Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

This past week, the EEOC filed suit against 15 different employers located across 11 different states. There was one common theme in each action: an employer’s failure to complete EEO-1 Component 1 reports for both 2021 and 2022. By filing these lawsuits, the EEOC is requesting courts to order these employers to fulfill their requirement of providing their company’s workforce demographic data. These suits were filed just ahead of the deadline for employers to file their EEO-1 Component 1 report reflecting data from the 2023 calendar year, which is quickly approaching on June 4, 2024.

The start of spring has brought with it important deadlines and announcements from the EEOC, OFCCP, and the OMB regarding the reporting of employee demographic data to the federal government.

As announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) earlier this year, the 2023 EEO-1 data collection process will open on April 30, 2024 with a deadline to file by Tuesday, June 4, 2024. Private employers with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees can begin to report their data as of April 30, 2024 in order to meet the deadline.

On December 23, 2023, a federal District Court in California issued an order compelling the OFCCP to produce formerly-withheld EEO-1 reports to a news organization who submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the reports. This order is significant because it compels the OFCCP to produce the EEO-1 reports for all federal contractors between 2016 and 2020. The plaintiff news organization submitted four FOIA requests to the OFCCP between 2019 and 2022 requesting all EEO-1 reports submitted by all federal contractors from 2016 through 2020. OFCCP published a notice in the Federal Register informing all contractors of the requests and an opportunity to object. OFCCP released all EEO-1 reports from all non-objecting contractors. The instant litigation relates to the EEO-1 reports of the objecting contractors.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published proposed enforcement guidance for workplace harassment for public comment on October 2, 2023. The proposed guidance can be found on the EEOC’s website. While the EEOC attempted to provide updated harassment guidance under the Trump administration in 2017, final guidance was never issued and if this new guidance is finalized it would represent the first time the EEOC has updated its workplace harassment guidance in nearly a quarter century.

Although the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA” or the “Act”) has been in effect since June 27, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or the “Commission”) last week, published proposed rules regarding the enforcement of the Act. The PWFA has been covered in a previous blog post, but in short, the law requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation for pregnant employees, regardless of whether that pregnancy has resulted in a disability as was the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Federal contractors have had a flurry of headlines to keep up with over the last few months. Most prominent among them is the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council’s interim rule barring federal agencies and contractors from using TikTok or any other ByteDance product (the “Covered Applications”). 

On May 15, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its COVID-19-related technical guidance in response to the Biden administration’s termination of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11, 2023. The updated guidance cautions employers about their continuing obligations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and other equal employment opportunity laws.

As of late, it seems we can hardly go a day without hearing about the rise of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and its potential to disrupt all manner of industries.  But awareness of AI’s potential implications to our careers has only recently hit the mainstream.  Many employees may be surprised to learn that a number of employers have already been using AI to make employment decisions for some time, especially in the hiring process.  And the number of employers using AI in the workplace has been growing rapidly.  Some employers are even using AI to make promotion decisions.

Background

On January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a draft of its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) in the Federal Register, which outlines the enforcement goals for the Commission for the next four years. While the Agency aims to target a number of new areas – such as underserved workers and pregnancy fairness in the workplace – it is notable that it listed as priority number one the elimination of barriers in recruitment and hiring caused or exacerbated by employers’ use of artificial intelligence. 

As employers know, the federal government’s New Year’s resolutions often do not make employers’ lives easier. The following are recent developments of which employers should be aware. 

A Virginia federal court last week dismissed a plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims because the plaintiff failed to check the “continuing action” box or specifically mention “harassment” or “hostile work environment” in her EEOC charge.

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (Walmart), who was accused by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of engaging in sex discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by offering temporary light duty to employees who were injured on the job, but denying a similar accommodation to pregnant employees. 

The U.S. Equal Employment Commission (“EEOC”) has recently updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” (“Q&A)  and taken the position that employers may only screen employees for COVID-19 if it is a business necessity that is justified by “current pandemic circumstances and individual workplace circumstances” because a COVID-19 viral test is a medical examination within the meaning of the ADA.

The EEOC recently issued long awaited guidance on how an employer’s use of software, algorithms, and artificial intelligence will be treated by the Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In issuing this guidance, the Commission focused on employers administering software that uses algorithmic decision-making or artificial intelligence in making employment decisions before and during employment. The Commission outlined three general areas in which the use of such technology may violate the ADA: (1) an employer not providing a reasonable ...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has started to take affirmative steps to include non-binary classifications on agency forms.  In an announcement last month, individuals will be able to choose a non-binary gender markers when filling out intake and charge of discrimination forms used by workers for discrimination complaints levied against employers.  On these forms, an individual will be able choose “X” for the voluntary self-identification questions and use the prefix “Mx.”

