. (See Prohibited Acts on Public Hunting Lands offering Hunts by Special or Regular Permit.)
Legal Shooting Hours for All Game Animals and Nonmigratory Game Birds
The period from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Look up sunrise/sunset hours.
Open Season
Dates shown are opening and closing dates for the open season. The open season includes both dates and all days between. Unless otherwise specified, the open season is a “general” season and all legal means, as specified in this guide, may be used in taking the species. Where the open season is designated as “archery,” only legal archery equipment/crossbow as specified, may be used. Where the open season is designated as “muzzleloader only” only muzzleloaders as defined may be used. When a season is designated as a “youth-only,” special regulations apply. See definition of “youth.”
There is no open season for any wild animal, wild bird, or exotic animal on public roads or the right-of-way of public roads, except that the holder of a Reptile and Amphibian Stamp may capture indigenous reptiles or amphibians on the shoulder of a public road or any unpaved area of a public right of way.
Sale of Inedible Wildlife Parts
The following inedible wildlife parts may be purchased or sold provided the part was lawfully taken or possessed:
Hair, hide, antlers, bones, horns, skull, hooves, or sinew from the following game animals: mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, desert bighorn sheep, gray or cat squirrels, fox squirrels or red squirrels, and collared peccary or javelina.
Feathers from ducks, geese, and brant may be used, purchased, or sold for making fishing flies, pillows, mattresses, and similar commercial uses.
Feathers from migratory birds may not be purchased or sold for hats or ornamental purposes nor may a person purchase or sell mounted migratory game bird specimens taken by hunting.
Feathers, bones, or feet of game birds other than migratory game birds (turkey, grouse, pheasant, partridge, quail, and chachalaca).
Possession of Deer Hit by Motor Vehicle
It is unlawful to possess a deer or any part of a deer that has been hit by a motor vehicle.
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
Head Quarters Army of Texas Fort Defiance Goliad Feby 28 1836 6 o’c P.M. To the Acting Governor, & Council of the Provisional Govt. of Texas I have to inform you that I have just received the unpleasant intelligence that Colo. Johnsons command were yesterday morning before day light surprised by the Enemy at San Patricio- I received my intelligence by express from Edwd. Gritten in the Mission del Refugio, who reports that Col. Johnson with two men had arrivd, on foot at a Rancho near that place- I also learn that two others had arrived at the Mission—Capt Pearson was shot down & others when asking for Quarters- From those who have escaped it is impossible to learn the strength of the army or the loss sustained by our countrymen
Mr. Gritten writes that Col. Johnson and his Companions will as soon as fresh horses can be procured proceed to this place They will probably arrive tomorrow morning This morning Col. Ferris left this post with a communication from me informing you of the return of the Troops to this place after crossing the River on the way to Bexar. The propriety of their retrogade movement will now be apparent. It is now obvious that the Enemy have entered Texas at two points, for the purpose of attacking Bexar & this place- The first has been attacked and we may expect the enemy here momentarily- Both places are importent- and this at this time particularly so- All our provisions are at Matagorda Dewitts Landing Coxes point & on the way here- We have not in the garrison supplies of Bread Stuff for a single day and as yet but little Beef and should our Supplies be cut off our situation will be, to say the least disagreeable- & in case we are not reinforced and a sufficient force sent to convey the provisions (as we have no means of transportation) when famine begins to look us in the face, we shall be compelled to cut our way through the enemy leaving the artillery & munitions of war in their hands- We hope, however for the best we hope that before this time the people have risen and are marching to the relief of Bexar & this post- but should the worst happen- on whose head should the burthen of censure fall- not on the heads of those brave men who have left their homes in the United States to aid us in our struggle for Liberty -but on those whose all is in Texas & who notwithstanding the repeated calls have remained at home without raising a finger to keep the Enemy from their thresholds- What must be the feelings of the Volunteers now shut in Bexar- & what will be those of this command if a sufficient force of the enemy should appear to besiege us here without provisions- Will not curses be heaped on the heads of the sluggards who remained at home with a knowledge of our situation
Our present force in Garrison is about four Hundred & twenty, including Guerra’s company of Mexicans—(about five white citizens of Texas in this number I omitted to mention that the force on the Nueces was divided into two parties one under Col. Johnson—in the Village of San Patricio & the other under Col. Grant & Maj. Morris on the road above- of the fate of the latter party we know nothing—as yet. I am with respect & Consideration Yr. obt. servt. J. W. Fannin Jr. Col. Comt. &c. Superscription: If this can be fowd early, so as to overtake the Express sent off this morning, it will save much time—Col. Ferris went by Dimmitts landing with it—Speed—go at speed Forward with all dispatch and spread the alarm & call out the whole people to arms—to arms. [Addressed: To/His Excellency James W. Robinson Actg Govr and Genl. Council of Texas Washington Express
Williams, McClure & Parmelee is dedicated to high quality legal representation of businesses and insurance companies in a variety of matters. We are experienced Texas civil litigation attorneys based in Fort Worth who know Texas courts and Texas law. For more information, please contact the law firm at 817-335-8800. The firm’s new office location is 5601 Bridge Street, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas 76112.
![texas[2]](https://texasdefensecounsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/texas2.gif)
