If you're unfamiliar with the processes of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), receiving a charge can present some confusion in addition to the stress already inherent in responding to a charge.
An employer cannot refuse to hire an individual because of a religious practice that the employer could reasonably accommodate without hardship. In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an employer must have actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation.
Stephen M. McHugh and C. Mark Kingseed, Coolidge attorneys and DBA Committee Members, co-authored an article for the May 2015 edition of the Dayton Bar Association's magazine, Dayton Bar Briefs, entitled "EEOC Making It More Difficult To Consider An Applicant's Criminal History." Click to view the article. EEOC Making it Difficult to Consider Criminal History.pdf
Imagine this scenario faced by many employers with exiting employees: the employer gives the exiting employee the option to contractually waive any future right to sue the employer in exchange for a lump sum, a golden (or silver) parachute. The employee has signed the severance agreement, cashed the check, and that chapter of the company's life is closed.
A recent case demonstrates how dangerous it is when an employer does not monitor the workplace to ensure equal opportunity. In what could be a record payment to settle an American class action suit for racial discrimination, Merrill Lynch agreed in August to pay $160 million to black brokers and trainees who worked at the firm since 2001.