Employment & Labor Insider

Do it the old-fashioned way. Continue Reading ›

Career interruptions negatively affect pay. Who knew? Continue Reading ›

Yikes. Sounds like Japan is past due for a Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Continue Reading ›

The Sixth Circuit decision seems overall correct, although it contains some "woke dicta," too. Continue Reading ›

Are you in the know? Continue Reading ›

Let's look at the arguments, pro and con, that the Supreme Court is likely to hear someday. Continue Reading ›

Today's decision (all 163 pages of it) is from the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont). Continue Reading ›

Not a lot to the EEOC's 2018-22 Strategic Enforcement Plan, but that might be good for employers. Continue Reading ›

An injunction of the EEOC's 2012 Guidance on use of criminal background information applies only to the State of Texas . . . but all employers might be able to make use of it. Continue Reading ›

Here are 10 questions to help you think it through. Continue Reading ›

After all, Fiscal Year 2017 ended just about the time that #MeToo began. Continue Reading ›

A residential care provider has settled an EEOC lawsuit alleging failure to accommodate an employee's pregnancy. Continue Reading ›

It's possible to discriminate against someone of your own faith. And illegal. Continue Reading ›

Employers have until March 31. No comp data required.  Continue Reading ›

UPDATE (1/26/18): Proposed regulations were published in today's Federal Register. Stay tuned! Continue Reading ›

The proposal to do away with confidentiality in sexual harassment settlements is likely to hurt victims at least as much as it exposes perps. Continue Reading ›

I do not think "associational discrimination" means what you think it means. Continue Reading ›

The issue of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation bias will have to be resolved another day. Continue Reading ›

A boss who grabs an employee's breasts without her consent is indeed guilty of sexual harassment. Continue Reading ›

The feds are talking about NLRB-EEOC coordination, an end to collection of compensation data, and an inflation-indexed salary test for the overtime exemption. Here's the scoop. Continue Reading ›

How much do you know about an employer’s reasonable accommodation obligations under the law(s)? Take this quiz and find out!

Question 1: Which of the following federal employment laws require reasonable 

accommodation, either by their terms or as courts have interpreted them over the years?

A. The Americans with Disabilities Act

B. The Family and Medical Leave Act

C. Title VII-religion

D. The Nursing Mothers Act

E. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

F. All of the above

G. A, C, D, and E

ANSWER: G. The FMLA does not require reasonable accommodation, but all of these other laws do. And there is some overlap between the FMLA and pregnancy or disability accommodation because leave for pregnancy or disability can be a form of reasonable accommodation. Continue Reading ›

Asserting that the U.S. Department of Justice “must interpret Title VII as written by Congress,” the DOJ is reversing the Obama-era interpretation of Title VII, taking the position that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

In a memorandum issued this week by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ formally withdrew a 2014 memorandum by then-Attorney General Eric Holder taking the contrary position.

Attorney General Sessions contends that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination based on sex, but not based on “gender identity per se.” He noted that Title VII refers only to discrimination based on “sex,” which is “ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female.” He also noted that Congress had specifically referred to gender identity in other contexts, indicating that it would have done so in Title VII had that been its intent. Finally, he said that Title VII did not prohibit treatment “that [took] account of the sex of employees but [did] not impose different burdens on similarly situated members of each sex,” specifically referencing sex-specific bathrooms.

The memorandum concludes as follows:

The Justice Department must and will continue to affirm the dignity of all people, including transgender individuals. Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide different or additional protections. Nor does this memorandum remove or reduce the protections against discrimination on the basis of sex that Congress has provided all individuals, including transgender individuals, under Title VII. . . . The Department of Justice has vigorously enforced [federal laws specifically protecting transgender individuals], and will continue to do so, on behalf of all Americans, including transgender Americans.

The DOJ position is not a surprise, given that it recently submitted a “friend of the court” brief making roughly the same arguments in a sexual orientation discrimination case. Continue Reading ›

This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a “multimonth leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In doing so, the court rejected longstanding guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a long-term medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) definite and time-limited (not open ended); (2) requested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions on return. Noting that under the EEOC’s position “the length of leave does not matter,” the court characterized it as an “open-ended extension” of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Continue Reading ›

(Not an actual letter from Mr. Kleber.