On March 14, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a technical assistance document providing guidance when it comes to claims of discrimination against employees and applicants with caregiving responsibilities in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic (“Guidelines”).  The Guidelines, entitled “The COVID-19 Pandemic and Caregiver Discrimination Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws”, examine discrimination against employees and applicants based on pandemic caregiving responsibilities, noting that such discrimination may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) or Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), or other federal laws.

On November 10, 2021, three federal agencies tasked with enforcing workplace laws announced a joint initiative to combat retaliation in the workplace.  As a refresher, the EEOC protects a worker’s right under Title VII and other non-discrimination laws to enjoy a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.  The DOL enforces federal labor standards per the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as health and safety regulations through OSHA.  The NLRB generally protects a worker’s right to organize to improve working conditions, among other rights guaranteed by National Labor Relations Act.

Last week, the EEOC issued new guidance on how to apply anti-discrimination laws to an applicant or employee’s request for a religious exemption from an employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement.

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a webinar on artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace.  Commissioner Keith Sonderling explained that the EEOC is monitoring employers’ use of such technology in the workplace to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The agency recognizes the potential for AI to mitigate unlawful human bias, but is wary of rapid, undisciplined implementation that may perpetuate or accelerate such bias.  Sonderling remarked that the EEOC may use Commissioner charges—agency-initiated investigations unconnected to an employee’s charge of discrimination—to ensure employers’ are not using AI in an unlawful manner, particularly under the rubric of disparate impact claims.

On September 7, 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against an employer that allegedly denied accommodation for telework in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Currently, the case is the only lawsuit the EEOC has filed concerning a request for an ADA accommodation related to COVID-19. The suit is a challenge to the typical posture of courts that frequently consider working from home to be an unreasonable accommodation.

On June 30, 2021, President Biden signed a joint resolution narrowly passed by Congress to repeal a Trump-era rule that would have increased the EEOC’s information-sharing requirements during the statutorily mandated conciliation process.

Employers remember the seminal Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., where the Court held that Title VII’s “because of sex” protections extend to sexual orientation and transgender status.  (See our previous blog entry.)   Now, on the one-year anniversary of that influential case, the EEOC has issued guidance to clarify whether employers can segregate bathrooms by gender or sex.  That question was conspicuously left unresolved in Bostock.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has frequently released guidance on the many employment law compliance issues that have arisen as a result of the pandemic. The latest guidance issued by the EEOC concerns whether employers may implement vaccine incentive programs to encourage employees to get vaccinated without running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Genetic Information Discrimination Act (GINA). In its May 28, 2021 Guidance, the EEOC advised employees that vaccine incentive programs are lawful under the ADA and GINA in certain circumstances.

Ten U.S. senators are asking the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to hone in on employers’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”), machine-learning, and other hiring technologies that may result in discrimination.

The group of senators—Michael Bennet (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Chris Coons (D-DE), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)—jointly penned a December 8, 2020 letter to Chair Janet Dhillon. The letter urges that EEOC is responsible for combatting discrimination resulting from the use of hiring and other employment technologies. The senators voice concern about a number of hiring technologies, including:

• “[T]ools used in the employee selection process to manage and screen candidates after they apply for a job”;
• “[N]ew modes of assessment, such as gamified assessments or video interviews that use machine-learning models to evaluate candidates”;
• “[G]eneral intelligence or personality tests”; and
• “[M]odern applicant tracking systems.”

On December 16, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its COVID-19 guidance with a new section pertaining to vaccinations.

The updated release—“What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws”—discusses how employers who require vaccinations should respond to an employee who is unable or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief.

On November 17, 2020 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released proposed updates to its Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination (“Manual”). The draft revisions are available for public input until December 17, 2020, after which the EEOC will consider the public’s input, make any changes, and publish the finalized Manual.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regularly releases guidance and advice to employers to aid in compliance with applicable workplace discrimination laws. For example, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EEOC has frequently issued and updated guidance on how employers can strike the difficult balance between workplace safety and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A proposed rule  published by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on October 9, 2020 (the “Proposed Rule”) offers the possibility of expanded information-sharing with respondents/employers in connection with the agency’s conciliation efforts.  The proposed expanded disclosures may enhance the value of conciliation to those parties.

