Younger workers, those under age 25, hover at about twice the national rate.  So when the overall rate rises, the young are hit twice as hard.  Racial minorities are also more likely to be unemployed than white workers.  When these two trends are combined, we see the heartbreaking statistic that African American high school graduates under the age of 25 have an unemployment rate of 49.1% in the past twelve months.  Yet that high rate did not translate into a higher proportion of the graduates taking shelter in college to ride out the recession and increase their earning potential.  The extremely high cost of college doubtless plays a role, as does the increased likelihood that the young graduate’s parents are worse off in the recession.

College graduates in this age group are more likely to be employed, but the rate of unemployment or underemployment (too few hours) is high, almost 20%.  More people than that are working at jobs that don’t require a college degree, and that presumably they would not take if they had more choices.

Unfortunately, this study predicts that the negative effects of young workers entering, or trying to enter, this job market will last for years.

The study looks at possible reasons for the lingering unemployment, as well as the long-term effects on workers aging toward retirement age.

Age discrimination accounts for much of the reluctance to hire workers.  Sometimes age discrimination is based on irrational fears that older workers will be less technologically proficient, expect higher wages, or will be unwilling to take direction from a younger manager.  Sometimes, however, the refusal to hire people of a certain age relates to the increased health insurance premiums attributable to the addition of an older worker.

The persistently unemployed older age group will face lower social security benefits because social security is tied to the worker’s latest and lifetime earnings.  Some people will retire early, and therefore commit to lower social security benefits for their lifetime.  And by necessity, the workers may dip into savings earmarked for their retirement.  Overall, this recession will continue to affect lives for some years.  If the health care reform does not untie health benefits from employment, age discrimination is unlikely to fade away.

The ways in which courts have limited pregnancy discrimination laws are well described in this article.

The new law would require employers to make reasonable accommodations to their pregnant workers, similar to requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Like the ADA, it would apply only to employers with at least 15 employees.

Pregnancy discrimination appears to be on the rise, based on the calls I have been receiving.  The worker who loses her job because she is pregnant is in a triple bind: she loses income, she loses her health care benefits when she needs them most, and she is less likely to be considered for a job, since she will need a leave of absence in the coming months.  Many pregnant women are capable of continuing their work through term, but may occasionally need to sit down, visit a restroom more often, or refrain from heavy lifting.  If an employee’s job is “Heavy Lifter,” perhaps no accommodations can be considered reasonable.  But for most employees some simple consideration can keep them working.

The study found a significant decrease in the number of workers offered and accepting health benefits over the last ten years.  Almost half of the survey respondents stated that their employers did not offer health insurance.  Others (about 15%) were not eligible, usually because they worked part-time, and a quarter of the respondents chose not to participate, either because they had coverage elsewhere, or could not afford the employee portion of the price.

Smaller businesses are less likely to offer health benefits.  Government employees and union workers enjoy more health benefits than private sector non-union workers.  In addition, employees with higher education levels are more likely to be offered health insurance at work.

Many of the opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act seem to imply that nearly everyone is already insured at work, or otherwise has options.  This study shows that the availability of health insurance is spotty, and emphasizes that smaller employers simply do not offer such benefits.  The portion of the law permitting parents to cover their children until age 26 has proven very popular.  It is time to reconsider whether expecting most people to obtain health insurance benefits from their jobs is rational.

The poster is highly unpopular among employers.  It gives employees notification about their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, which include not only the right to bargain collectively through unions, but also to discuss the terms and conditions of employment among themselves.  While there is no constitutional first amendment right to free speech in the private sector workplace, employees do have the right to petition their employer about workplace issues as a group, and to be free from retaliation for doing so.  The NLRB surveys have shown that employees are undereducated about their rights.

A federal court in District of Columbia had upheld the NLRB’s authority to require the poster, but the recent decision caused the District of Columbia Circuit to enjoin the rule temporarily.

The rule has been postponed before.  If the White House changes hands in the fall, this rule will probably not survive (although the NLRB is not completely within a president’s control – they serve five year terms).

The Department of Labor has a section on its website devoted to Equal Pay issues.  But despite the law, which has been in effect since 1963, women continue to be paid less than men overall, and less than men for the same job.  President Obama’s first signed law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to overturn a hostile Supreme Court decision.

Equal Pay act cases are still difficult to prove unless the workers have extremely similar jobs.  While I doubt this was the intention of lawmakers, judges have approached equal pay act cases with a lot of skepticism.  Two higher level positions are almost guaranteed not to be completely similar, but to pay two vice presidents with similar scope of responsibilities at dramatically different rates is commonplace.