Last week, I received a scathing comment from Dale Kleber, a Chicago-area lawyer and a plaintiff in an age discrimination lawsuit. Mr. Kleber did not like my gut reaction to his lawsuit, which was based on an article that I’d read in The Washington Post. It appeared to me that Mr. Kleber — then a 58-year-old lawyer with roughly 30 years of experience, including experience as a CEO of a dairy industry trade group, Chief Legal Counsel, and General Counsel — was rejected for a low-level in-house staff attorney position because he was overqualified for the position, not because he was 58 years old.

Prompted by Mr. Kleber’s comment, I have now read the court papers (well, a lot of them, anyway).*

*Mr. Kleber’s case is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but it is still in the very early stages. For you procedural nerds, I’ve included a summary at the end of this post. Non-nerds can skip it.

Now that I know more about Mr. Kleber’s lawsuit, I haven’t changed my mind. In other words, I still think he was rejected for being overqualified.

Can’t “overqualified” be a code word for “too old”? Yes, but not necessarily. Read on! Continue Reading ›

With President Trump in office for nine months now, it is hard to believe that none of his people are yet on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The four current Commissioners, including the Acting Chair, Republican Victoria Lipnic, and former Chair Jenny Yang, were all appointed by President Obama.

But that may change soon. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held hearings this week on the nominations of Janet Dhillon for EEOC Chair and Daniel Gade for EEOC Commissioner.

(The Senate confirmation vote for William Emanuel, whose nomination as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board has been pending for quite some time, is expected to take place imminently.)

Here’s what we have learned about Ms. Dhillon and Dr. Gade from this week’s HELP Committee testimony, according to an article in Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Labor Report: Continue Reading ›

Laboratory Corporation of America has agreed to pay approximately $200,000 to resolve a matter with Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. According to the Conciliation Agreement between the parties, the OFCCP

 found statistically significant adverse impact against females in the selection process for Lab Assistant and that Asians were paid less than similarly situated non-Asian White employees in the Lab Assistant position.

The alleged hiring discrimination resulted in a shortfall of only two females, and the amount of statistical significance was redacted from the Conciliation Agreement posted online by the OFCCP.  To resolve this claim, LabCorp will distribute more than $51,000 to the affected class of female applicants. In addition, the company agreed to revise its selection process, “including the criteria used in each step of the hiring process, any application screens, interviews, tests, credit checks, review of criminal history, reference checks, testing, or other selection procedure;” to review and revise the job description for Lab Assistant “to minimize the potential for gender stereotyping”; and to list the minimum requirements for the Lab Assistant position on all job postings.

To resolve the allegations of compensation discrimination, LabCorp will pay almost $150,000 to Asian Lab Assistants who were allegedly paid less than their White counterparts, even after controlling for legitimate, non-discriminatory factors. In addition, the company must conduct its own regression analysis in six months, and if it reveals statistically significant adverse impact against Asians, LabCorp has agreed to increase their salaries.

Of course, LabCorp’s settlement with the agency is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. Continue Reading ›

Based on a recent Senate appropriations bill, it appears that the Trump Administration’s plan to merge the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has stalled. The

 Senate bill would fund the OFCCP for Fiscal Year 2018 at approximately $103.5 million, which is more than the House’s proposed funding of $94.5 million. Congress would not be proposing funds for the agency if it planned to eliminate it.

This legislative action follows a letter from Acting OFCCP Director Thomas Dowd to the Institute for Workplace Equality on August 24, “acknowledg[ing] that the consolidation proposal includes several challenging transition issues.” Although Mr. Dowd did not expressly state that merger plans were on ice, he noted that any consolidation was unlikely to occur until Fiscal Year 2019 and that the agency would focus on “contemporaneous opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency.”

Perhaps Congress is listening to its constituents. The proposed merger was opposed by both civil rights advocacy groups and employer organizations, and my colleague Angelique Lyons cogently summarized the pros and cons here.