When the EEOC makes a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred based on a charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. (“Title VII”), it must offer the employer an opportunity to resolve the dispute through the “informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.”  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The agency may not commence a civil action against an employer unless it is unable to secure satisfactory remedies through the conciliation process.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).  According to the Proposed Rule, approximately one-third of employers who receive a reasonable cause finding decline to participate in conciliation, and only 41.2% of conciliations between fiscal years 2016 and 2019 were successful. The Proposed Rule characterizes this as a “widespread rejection” of the conciliation process.

While most EEOC enforcement actions are related to individual complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation, so-called “pattern or practice” matters are those in which the EEOC attempts to show that an employer has systematically engaged in discriminatory activities. The Equal Employment Opportunity states on its website, “Systemic discrimination involves a pattern or practice, policy, or class case where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company or geographic area.” To combat systemic discrimination, section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the EEOC to sue employers engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination.

As most employers are well aware, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex national origin, age, disability or genetic information. After an individual submits a charge of discrimination to the EEOC—and if the parties cannot come to an agreement to settle the charge through the EEOC’s mediation process—the EEOC investigates the allegations to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred. Generally, the EEOC does not make a finding, and instead issues a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” (more commonly known as a “right-to-sue” letter) notifying the charging party that they have 90 days to file a discrimination lawsuit, or their right to sue based on the charge will be lost.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the EEOC has periodically released updates to its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” which Hunton previously posted about here and here. These questions and answers have provided employers with much needed guidance on the EEOC’s position on how employers can ensure the safety of their employees while at the same time not running afoul of the ADA.

On April 23, 2020, the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” which Hunton previously posted about here, to address questions that many employers are struggling with related to employee COVID-19 testing.  The EEOC’s new guidance confirms that employers are authorized to administer COVID-19 tests before allowing employees to enter the workplace, and that doing so does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

On April 17, 2020 the EEOC updated its’ Technical Assistance Questions and Answers to provide employers with additional guidance interpreting the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and other EEO Laws in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The EEOC first reminds employers that while these laws continue to apply, employers should still adhere to the ever-changing guidelines and suggestions made by the CDC or state/local health authorities.  With that in mind, the new guidance addresses several topics, summarized below.

EEOC guidance on COVID-19 continues to evolve as the medical community learns more about the virus.  On April 9, 2020, the EEOC expanded the list of symptoms about which employers may ask when screening employees entering the workplace, without running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Previously, employers were permitted to ask individuals if they were experiencing fever, chills, cough, sore throat, or shortness of breath. In the agency’s most recent update to its “Technical Assistance Questions and Answers about COVID-19,” it acknowledged that the medical profession now recognizes that the virus may present with the additional symptoms of a sudden loss of smell or taste, as well as gastrointestinal problems, such as nausea, diarrhea or vomiting.  Inquiries about these symptoms are now permitted, as well.

Dollar General and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently settled a six-year-old Title VII lawsuit.  The EEOC brought its race discrimination claim on behalf of a Charging Party and a class of Black job applicants, alleging that Dollar General’s use of criminal justice history information in the hiring process had a disparate impact on Black applicants.

As we blogged about earlier this year, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in April ordered the EEOC to collect two years’ worth of EEO-1 Component 2 pay data from mid-size and large employers by a deadline of September 30, 2019.  In its most recent status report on the subject, however, the agency revealed it did not collect enough data to satisfy the judge’s response criteria, having received submissions from only 39.7% of eligible employers.  Perhaps unfortunately for employers, the EEOC said it will continue accepting compensation data for reporting years 2017 and 2018 until it satisfies the court’s criteria that Component 2 data “be equal to or exceed the mean percentage of EEO-1 reporters” that turned in EEO-1s in each of the past four years.  On its official website, the EEOC encourage all employers to “submit their data as soon as possible.”

The EEOC recently published guidance under its FAQ page regarding the question of how to report nonbinary gender employees on the annual EEO-1 report.  The EEO-1 report is a yearly survey that employers must complete and submit to the agency which requires the employer to identify characteristics of its workforce such as race/ethnicity and sex.  This survey does not allow the employer or the affected employee to abstain from responding, which creates difficult decisions for the employer who must fill-in-the-blank when an employee declines to self-identify.

After a nearly six-year legal battle, the Fifth Circuit has struck down the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the consideration of criminal history in employment decisions.  On August 6, a three-judge panel held that the Guidance was a substantive rule the EEOC had no authority to issue and that the EEOC can no longer enforce the Guidance or treat it as binding in any respect.

We previously posted on the unfortunate ruling in March 2019, when a Federal Court reinstituted the “Component 2” wage reporting in the annual EEO-1 Report.  The highly controversial requirement – that employers annually report, to the government, W-2 earnings and hours worked for all employees – had been proposed in 2016, but stayed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2017.

