<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Working the Law: News and Views on Employment Issues&#187; Discrimination</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.framinghamlegal.com/category/discrimination/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com</link>
	<description>By Massachusetts Employment Lawyer Jack Merrill</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:13:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts to Grant Work Leave Rights to Domestic Violence Victims?</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By an overwhelming vote of 34-0, the Massachusetts State Senate voted on January 12 to grant victims of domestic violence up to 15 days of annual leave. The bill is not yet law as it must be approved by the state&#8217;s house of representatives and then signed by Governor Deval Patrick. Given the lack of dissent in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2012/01/massachusetts-to-grant-work-leave-rights-to-domestic-violence-victims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MCAD Exempts Itself from from Bankruptcy Stay Rule</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision many employment lawyers may find surprising, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination refused in June to stay proceedings in an age and sex bias case despite the employer&#8217;s filing of a bankruptcy petition. The MCAD instead proceeded to hearing and entered a judgment of nearly $250,000 for the employee, concluding that the bankrupt respondent &#8220;has chosen to default rather than [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/09/mcad-exempts-itself-from-from-bankruptcy-stay-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employers Liable for Retaliation Against Former Employees</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 17:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s always been clear that taking negative action against an employee because he/she filed a discrmination complaint or supported another employee who did so is illegal under Massachusetts law. Now, the state&#8217;s highest court has made clear that employees are protected from retaliation even when the supposed misconduct occurs years after employment ends. The May 2011 decsion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/05/employers-liable-for-retaliation-against-former-employees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sometimes, It Takes Only A Word</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are a few words in the English language that most of us won&#8217;t utter in any venue, let alone at work. They are so highly charged and potentially offensive that any use of them, in almost any context, utterly fails any version of risk/reward analysis. But not everyone, of course, understands this rather obvious point, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/03/sometimes-it-takes-only-a-word/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White-on-White Race Harassment Declared Illegal</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.framinghamlegal.com/?p=267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an unusual case before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, harassment by one white male employee of another has been found to violate state law. The Commission concluded that the harassment, which focused on the victim&#8217;s interracial relationship and included the use of terms such as &#8220;porch monkey lover&#8221; and others, targeted the victim because [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2011/01/white-on-white-race-harassment-declared-illegal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Law Limits Employer Inquiries on Criminal Records</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/12/new-law-limits-employer-inquiries-on-criminal-records/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/12/new-law-limits-employer-inquiries-on-criminal-records/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:07:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://framinghamlegal.com/?p=257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Refusing to hire job applicants with criminal records just got a little trickier. As of November 2010, most employers are no longer permitted to ask criminal history questions on written job applications. The practice of reviewing such information and screening out former criminals from interviews has thus been rendered illegal. Because it is unclear whether [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/12/new-law-limits-employer-inquiries-on-criminal-records/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MCAD Authority Undercut by Court</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/09/mcad-authority-undercut-by-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/09/mcad-authority-undercut-by-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://framinghamlegal.com/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has been dealt a blow by the state&#8217;s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). In an August 2010 decision, the Court held that the MCAD&#8217;s written guidelines on the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act are not binding. The ruling calls into question a slew of MCAD &#8217;rules&#8217; that previously were believed to carry the force of law, such as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/09/mcad-authority-undercut-by-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discrimination at Work: Don&#8217;t Even Joke About It!</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/08/discrimination-at-work-dont-even-joke-about-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/08/discrimination-at-work-dont-even-joke-about-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://framinghamlegal.com/?p=207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has made clear yet again the risks employers face when they tolerate even seemingly innocent forms of workplace discrimination. This time, it awarded nearly $400,000 in back wages and emotional damages to a woman who was the brunt of jokes about her age and disability.  The illegal conduct apparently began [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/08/discrimination-at-work-dont-even-joke-about-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UPS Hit Hard by MCAD Again</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/04/ups-hit-hard-by-mcad-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/04/ups-hit-hard-by-mcad-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://framinghamlegal.com/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has hit United Parcel Service with a second substantial judgment for discriminating against a Massachusetts employee. This time, the complaint was for handicap bias by UPS in Springfield, Massachusetts. After a trial at the MCAD, UPS was ordered to pay almost $750,000 in lost wages and another $125,000 in emotional distress. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/04/ups-hit-hard-by-mcad-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UPS Hit Hard in Discrimination Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/02/ups-hit-hard-in-discrimination-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/02/ups-hit-hard-in-discrimination-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employer - Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Employment Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://framinghamlegal.com/?p=182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[United Parcel Service has been hit hard in a sexual harassment lawsuit. After years of refusing to address multiple allegations that its Shrewsbury, Massachusetts warehouse is run amok with abusive supervisors who lack even a fundamental understanding of discrimination laws, the company will now pay dearly. It was not only ordered to pay $50,000 in damages to Thomas Sobocinski &#8212; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.framinghamlegal.com/2010/02/ups-hit-hard-in-discrimination-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