We will continue to monitor this issue for further developments. Continue Reading ›

Louise Davies is an Affirmative Action Paralegal in Constangy’s Winston-Salem, North Carolina, office. For more than 15 years, she has helped employers develop affirmative action plans and respond to audits and on-site investigations by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. She also conducts diversity training for employers. Louise is a graduate of Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia.

In February 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs filed an administrative complaint against B&H Foto, the largest non-chain photo and video equipment store in the United States. The Complaint alleged that B&H had discriminated against female, black, and Asian jobseekers by hiring only Hispanic men for entry-level positions.  The OFCCP also alleged that Hispanic employees were harassed, paid less than similarly situated workers, and denied promotions because of their ethnicity.

The agency and the company recently entered into a consent decree, in which B&H agreed to pay $3.22 million in back wages to more than 1,300 affected class members. The company has also agreed to hire a workplace consultant to address its employment practices and workplace conduct. In addition, the company must provide its managers with annual training on EEO principles and on workplace harassment.

By agreeing to the consent decree, the company did not admit any guilt or wrongdoing. The company released a statement denying all of the allegations, but recognizing that litigation would be costly and resolution would allow it to return to business “as usual” with the government. Continue Reading ›

This just in, from Randel Johnson, Vice President of Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Members of the Chamber’s Labor Relations and Employee Benefits Committees:

We have just learned that the deadline for compliance with the new EEO-1 form reporting requirement for data on hours and compensation will be stayed indefinitely. According to our sources, [the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget] based their decision on two grounds, one of which was the appeal submitted by the Chamber that highlighted the new form’s problems with cost, utility, and confidentiality. [The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] will be publishing further details about what actions they will be taking and any future deadlines and timelines in the Federal Register.

This is a victory, not just for the business community, but for common sense in the world of regulations and information collection. As you know, the Chamber was at the forefront throughout the development of the revised form in crafting arguments opposing EEOC’s gross overreach in expanding the existing EEO-1 form to unmanageable proportions without any discernable benefit. . . .

We will provide more details on this important development as they become available.

Hopefully you’ll find this good news as the summer comes to an end!

I was not a fan of this new EEO-1 reporting requirement, so I am happy as a clam. Continue Reading ›

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act recently celebrated its 50th birthday (it doesn't look a day over 49). This calls for an age discrimination quiz!

Question 1: What age group is protected from age discrimination under the ADEA?

A. All age groups. Discrimination based on age is never ok, whether you are young or old.

B. Ages 40 to 70.

C. Ages 40 and up, with no upper limit.

D. Ages 40 and up, unless you are an athlete or a model, in which case it's ages 30 and up.

ANSWER: C. Some states have laws that prohibit all age discrimination -- including discrimination against the young -- but the ADEA doesn't protect people under age 40.

Question 2: Which of the following could be considered "code words" for age discrimination?

A. "We're looking for someone with a high energy level."

B. "We're looking for digital natives."

C. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

D. "Have you given any thought to when you want to retire?"

E. C and D.

F. All of the above. Continue Reading ›

How much can you do - and not do - about your employees' personal appearance and grooming? Take this quiz and find out! As usual, I'll have the answers at the end, so if you get one wrong, no one but you will know.

QUESTION 1: If I operate in a jurisdiction that doesn't have a law against appearance discrimination, I can make any rules about appearance and grooming that I want. 

TRUE

FALSE

QUESTION 2: My employees are required by OSHA to wear masks on the job. The masks are no good unless there is a proper seal around the employee's mouth and nose. Since facial hair prevents a good seal from forming, we have a no-beard policy. I have one employee who is Sikh and wears a beard for religious reasons. What should I do?

A. Let him keep his beard and pray that the mask will work without the proper seal.

B. Tell him he has to shave the beard off or lose his job.

C. Meet with him and explain that the mask is required by OSHA and the safety rationale for the rule. Talk with him about reasonable accommodations, which might include use of a different type of mask that works with a beard, or transfer to another position that doesn't require use of a mask. After you've talked and perhaps consulted with vendors or safety experts, make a determination of what to do that won't violate the law or endanger his safety while accommodating his beliefs as much as you can. Continue Reading ›