In a unanimous 9-0 decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split amongst the circuit courts of whether filing a charge of discrimination pursuant to Title VII is a jurisdictional prerequisite or a claims-processing rule. Prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue, the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit Courts all held that the administrative exhaustion requirements under Title VII are not jurisdictional, but rather an affirmative defense that can be waived by an employer if not timely raised. On the other side of the circuit split, the Forth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts held that the administrative exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, and that a federal district court has no authority to adjudicate Title VII claims if the plaintiff has not first filed a charge with the EEOC. In its decision, Fort Bend County v. Davis, all nine justices agreed that the charge filing requirement under Title VII is not jurisdictional, and therefore can be waived by a defendant if not timely raised.

Businesses with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees must annually file an EEO-1 Private Sector Report disclosing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the number of women and minorities they employ by job category, race, sex and ethnicity.  Covered employers have been providing this traditional race-ethnicity and sex data (referred to as “Component 1 data”) to the Commission for over half a century.  The EEOC uses it to analyze employment patterns and support civil rights enforcement.

Employers breathed a collective sigh of relief in August 2017, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced it was staying the requirement that employers report W-2 wage information in the annual EEO-1 Report.   Now, though, the reprieve seems over.  On March 4, 2019, the District of Columbia Federal Court ruled that OMB improperly issued the stay without good cause, and put the wage report back into effect.  See National Women’s Law Center v OMB, No. 1:17-cv-2458 (D.D.C.  March 4, 2019).

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to resolve a growing split of authority among lower federal circuit courts regarding the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) that individuals must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before bringing Title VII claims against their employer. Specifically, the Supreme Court is set to decide the following issue: “Whether Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, as three circuits have held, or a waivable claim-processing rule, as eight circuits have held.”

The EEOC recently released a report highlighting the Commission’s efforts to combat sexual harassment in the past year.  The report, which includes preliminary data for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2018, illustrates that the Commission has been, in the EEOC’s words, “vigorously enforcing the law” in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

The opioid epidemic is causing employers to consider the best ways to ensure a safe workplace, but companies should be careful when addressing employees’ prescription drug use.  Recent court filings and settlements by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission illustrate the potential pitfalls employers face when attempting to implement a drug-free workplace.

The #MeToo movement has galvanized many into taking action to fight workplace harassment. Since the movement began in the fall of last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—tasked with enforcing laws prohibiting sexual harassment—has indicated it has seen an uptick in the amount of traffic to its website. But, it also indicated this increase in website visitors has not translated into an increase in formal complaints to the EEOC filed by employees against their employers. Still, the EEOC has carried the torch of the #MeToo movement, signaling that the lack of an increase in claims will not stop the agency from vigorously enforcing anti-harassment laws.

This week the LGBT community and its supporters won an important case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  In Zarda v. Altitude Express, the Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination extends to same-sex, or “anti-gay,” discrimination.  In that case, Donald Zarda, a gay skydiving instructor, alleged he was unlawfully fired after a customer complained about him disclosing his same-sex orientation.

On February 12, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) approved and released its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-2022. Congress requires government agencies like the EEOC to formulate strategic plans every four years and post the plans on their website. These plans must include general goals and objectives of the agency and a description of how those goals will be achieved. In a press release introducing the plan, the EEOC indicated the plan “will serve as a framework for the Commission in achieving its mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination and advance equal opportunity for all in the workplace.”

On November 15, the EEOC issued its 2017 annual Performance and Accountability Report, providing details and statistics regarding the Commission’s performance and goals during the period of October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017.

The day employers have been waiting for, has finally arrived.  The government has indefinitely stayed the requirement that companies begin reporting “Component 2” wage data in their EEO-1 Reports.  Companies around the country are breathing a collective sigh of relief.

On June 14, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting entitled “The ADEA @ 50 – More Relevant Than Ever,” to commemorate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s 50th anniversary and to “explore the state of age discrimination in America today and the challenges it poses for the future.” Participants in the meeting included Victoria Lipnic, newly-appointed Chairman of the EEOC, and various workers’ advocates who provided their thoughts on the perceived increasing prevalence of age discrimination in the workplace. Despite the enactment of the ADEA a half-century ago, the participants cited various statistics demonstrating the difficulty still facing older individuals in the workplace. This discrimination faced by older workers in an aging-American workforce coupled with various statements by Chairman Lipnic regarding the ADEA are signals to employers that ADEA enforcement may receive an increased focus during the Trump administration.  In a previous post, we discussed the impact of Chairman Lipnic’s appointment and the direction of the EEOC under her new leadership and highlighted that ADEA enforcement would be one of the agency’s main focuses.