Maryland’s record is better than most; according to Governor O’Malley, “Thankfully, in Maryland we’ve been able to reduce the wage gap between men and women to the fourth-lowest in the nation – and we were recently named the 3rd best State in the US to be a woman.”

But bring into the mix the State of Wisconsin, which has produced some extremely anti-labor sentiments of late.

After trying to rid the state government of unions, Wisconsin decided to attack protection for women (and racial minorities, among other protected categories).  Republic state senator Glenn Grothman spearheaded the repeal of the state’s equal pay act law. Senator Grothman rejects studies showing that women are systematically discriminated against.  Instead, according to him, “you could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious.”

Okay; even if that “argument” had any logic behind it, it still does not explain why a man should be paid more for the same job, just because it’s “more important” for him.  Should a single mother of four earn more than a young single man living with his parents, because it’s more important for her?  Hard to imagine Wisconsin getting behind that one.

No, this seems to be about gender.  Men deserve more money, according to these attitudes that, unfortunately (though sometimes more subtly stated) prevail.

The most newsworthy bill would prohibit employers from asking their employees or applicants to allow access to their social media sites, such as facebook. While cautionary tales abound about employers using the internet to find out what employees post, many people shield some of their information by erecting privacy walls. A state employee was required to give up his facebook password as a condition to returning to work after a leave of absence, triggering the legislation. According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland is the first state to enact protective legislation, but others are considering similar protections.

A second law seeks to protect employees who serve on juries.  Under SB 16 and HB 353, an employer may not schedule an employee for a shift beginning on or after 5 p.m. the day of jury service (or at least four hours of it), or before 3 a.m. the day after jury service.

Finally, a law eases some of the unemployment restrictions. An employee is entitled to unemployment benefits if she quits voluntarily with good cause. The employee has the burden of proof on the good cause, and there are not that many that qualify.  A new recognized example of good cause was added to the law, permitting a finding of good cause if continued employment could endanger the safety of the employee, or the employee’s spouse, minor child or parent, if any of whom is a victim of domestic violence.  Sometimes a domestic violence victim is safe only if he or she disappears from the reach of the perpetrator.  A significant aspect of this law prohibits an employer’s rating record from being charged for the benefits, which should minimize employers’ objections when benefits are sought on this basis.

SB 291/HB 769

The Fourth Circuit employed a broader view of the “terms and conditions of employment” though.  Though an employment benefit is voluntarily granted by an employer, it still must not discriminate in granting the benefits.  In addition, prospective, current, and past employees are all protected from discrimination on the basis of sex.

Ms. Gerner now has a chance to go to trial on her claims of sex discrimination.

Mr. Coleman sought time off to care for a serious health condition.  When an employer has more than 50 employees, an eligible employee is generally entitled to use up to 12 weeks of leave in a year’s period to care for the employee or a family member.  When the FMLA passed, one of its stated purposes was to address sex role issues, where women are expected to be the primary caregivers for sick family members.  Because of the gender discrimination underpinnings of the law, the Supreme Court had previously held that a state can be sued, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, under the FMLA if the employee requested leave to care for a family member.

It took a different view when the employee needs time off for his or her own illness.  But when the employee needs time to take care of himself, there is no sexism implicated. Both genders get sick or injured, and there was no suggestion that this portion of the law addressed historical sex or other discrimination.  Therefore Mr. Coleman is not entitled to sue the State in federal court to enforce his FMLA rights.

This ruling affects only government employees.  Employees in the private sector are still eligible for FMLA leave for their own illnesses.

Sovereign immunity can be, and has been, waived in a number of situations.   According to The Daily Record, State Senator Jamie Raskin states that a hearing might be desirable on the issue whether the State ought to waive its sovereign immunity so as to allow employees self-care rights.

The District Court held that a letter from the company offering her job back meant that she was not fired for complaining or for refusing to sign the severance agreement.  The Fourth Circuit determined that there were numerous factual disputes about whether the employee had suffered a “tangible employment action,” which is necessary before a court can impose liability on an employer that denies knowing about the harassment.  It did not reach other issues, such as whether Carla Dulaney adequately complained, and whether the employer failed to take action on her complaints.

District Courts continue to weigh facts, often giving scant weight to the employee’s assertions, in order to award summary judgment to employers.  This case shows the importance of proof that an employee made complaints about sexual harassment, and that the complaints went unheeded.