With emphasis on the pandemic.
On Monday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated guidance on “caregiver discrimination” in the workplace. The guidance emphasizes pandemic-related issues, but it is not limited to that.
Of course, “caregiver status” is not a protected category under the federal anti-discrimination laws. However, it is possible that employers could violate federal laws by treating certain employees with caregiver responsibilities less favorably than other employees based on sex or other categories covered under federal law, or by stereotyping employees or applicants based on actual or perceived caregiver responsibilities.
Caregiver guidance was last issued by the EEOC in 2007, during the George W. Bush Administration. That old guidance is still in effect (with some updates after the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act took effect in 2009). But the EEOC's latest guidance freshens it up a bit.
The new guidance covers a lot that employers should already know. For example, that it would be unlawful to deny opportunities to women based on the assumption that women are less likely than men to want to travel or work overtime because of family responsibilities.
You already knew that, right?
On the other hand, many women do make choices like this for themselves, and the EEOC specifically says that it would not violate the law for the employer to act based on the employee’s expressed preference.
It would also be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against men with caregiving responsibilities, on the stereotypical assumption that men are supposed to be the breadwinners while their wives are the caregivers.
In the context of COVID, it could be discriminatory or even harassing for an employer to criticize pregnant employees or employees with disabilities “for maintaining a physical distance from colleagues, changing their schedules, teleworking, or taking other actions to avoid being exposed to or infected with COVID-19.”
I bet you knew that.
The employer can’t treat applicants or employees less favorably based on the fact that they are providing care to a family member who has a disability. (Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's unlawful to discriminate based on association with a person with a disability.)
One important point that the new guidance makes clear: If an employer provides accommodations (including light duty) to some employees, it must provide accommodations to pregnant employees with similar limitations. We have been advising employers to do this for years, but we continue to find that not everyone is "getting the memo.”
The rest of the new guidance struck me as pretty obvious. But just so you know,
- If, say, an employee has caregiver responsibility for a same-sex spouse, the employer can’t require more proof of the relationship than it would require from an employee in a traditional marriage.
- An employer cannot treat caregiver employees differently based on their race or national origin.
- An employer cannot treat caregiver employees differently based on the “intersectionality” of their sex/sexual orientation/gender identity, and their race or national origin. For example, it would be unlawful to deny advancement opportunities to caregivers who are Black women, even if women of other races and Black men get plenty of those opportunities.
- Employees are not entitled to reasonable accommodation based on their age, but it would be unlawful to treat older workers with caregiving responsibilities less favorably than similarly-situated younger workers.
- Employers shouldn’t allow harassment of employees based on their caregiving status or lack thereof, such as
- Giving a hard time to female employees for focusing on their jobs rather than their family responsibilities.
- Giving a hard time to female employees for being too focused on their family responsibilities.
- Giving a hard time to male employees for taking on caregiver responsibilities.
- “Asking intrustive questions or making offensive comments about gay or lesbian employees’ sexual orientation” in response to a request for caregiver leave.
- Insulting Asian employees “because COVID-19 was first identified in an Asian country.”
And, of course, retaliation is illegal. Betcha knew that, too.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010