On May 23, 2017, the Department of Labor released its budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018).  The budget contains several cost-cutting measures that reflect the new priorities of the Trump administration.

A notable aspect of the proposed budget is a request to merge the EEOC and OFCCP.  The  proposal aims for “full integration” of the two agencies by the end of FY 2018.  To begin that transition, the proposal suggests sizable drops in the OFCCP’s current funding and staffing.  The OFCCP’s budget is proposed to drop from $105,275,000 to $88,000,000 (a reduction of $17.3 million).  The headcount is proposed to drop nearly 25%, from 571 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to 440.

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved a Circuit Court split on the appropriate standard of review of a District Court’s decision whether to enforce a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  In McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 15-1248, 581 U.S. __ (April 3, 2017), the Court held that such a decision should be reviewed only to determine whether the District Court abused its discretion – a deferential standard of review.  This conclusion was fairly uncontroversial.  Indeed, the abuse of discretion standard has long been used for review of decisions whether to enforce administrative subpoenas (such as those issued by the National Labor Relations Board). Historically, however, the Ninth Circuit alone has used a de novo standard of review in these circumstances, while the seven other U.S. Courts of Appeal to have addressed this issue all applied the more deferential standard.  The Ninth Circuit panel itself questioned why de novo review applied, in light of the substantial authority to the contrary, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve this circuit split.

Hunton & Williams recently published an entry on its Retail Law Resource Blog regarding what employers can expect from Victoria Lipnic, the new acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and an EEOC Commissioner since 2010.  Since that publication, Lipnic has made public comments as to what she envisions from the EEOC under her leadership.  Several key topics from those comments are summarized below:

On January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the nearly year-long vacancy on the Supreme Court left by Justice Scalia.  Judge Gorsuch, currently on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal, is likely a welcome choice for employers.  His employment decisions generally—though not always—have favorable outcomes for employers.  However, he does not appear to be a trailblazer on employment issues, but rather applies established precedent that generally favors employers.  His employment decisions do not tend to draw dissent, bolstering the view that his opinions are not significant departures from Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.  (Of course, not all agree.  Senator Elizabeth Warren describes him as having “twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans.  He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct.  He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases.”)

On November 21, 2016, the EEOC announced the release of new enforcement guidance addressing national origin discrimination.   Like many enforcement initiatives of late, the update is intended to address current cultural issues and legal developments.  It updates an EEOC compliance manual section from 2002 (Volume II, Section 13: National Origin Discrimination).  The EEOC also issued a small business fact sheet and a Q-and-A document.

Enforcing a race-neutral grooming policy that prohibits employees from wearing dreadlocks is not intentional racial discrimination under Title VII.  That is what the Eleventh Circuit recently held in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-13482, 2016 WL 4916851 (11th Cir. Sept. 15, 2016).

The issue of religious background has generated substantial discussion during the current election cycle. Recently, the federal government highlighted the issue of religious discrimination and accommodation in the workplace.

On July 22, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced the release of a one-page fact sheet specifically designed to educate young workers of their rights and responsibilities under the federal employment anti-discrimination laws prohibiting religious discrimination. The fact sheet stresses that employers may ...

We have written on several occasions about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) proposed rules on wellness programs, and the extent to which employer-sponsored wellness plans must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The new rules were finalized in May 2016 and state that employers may offer limited financial and other incentives to employees to participate in wellness programs.

The Fifth Circuit held recently that the State of Texas had standing to sue the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) over the Commission’s “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII” (the “Guidance”) issued in April 2012, which warned employers that blanket policies against hiring felons could disproportionately exclude minorities and thus be deemed discriminatory. Texas originally sued the EEOC in late 2013 seeking an injunction against enforcement of the Guidance and a declaratory judgment that state agencies be allowed to maintain their policies, as instituted under state law, barring categories of convicted felons from state employment. In its complaint, the State also claimed that the EEOC’s Guidance improperly preempted state law. The lower court granted the EEOC’s motion to dismiss on grounds that Texas lacked standing to sue the EEOC because the Commission cannot bring an enforcement action against the state for failing to comply with the Guidance. The lower court also held that the EEOC Guidance did not constitute a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and thus the Guidance was not subject to judicial review.

On March 1, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued employers for the first time for sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC filed lawsuits in federal courts in Pittsburgh and Baltimore against manufacturing and health care employers for unlawful sex discrimination on behalf of employees alleging they were harassed and discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has implemented nationwide procedures which require all EEOC offices to release copies of an Employer's entire position statement, together with all non-confidential documents submitted in support of the position statement, to an Employee who has filed a discrimination charge, or his or her representative (including attorneys). These procedures apply to all position statements requested after January 1, 2016. Previously, such disclosures were made in the discretion of the particular field offices or investigators, and practices were inconsistent. As often as not, EEOC investigators might summarize the Employer’s evidence and arguments for the Employee, in order to solicit the latter’s response.

