what is the equal employment act of 1972?
86910
In 1972 the Equal Employment Act gave EEOC the power to file lawsuits against private employers, employment agencies, and unions when conciliation failed, and to file suits against private employers. The powers also extended to educational institutions and state and local government. The broadening of power to the EEOC also decreased number of required employment number from 100 employees to 15 employees which gave the EEOC more power to regulate small private businesses.
105923
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967\n\nEDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the text of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-202) (ADEA), as amended, as it appears in volume 29 of the United States Code, beginning at section 621. The ADEA prohibits employment discrimina tion against persons 40 years of age or older. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (Pub. L. 101-433) amends several sections of the ADEA. In addition, section 115 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-166) amends section 7(e) of the ADEA (29 U. S.C. 626(e)). These amendments appear in boldface type. Cross references to the ADEA as enacted appear in italics following each section heading. Editor's notes also appear in italics.\n\nAn Act\nTo prohibit age discrimination in employment.\n\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United\nStates of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the\n"Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". \n\n     * * *\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSE\n\nSEC. 621. [Section 2]\n\n(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that-\n\n     (1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers\nfind themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and\nespecially to regain employment when displaced from jobs; \n\n     (2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for\njob performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise\ndesirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons; \n\n     (3) the incidence of unemployment, especially long­term\nunemployment with resultant deterioration of skill, morale, and employer\nacceptability is, relative to the younger ages, high among older workers;\ntheir numbers are great and growing; and their employment problems grave;
257283
To start with pjbadenhorst is wrong.  It does not mean they have an Affirmative Action plan in place.  Affirmative Action and being an Equal Opportunity Employer are completely different.  I'm not meaning to call pjabenhorst out, I just don't want there to be misinformation out there.\n\nAs it has been stated, being an Equal Opportunity Employer means a company does not discriminate based on Age, Race, Religion, Gender or Sexual Orientation  It also insures that all will get equal pay, there wont be retaliation for whistle blowing and maternity leave is in place. \n\nA company does not have a 'quota' of different races to fill.  All it means is that at the end of the year the company is audited to make sure that they have hired a proportionate number of races and gender.  No, there doesn't have to be an equal balance, but if the company hired 90% white males, 5% African Americans and 5% woman, then they need to look closer and the companies hiring practices.  When looking at the numbers they take into consideration a variety of things.  Location and type of job etc.\n\nIf a company you apply for is an Equal Opportunity Employer, they will not pass you over because of your race, it only means that they are equal in their hiring practices and are watched by the government at the end of the year or quarter to make sure the percentage of types of people hired aren't weighted in one direction. \n\nAffirmative Action goes more into the hiring of certain people.  I'm not going to lie and say I fully understand it, but its not as discriminatory as people make it out to be.  I've included some links in the Source section for you to read and draw your own conclusions.
865762
Try the US Dept of Labor web site.  You can find it using any search engine.
536579
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (July 2, 1964), in the United States was landmark legislation outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Originally conceived to protect the rights of black men, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect the civil rights of all men and women.\n\nThe Act transformed American society. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. The "Jim Crow" laws in the South were abolished, and it became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Enforcement powers were initially weak, but they grew over the years, and later programs (such as affirmative action) were made possible by the Act.
