Recently, the Department of Labor published a Judge Order for Bank of America’s racial discriminatory hiring practices. Back Wages and interests were ordered to be paid to those candidates who were rejected.
“Wherever doors of opportunity are unfairly closed to workers, we will be there to open them — no matter how long it takes,” said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. “Judge Chapman’s decision upholds the legal principle of making victims of discrimination whole, and these workers deserve to get the full measure of what is owed to them.”
On Nov. 24, 1993, OFCCP initiated a routine compliance review that revealed indications of systemic hiring discrimination affecting African American job seekers at the Charlotte facility. After conciliation efforts failed, the Solicitor of Labor in 1997 filed an administrative complaint against the company for violating Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment practices on the basis of race.
“Our investigators and attorneys prevailed despite decades of stalling tactics,” said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. “This case demonstrates that the department will not be deterred in our pursuit of justice for job seekers.”
Please click the link to read the full News Release.
Yet another bad practice that Bank of America has been doing. As a big bank, what were the responsibilities of their employment executives? Why do they allow discriminatory practices when hiring workforce. Companies like Bank of America that demonstrates these types of hiring practices should not be allowed to be touting ‘good business practices’ at conferences regardless of locations.
The Department of Labor – Employee Benefits Security Administration issued guidance pertaining to equal treatment of same-sex spouses who are otherwise eligible for coverage under a plan are entitled to the same ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ) protections as spouses of the opposite sex. This was prompted by the recent decision of the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor case on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
“By providing greater clarity,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi, “we are contributing to greater equality and greater protection for America’s working families.”
For purposes of this guidance, the term “state” means any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the United States, and any foreign jurisdiction having the legal authority to sanction marriages.
The terms “spouse” and “marriage,” however, do not include individuals in a formal relationship recognized by a state that is not denominated a marriage under state law, such as a domestic partnership or a civil union, regardless of whether the individuals who are in these relationships have the same rights and responsibilities as those individuals who are married under state law. The foregoing sentence applies to individuals who are in these relationships with an individual of the opposite sex or same sex.
A rule that recognizes marriages that are valid in the state in which they were celebrated, regardless of the married couple’s state of domicile, provides a uniform rule of recognition that can be applied with certainty by stakeholders, including employers, plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries.
A rule for employee benefit plans based on state of domicile would raise significant challenges for employers that operate or have employees (or former employees) in more than one state or whose employees move to another state while entitled to benefits. Furthermore, substantial financial and administrative burdens would be placed on those employers, as well as the administrators of employee benefit plans. For example, the need for and validity of spousal elections, consents, and notices could change each time an employee, former employee, or spouse moved to a state with different marriage recognition rules. To administer employee benefit plans, employers (or plan administrators) would need to inquire whether each employee receiving plan benefits was married and, if so, whether the employee’s spouse was the same sex or opposite sex from the employee. In addition, the employers or plan administrators would need to continually track the state of domicile of all same-sex married employees and former employees and their spouses. For all of these reasons, plan administration would grow increasingly complex, administrators of employee benefit plans would have to be retrained, and systems reworked, to comply with an unprecedented and complex system that divides married employees according to their sexual orientation. In many cases, the tracking of employee and spouse domiciles would be less than perfectly accurate or timely and would result in errors or delays.
To read the complete Guidance, please click on the link “Guidance to Employee Benefit Plans on the Definition of “Spouse” and “Marriage” under ERISA and the Supreme Court;s Decision in United States v. Windsor”
“OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility) strives to protect the integrity of the tax system from unscrupulous and incompetent practitioners regardless of how those traits become known,” said Karen L. Hawkins, Director of OPR.
Recently, the Internal Revenue Service announced that its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has disbarred David O. Christensen after he was convicted of theft for misappropriating funds as the conservator of his daughter’s trust account. Christensen was a Certified Public Accountant with licenses in Washington and Oregon, were revoked previously as a result of his conviction.
Per IRS Newswire, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) declined to carve out a request by Christensen for limited practice as a tax return preparer, and instead, disbarred him from all practice before the IRS finding that Christensen’s conviction for theft, and the revocation of his CPA licenses, constituted disreputable conduct under Circular 230.
To read the complete Administrative Law Judge Decision from the IRS, please click on ALJ Final Agency Decision