In February of 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released detailed information and statistics summarizing the charges of discrimination that the agency received throughout its 2015 fiscal year. The EEOC is the administrative agency charged with implementing and enforcing a number of federal anti-discrimination employment statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under each of these statutes, employees seeking to bring a claim of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation must first file a charge with the EEOC. The recently released report provides helpful information regarding the types of charges that employees filed in the 2015 fiscal year, which ran from October 1, 2014 to September 20, 2015.

On January 21, 2016, the EEOC announced that it will seek public input on proposed enforcement guidance addressing retaliation and related issues under federal employment discrimination laws.  The EEOC issued its last guidance update on the subject of retaliation in 1998.  The EEOC’s 73 page draft guidance is available for review here and the 30-day input period ends on February 24, 2016.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is asking the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize that discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation constitutes unlawful discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC advances this argument in an amicus brief in support of Barbara Burrows, a lesbian college professor and administrator who claims she was subjected to sex discrimination by her former employer, the College of Central Florida, based on her same-sex marriage and how she looked and acted. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the College, holding that Burrows’s sex discrimination claim was “merely a repackaged claim for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not cognizable under Title VII.” Burrows appealed, and the case is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced on January 29, 2016 its proposed revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) that would obligate businesses with 100 or more employees to annually turn over pay data by gender, race and ethnicity. Although employers will not have to divulge specific pay rate information for individual employees, they would have to report pay bands across 10 different job categories.

We previously reported on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015), wherein the Court held that a court may review the EEOC’s conciliation efforts.

On remand, the EEOC renewed its motion for partial summary judgment on Mach Mining’s failure to conciliate affirmative defense. On January 19, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the motion, finding that the Supreme Court had expressly rejected Mach Mining’s position that it is entitled to receive demand calculations and additional information during the conciliation process. EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, No. 11-cv-00879, 2016 BL 13454 (Jan. 19, 2016).

This week, the EEOC announced that an Illinois-based packing company, Pactiv LLC, agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve a charge alleging that the company discriminated against employees who needed time off from work for medical reasons.

According to the EEOC, the company maintained a nationwide policy that assessed “attendance points” to employees who needed time off for medical reasons. The company also allegedly failed to provide employees with intermittent and extended leave as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In EEOC v. McLane Co., Inc., the Ninth Circuit recently held that the EEOC has broad subpoena powers to obtain nationwide private personnel information, including social security numbers (“SSNs”), in connection with its investigation of a sex discrimination charge.

Damiana Ochoa, a former employee of a McLane subsidiary in Arizona, filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination (based on pregnancy), claiming that when she tried to return to work after taking maternity leave, the company informed her that she could not return to work until she passed a physical capability strength test. Ochoa alleged that the company requires all new employees and all employees returning from medical leave to take the test and acknowledged that she failed this test three times. Based on her failure to pass the test, the company terminated Ochoa’s employment.

The Department of Labor is increasingly focused on identifying and pursuing claims of systemic discrimination, both in EEOC charge investigations and OFCCP audits. In this type of claim, the government challenges a policy or practice that (allegedly) disadvantages an entire group of protected employees. These claims are dangerous for employers because they can cover hundreds of work locations and thousands of employees. Employers often unwittingly set themselves up for these claims, by failing to recognize the implications of a seemingly routine information request.

This ...

In its recent decision in David Baldwin v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015), the EEOC ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that Title VII does not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity in its list of protected bases.

More and more employers are faced with the following question -- can a transgender employee use the restroom associated with his or her gender identity? According to federal governmental agencies, the answer seems to be yes.

The Supreme Court recently held in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. that Title VII prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship, even where the applicant has not informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC provides for judicial review with respect to the EEOC’s conciliation efforts in claims of unlawful discrimination against an employer. In Mach Mining, the EEOC filed suit against Mach Mining, LLC on the basis of sex discrimination, specifically, with regard to Mach Mining’s hiring practices. After the EEOC determined that reasonable cause existed as to Mach Mining’s unlawful hiring practices, the EEOC sent a letter to Mach Mining inviting the employer to participate in an informal conciliation proceeding with the plaintiff to attempt to rectify the charge. In its letter, the EEOC notified Mach Mining that an EEOC representative would be contacting the respondent in order to begin the informal conciliation process regarding the charge. Roughly a year later, the EEOC sent a second letter to Mach Mining, stating it had determined that conciliation efforts had been unsuccessful.  The EEOC then filed suit in federal court.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued proposed rules (“ADA Proposed Rules”) on the extent to which employers may offer incentives to promote participation in wellness programs without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The ADA Proposed Rules apply if a wellness program includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations, including inquiries or examinations that are part of a health risk assessment.  Health risk assessments are reported to be the most common form of incentivized employee wellness programs.¹ Thus, many employers would likely be impacted by these new rules if finalized.