972184
The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : ON THE RIGHT TRACK \nThe previous Government might as well have called for ... laws to increase flexibility in employment contracts have been on the agenda since 2001. ...\nhttp://www.hindu.com/2004/07/08/stories/2004070801301000.htm - \n\n\n\nhttp://indiacode.nic.in/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=192308+&tfnm2=5 \n... Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease ... any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III contracts any ...\nhttp://indiacode.nic.in/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=192308+&tfnm2=5
44563
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, commonly referred to instead by its acronym COBRA, is a U.S federal statute from 1986 known best for its provisions that modified the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law governing employee benefit plans, to require those plans to provide the right to choose to continue group health care benefits provided by their group health plan to workers and their dependents who have lost their health care benefits under certain circumstances. COBRA also provides similar protections for employees and their dependents who participate in "governmental plans", that is, employee benefit plans established by state and local governmental entities for their employees that would not otherwise be covered by ERISA. Employees of the federal government, who are likewise not covered by ERISA, are also entitled to similar protections.\n\nThe Act allows both workers and their immediate family members who had been covered by a health care plan to maintain their coverage if a "qualifying event" causes them to lose coverage. Among the "qualifying events" listed in the statute are loss of benefits coverage due to (1) the death of the covered employee, (2) a reduction in hours (which can be the result of resignation, discharge, layoff, strike or lockout, medical leave or simply a slowdown in business operations) that causes the worker to lose eligibility for coverage, (3) divorce, which normally terminates the ex-spouse's eligibility for benefits, or (4) a dependent child reaching the age at which he or she is no longer covered. COBRA imposes different notice requirements on participants and beneficiaries, depending on the particular qualifying event that triggers COBRA rights. COBRA also allows for longer periods of extended coverage in some cases, such as divorce, than others, such as reduction in hours.\n\nCOBRA does not apply, on the other hand, if employees lose their benefits coverage because the employer has terminated the plan altogether. COBRA provides some protections for employees and their dependents in those cases in which a business changes ownership.\n\nCOBRA does not, unlike other federal statutes such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, require the employer to pay for the cost of providing continuation coverage; instead it allows employees and their dependents to maintain coverage at their own expense by paying no more than 102 percent of the premium the employer previously paid. Employees and dependents can also opt for a lesser form of coverage, e.g., to choose continuation coverage under a plan that only covers the employee, but not his or her dependents, or that only provides medical and hospitalization coverage and does not pay for dental work, if those options are available to covered employees. Employees and dependents lose coverage if they fail to make timely payments of these premiums.
39084
Couldnt find a quick summary, but the link below is the text of the act as it was written. Perhaps that will help.
337293
The first instance of it was in 1866 appearing under the umbrella of civil rights laws.   \n  \nOriginally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... " \n\nIn 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. \n\nIn 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. \n\nDuring 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ." \n\nThe 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." \n\nIn 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. \nOther equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." \n\nMuch of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
340559
An affirmative action plan is a document that describes a company's programs, policies and procedures designed to assure that all individuals have equal opportunities in all employment decisions and practices. In addition, it also contains certain statistical analyses of the company's workforce. The purpose of these analyses is to assist the company in identifying potential problem areas, including possible discriminatory practices, so that the company can take the appropriate affirmative action where needed. Federal regulations establish a twelve-month cycle for AAPs and contractors must update them annually. \n\nThree major laws affect federal contractors and require that they implement affirmative action programs--Executive Order 11246, the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). All three laws prohibit discrimination in employment and specify certain affirmative action obligations for contractors (and subcontractors) depending upon the dollar amount of the contractor's government contracts (or subcontracts) and the number of employees in the contractor's workforce. In addition, Executive Order 11246 imposes different affirmative action obligations for construction and non-construction contractors.
1063429
Employment Law is a very complicated field of law. It is also very misunderstood. \n \nEmployment law in the United Kingdom\n============================\nDuring much of the Nineteenth century the employment contract was based on the Master and Servant Act of 1823, designed to discipline employees and repress the 'combination' of workers in Trade unions.\n\nEmployment Law in the United Kingdom has developed rapidly over the past forty years, due to a historically strong Trades Union movement and to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. In its current form, it is largely a creature of Statute, (Acts of the UK Parliament) rather than Common Law.\n\nLeading Employment Law Statutes include the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Employment Act 2002 and various legislative provisions outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion and, from 2006, age.\n\nUnusually for UK legislation, the operation of the Employment Law system is broadly similar across the whole of the UK. There are some differences in the common law between England & Wales and Scotland and, in addition, Northern Ireland has extra anti-discrimination legislation.\n\nSummary of Internal Employer's Process\n==============================\nAfter the employer's own processes, such as disciplinary hearings and internal appeals, have been exhausted, employment law cases usually start by the aggrieved employee presenting a complaint to an Employment Tribunal (ET). These (as Industrial Tribunals) were set up under the 1964 Industrial Training Act, although they now have a substantially greater role and do count as courts. They have sometimes been referred to as industrial juries.\n\nNorthern Ireland offers a Fair Employment Tribunal and an Industrial Tribunal. These are administered by OITFET - the Office of the Industrial Tribunal and the Fair Employment Tribunal.\n\nAs from 1st October 2004, both employers and employees will be required to follow a statutory dispute resolution procedure when effecting dismissals or dealing with grievances. A failure by the employer to follow the procedure results in the dismissal being automatically unfair and an enhancement in any compensation payable to the employee. A failure by the employee in following the procedure results in a possible bar to bringing tribunal claims or a reduction in any compensation payable.\n\nSummary of Tribunal Process\n======================\nGenerally speaking a tribunal will hear specific complaints about an aggrieved party being deprived of their rights, including (but not limited to) unfair dismissal.\n\nIn short, a claim is submitted, a response is required by a certain deadline, any preliminary issues are dealt with at a case management conference or a pre-hearing review, a period of time is allowed for ACAS (UK) or the LRA (NI) to explore settlement options, and then the tribunal orders are sent out after the ACAS conciliation period has expired leading to a full merits hearing of one or more days. Complex cases that are not resolved in one day are carried over to a remedy hearing at a later date to discuss the award only. A judgment is then sent out with the parties given 14 days to ask for written reasons behind the decision (unless they ask on the day).\n\nComplaints to Tribunal and Time Limits\n============================\nA complaint of unfair dismissal can only be made where there has been a dismissal, so that there is no general right to complain of unfair treatment. An employee may, however, complain at any time that they consider a statutory 'employment protection' right has been infringed. Where this takes place in connection with a dismissal an employee may combine this with their complaint against the dismissal.\n\nExcept where no qualifying time limit applies (as in the case of 'statutory rights') an employee needs to have worked for their employer for a least a year in order to make a complain
