Sanjana H.’s Post

Harassment and intimidation can lead to suppression of research, as academics don’t feel able to share their work. This benefits no one. Researchers must be able to speak out openly and honestly about research findings, or valuable evidence will be lost. Without institutional backing, many researchers turn away from the public eye. By providing a safe environment for staff to engage with the public, institutions are also protecting public discourse - ensuring researchers feel comfortable enough to publish their work means the public has access to vital contributions which can benefit all our lives. Unfortunately we don’t yet live in a world where all researchers can always speak out. This is why every year, in partnership with Nature Magazine, we award the John #MaddoxPrize, recognising individuals who stand up for science and evidence, even in the face of adversity or hostility.

Employers are open to second chance hiring. 75% (!) don't want a record to get in the way of a hiring a quality candidate. So, why do people with records— 1 in 3 American adults—still get barred from so many opportunities? The research points to what's holding employers back (read: the stigma and fear) and opportunities to move them forward (read: debunk myths & point to the community's unique strengths, skills, and potential). While the field moves forward on removing restrictions through policy, this points to how we can shift employer sentiment (and action!) along the way. Check out the brief at the link below. Big ups to REFORM Alliance & the broader Work Matters coalition for making this happen. Excited for what's ahead.

The Fair Chance Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, is a California law that generally prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking about your conviction history before making you a job offer. This type of law is also known as a “Ban the Box” law. California enacted the Fair Chance Act to reduce barriers to employment for individuals with conviction histories because gainful employment is essential to these individuals supporting themselves and their families and improving their community ties and mental health – all of which reduce recidivism. The Fair Chance Act is part of California’s employment antidiscrimination statute called the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which is enforced by the Civil Rights Department (CRD). #SecondChanceAct #SecondChanceMonth #BreakingBarriers #Unemployment #Entrepreneurship #Leadership #Consultant #socialnetworking #strategy #LinkedIn #Employer #Employment

The New York City Commission on Human Rights has issued proposed amendments to its rules governing employment discrimination based on criminal history. Specifically, the proposed rules amend portions of the New York City Fair Chance Act which prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal background before a conditional offer of employment is made or from inquiring into or taking adverse action against an applicant or employee for certain types of criminal history. New York City employers covered by the New York City Fair Chance Act should review the proposed rules in their entirety and, if necessary, update their policies and procedures to ensure compliance. Learn more - link to details in the comments.

Mississippi has no general law regulating the consideration of criminal records in employment. Unlike other states, it does not impose limits on application-stage inquiries for public employers. Individuals with criminal records may face challenges when seeking employment due to their past convictions. Pardons remove employment disabilities, and individuals with expunged criminal convictions need not disclose them if asked in connection with an employment application. Mississippi granted its last pardon in 2012 and with the strict expungement requirements and process, non-violent justice-involved Mississippians are locked out of the main source to their successful reentry - employment. Let's work together to unlock second chance employment opportunities for non-violent justice-involved Mississippians. Email info@msreentry.org to learn how you can tap into a rich pool of talent that can benefit your business. #msreentry #secondchances #collateralconsequences #mississippi #secondchacneemployment

The New York City Commission on Human Rights has issued proposed amendments to its rules governing employment discrimination based on criminal history. Specifically, the proposed rules amend portions of the New York City Fair Chance Act which prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal background before a conditional offer of employment is made or from inquiring into or taking adverse action against an applicant or employee for certain types of criminal history. New York City employers covered by the New York City Fair Chance Act should review the proposed rules in their entirety and, if necessary, update their policies and procedures to ensure compliance.  Learn more - link to details in the comments.

What does 'justice' look like when it is not 'blind'? See new research findings… London, England Justice should be blind in the sense that it should see both parties on equal terms: justice must be impartial. This research finds that a bandage covered the eyes of an Employment Tribunal (UK) judge – his justice was partial. This research finds conclusively, that he knowingly ignored and twisted relevant material facts. He ignored vital facts regarding the untruthfulness of LSBU witnesses. He concocted false facts and relied on these for important conclusions, leading to the rejection of all the claimant’s claims. Such behaviours and failures to act were patently unfair, biased and perverse. They show institutional betrayal by the Judge Khalil and the Employment Tribunal system.

Unfortunately, it is all too common for retaliation to follow a claim of harassment or discrimination in the workplace. In fact, retaliation claims are on the rise: 57 percent of charges received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Texas were for retaliation. Retaliation is any adverse employment action taken against an employee who has reported, opposed, or participated in an investigation for an unlawful employment practice. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “adverse employment actions” as any action that would be enough to dissuade an employee from making a complaint of harassment or discrimination. In layman’s terms, any action taken to punish an employee for making a claim or opposing an employer’s unlawful activity is prohibited by law. As an employee, you have the right to work in an environment that is free of harassment and discrimination. Even when upper management is the source of the illicit behavior, you have the right to voice your concerns without negative employment repercussions. For more on this topic, check out our article below in the comments. #WorkplaceRetaliation #EEOC #EmploymentLaw #Discrimination #Harassment #EmployeeRights #RetaliationClaim #WorkplaceEquality #LegalRights #WorkplaceJustice #JSL #JacksonSpencerLaw

The lengths some companies will go to maintain discrimination in the workplace are truly mind-blowing. (DF#101) #williegriggs #dukepower #titlevii #educationbarrier #employmentdiscrimination #degreefree, #college, #collegetips, #jobs, #jobsearch, #jobhunt, #jobhunting

In this article, Neil Coetzer, the Head of our Employment Practice, and Tové Moreau, a Candidate Attorney, explain that determining whether an employee cannot comply with the inherent requirements of their position is a multi-faceted enquiry. Click on the link below to read the article. #CHMAttorneys #employment #incapacity #inherentrequirements #enquiry #labourlaw