Federal agencies need not go through the formal and drawn-out “notice-and-comment” process when altering an interpretation of a regulation.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association stated that the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) does not mandate notice-and-comment rulemaking for interpretive rules.  In doing so, the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine established by the D.C. Circuit’s 1997 decision, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), which had held that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures prior to issuing a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a definitive interpretation the agency had previously adopted.  In Perez, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine was consistent with the APA, ultimately finding that it was not. 

On February 20, 2015, a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony by EEOC expert Kevin Murphy and the grant of summary judgment against the EEOC in its suit challenging Freeman’s use of credit and criminal background checks in the hiring process.  Although the Fourth Circuit’s decision expressed no opinion on the merits of the EEOC’s claim, the court found summary judgment was justified because the “sheer number of mistakes and omissions” in Murphy’s analysis rendered it unreliable.  While the court’s published opinion cited the ...

“Ban the Box” Laws

At least thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and almost 100 cities and counties have passed so-called “ban the box” laws, which restrict the scope of permissible investigations into job applicants’ criminal history, and, in some cases, the timing of such inquiries.

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk
Oral argument was heard on October 8, 2014.  This case will resolve a circuit split on whether time spent by warehouse workers going through security is paid time.  The Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal to Portal Act, does not require an employer to compensate for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principle work.  29 U.S.C. §254(a)(2).  The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but the Ninth Circuit ruled against Integrity Solutions, a contractor to Amazon.com, holding that going through security was an “integral and indispensable” part of the shift and not a non-compensable postliminary activity.  The Second and Eleventh Circuits previously held that time in security screening is not compensable time.  Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief on the side of Integrity Staffing.

On November 6, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit reined in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) use of a broad administrative subpoena in an investigation of an individual charge of discrimination.  The case is EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Ltd.

Less than two months ago, on July 29, 2014, the National Labor Relations (NLRB) made an announcement that it intends to hold franchisors legally responsible for unfair labor practices committed by its franchisees.  A recent Fifth Circuit opinion follows this trend by potentially expanding the number of discrimination and harassment suits corporate parent franchisors may face for discrimination and harassment committed by franchisees. EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd.

Discover how the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process is creating an increasing exposure to liability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is aggressively pursuing this issue to ensure the practice does not have a disparate impact on minority applicants. Additionally, plaintiffs' class action attorneys are pursuing employers nationwide for failing to conform their background check process with the dictates and protections of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. This webinar will highlight lessons learned in the trenches, and give insights on how to properly handle the sensitive use of criminal background check information.

The EEOC and the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently signed a National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU, according to an EEOC press release, is to strengthen the collaborative efforts of the United States and Mexico to inform immigrant, migrant and Mexican workers of their rights under the EEOC’s non-discrimination laws. The MOU is also directed at employers, aiming to provide guidance on their responsibilities under the same laws.  The MOU was signed in both English and Spanish by EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien and Ambassador Eduardo Medina Mora, at the EEOC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Executive Order 13672 went into effect on July 21, 2014 and amended Executive Order 11246 by adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.  Executive Order 13672, however, applies only to contracts entered on or after July 21, 2014.  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has now issued Directive 2014-02, which interprets the prohibition against sex discrimination in Executive Order 11246 to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity and transgender status.  This means that contractors and subcontractors with contracts that predate July 21 can still be held liable for discrimination on the basis of gender identity and transgender status.

In response to a presidential memorandum directing the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to collect summary compensation data from federal contractors and subcontractors to combat pay discrimination, the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) recently proposed a rule calling on certain federal contractors to submit reports on employee compensation.  The rule, published in the Federal Register on August 8, requires covered contractors to annually submit an “Equal Pay Report.” Covered federal contractors and subcontractors are those who:

• File EEO-1 reports;
• Have more than 100 employees; and
• Hold federal contracts or subcontracts worth $50,000 or more for at least 30 days.