1048960
1972.  The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971.
377584
http://www.sc.gov/Portal/Category/EMPLOYEERIGHTS
1164629
collective bargaining. many of the later strikes were as a result of a lack of this - like the carnigie homestead stike and the pullman strike of 1894. collective bargaining was made legal in the Wagner act of 1935
40620
No one can give you the right answer, based on the limited information in your question.\n\nIt is different in each state. do a search for employment laws in your state to get the correct answer.
571221
U.S. Department of Labor\nEmployment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division  \n \n www.dol.gov/esa  Search / A to Z Index   \n \nFind It!: By Topic | By Audience | By Top 20 Requested Items | By Form | By Organization | By Location     \nMay 1, 2006    DOL Home > ESA > WHD > FMLA     \nThe Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993\n\nPublic Law 103-3\nEnacted February 5, 1993\nAn Act\nTo grant family and temporary medical leave under certain circumstances.\n\nBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,\n\nSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n(a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the "Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993".\n\n(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents is as follows:\n\nSec. 1. Short title; table of contents. \nSec. 2. Findings and purposes. \nTITLE I--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAVE\nSec. 101. Definitions. \nSec. 102. Leave requirement. \nSec. 103. Certification. \nSec. 104. Employment and benefits protection. \nSec. 105. Prohibited acts. \nSec. 106. Investigative authority. \nSec. 107. Enforcement. \nSec. 108. Special rules concerning employees of local educational agencies. \nSec. 109. Notice. \nTITLE II--LEAVE FOR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES \nSec. 201. Leave requirement. \nTITLE III--COMMISSION ON LEAVE\nSec. 301. Establishment. \nSec. 302. Duties. \nSec. 303. Membership. \nSec. 304. Compensation. \nSec. 305. Powers. \nSec. 306. Termination. \nTITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS\nSec. 401. Effect on other laws. \nSec. 402. Effect on existing employment benefits. \nSec. 403. Encouragement of more generous leave policies. \nSec. 404. Regulations. \nSec. 405. Effective dates. \nTITLE V--COVERAGE OF CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES\nSec. 501. Leave for certain Senate employees. \nSec. 502. Leave for certain House employees. \nTITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS\nSec. 601. Sense of Congress. \n Back to Top\nSEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.\n(a) FINDINGS.--Congress finds that-- \n(1) the number of single-parent households and two-parent households in which the single parent or both parents work is increasing significantly; \n(2) it is important for the development of children and the family unit that fathers and mothers be able to participate in early childrearing and the care of family members who have serious health conditions; \n(3) the lack of employment policies to accommodate working parents can force individuals to choose between job security and parenting; \n(4) there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods; \n(5) due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men; and \n(6) employment standards that apply to one gender only have serious potential for encouraging employers to discriminate against employees and applicants for employment who are of that gender. \n(b) PURPOSES.--It is the purpose of this Act-- \n(1) to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families, to promote the stability and economic security of families, and to promote national interests in preserving family integrity; \n(2) to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons, for the birth or adoption of a child, and for the care of a child, spouse, or parent who has a serious health condition; \n(3) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers; \n(4) to accomplish the purposes described in paragraphs (1) and (2) in a manner that, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, minimizes the potential for employment discrimination on the basis of sex by ensuring generally that leave is available for eligible medical reasons (including maternity-
1182457
Dept of labor and workforce development- \n\nIDK exactly what u're looking for so go here:\nhttp://www.nj.gov/labor/index.html