On July 21, President Obama signed an Executive Order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories included in Executive Order 11246, originally issued by President Johnson in 1965.  E.O. 11246 now prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Enforcement Guidance issued last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that employers should accommodate the physical restrictions of women with normal, uncomplicated pregnancies as if those women had protected disabilities.

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted Mach Mining LLC’s petition for writ of certiorari, agreeing to take up the question of whether and to what extent courts may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) duty to conciliate a case prior to bringing a lawsuit.

Last week, the EEOC invited public comment on potential revisions to the regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which governs the federal government’s employment of people with disabilities. Specifically, the EEOC aims to clarify what it means for the federal government to “be a model employer of individuals with disabilities” pursuant to Section 501.  While any revised regulations will only apply to the public employees, how the EEOC defines a “model employer” could impact future interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which apply to most private employees. To the extent any resulting regulation is viewed as reasonable, it may have implications for private employers as courts often look to case law interpreting the Rehabilitation Act to assist in interpreting the ADA.

In a budget report released by the House Appropriations Committee on May 8, 2014, lawmakers expressed their concern with “the EEOC’s pursuit of litigation absent good faith conciliation efforts.”   The Committee’s report, which sets out the Committee’s recommended funding proposals for various federal departments and agencies, directs the EEOC “to engage in [good faith conciliation] efforts before undertaking litigation and to report, no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, on how it ensures that conciliation efforts are pursued in good faith.”

In the past few months, the EEOC has filed two federal lawsuits challenging what might be considered “run of the mill” separation agreements. Such separation or severance agreements have become a relatively common practice when the employment relationship is terminated, as the employer can offer a severance payment in exchange for a broad release of potential claims. These agreements provide employers with the finality that is necessary for making business decisions, risk assessments, long-term plans, and the like. In cases in which there are potentially viable claims, settling them immediately avoids the time and expense of litigation. And even if the employee would not have had any viable claims against the employer, merely avoiding the possibility of litigation and its costs is usually well worth the amount of the severance payment. The indication that EEOC is taking a closer look at these agreements is thus concerning to employers and the lawyers who represent them.

On April 9, 2014, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals not only affirmed summary judgment in EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., et al. but also chastised the EEOC for applying a flawed methodology in its attempts to prove that using credit checks as a pre-employment screen had an unlawful disparate impact against African-American applicants.

On April 22, 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of an ADA case against Ford Motor Company, finding that there was a fact issue as to whether telecommuting most days is a reasonable accommodation. In EEOC v. Ford Motor Company (No. 12-2484), the court addressed an increasingly common, yet persistently difficult, question:  when must employees be allowed to work remotely, and when is physical, in-person attendance an essential function of a job?

On March 10, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued joint guidance regarding the use of background checks.  The FTC, which enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act, monitors compliance with how background checks are conducted.  The EEOC, which enforces federal laws against discrimination, seeks to ensure that the use of background checks does not disparately impact protected groups.

On March 6, 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released guidance pertaining to employers’ responsibilities to accommodate religious dress and grooming in the workplace.  

The guidance provides explanation and analysis concerning an employer’s responsibilities under Title VII to “make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religiously-mandated dress and grooming practices unless it would pose an undue hardship to the operation of an employer’s business.”

Recently, the Maryland Senate passed a bill, called the Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014, that would prohibit discrimination against transgender individuals in employment and other areas.  By doing so, the state moves closer to making transgendered individuals a protected class.  The bill must still pass the House of Delegates before it may be signed into law.  Four localities in Maryland have already passed laws barring discrimination against individuals on the basis of gender identity; Baltimore City and Baltimore, Howard and Montgomery counties.  If the bill is enacted, Maryland would join over one dozen other states that have similarly banned discrimination on gender identity, including such states as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its fiscal year 2013 enforcement and litigation statistical report.  Each year, the EEOC publishes a comprehensive set of data tables which contain statistics on topics such as numbers of charges filed, types of charges filed, litigation and resolution numbers, and a myriad of other tables that provide insight into the agency’s actions over the 12-month period.

On November 4, the state of Texas sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Jacqueline A. Berrien (in her official capacity as chair of the EEOC), requesting a federal district court to declare invalid the EEOC’s enforcement guidance on employers’ use of arrest and conviction records and to enjoin the EEOC from using this guidance against the state and its agencies. Texas v. EEOC, No. 5:13-cv-00255-C (N.D. Tex.).

Continue Reading...

While much attention has been paid this year to the EEOC’s agenda and litigation over criminal background checks (the agency asserts such background checks have a disparate impact on minority groups), a parallel challenge kept pace in the form of private class action litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 2013 saw a number of significant class action settlements against both employers and consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) for alleged violations of the Act in the use of criminal background checks: