Tag: EEOC

Update Company Policies for Transgendered Employees

Although no federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has actively sought out opportunities to ensure coverage for transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions under its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. After the EEOC issued its groundbreaking administrative ruling in Macy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, EEOC Appeal No. 012012081 (April 23, 2012), where it held that transgendered employees may state a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, some courts have trended to support Title VII coverage for transgendered employees.

To address potential challenges and lawsuits that may arise, employers should consider updating codes of conduct as well as non-discrimination and harassment policies. While policies may differ based on an employer’s business, there are some key features to consider:

  • Include “gender identity” or “gender expression” in non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. Gender identity refers to the gender a person identifies with internally whereas gender expression refers to how an employee expresses their gender—i.e. how an employee dresses. The way an employee expresses their gender may not line up with how they identify their gender.

  • Establish gender transition guidelines and plans. A document should be established and available to all members of human resources and/or managers to eliminate mismanaging an employee who is transitioning. The guidelines may identify a specific contact for employees, the general procedure for updating personnel records, as well as restroom and/or locker room use.

  • Announcements. After management is informed, and with the employee’s permission, management should disseminate the employee’s new name to coworkers and everyone should begin using the correct name and pronoun of the employee. Misuse of a name or pronouns may create an unwelcome environment which could lead to a lawsuit.

  • Training and compliance. Employers should review harassment and diversity training programs and modules to ensure coverage of LGBTQ issues. All employees should be trained regarding appropriate workplace behavior and consequences for failing to comply with an organization’s rules.

In addition to the potential liability under federal law, some state laws provide a right of action for transgendered employees who are discriminated against at work; therefore, employers should review the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate to ensure compliance.

ARTICLE BY Latrice Nicole Lee of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

EEOC Alleges Hospital’s Mandatory Flu Vaccine Policy Violates Title VII

Mandatory Flu VaccineAs summer temperatures soar, one might think the last thing to worry about is the upcoming flu season. And while that may be true in most respects, the flu is on the minds of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A lawsuit filed by the EEOC sheds light on the issue for healthcare employers who impose mandatory flu vaccine requirements on employees as a condition of continued employment.

The EEOC alleges in EEOC v. Mission Hospital, Inc. – a lawsuit that includes class allegations – that Mission Hospital violated Title VII by failing to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs and by terminating employees in connection with the hospital’s mandatory flu vaccination program. In particular, the EEOC took issue with the hospital’s alleged strict enforcement of its deadlines, which required employees to request an exemption by Sept. 1 and, if the exemption request was denied, to obtain the vaccination by Dec. 1.

According to Lynette Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office, “An arbitrary deadline does not protect an employer from its obligation to provide a religious accommodation. An employer must consider, at the time it receives a request for a religious accommodation, whether the request can be granted without undue burden.”

The key takeaway here is that, similar to what is required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (when, for example, an employer is analyzing the application of a policy to a particular employee with a disability), employers should consider analyzing their duty to accommodate under Title VII based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, as opposed to applying an (allegedly) inflexible rule without regard to the circumstances of the particular case. The other take-away here is that employers should consider basing this kind of employment decision on more than one reason – for example, a missed deadline plus a determination that granting the exemption would (or would not) be an undue burden (and why).

A copy of the EEOC’s lawsuit is found here and a copy of Mission Hospital’s answer is found here.

ARTICLE BY Norma W. Zeitler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

EEOC Model Wellness Program Notice

wellness programOn June 16th, the EEOC issued its model notice to be used in conjunction with wellness programs that ask disability related inquiries or require medical examinations. The notice requirement applies prospectively to employer wellness programs as of the first day of the plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the health plan used to determine the level of incentive permitted under the regulations. An employer’s HIPAA notice of privacy practices may suffice to satisfy the ADA notice requirements if it contains the ADA-required information. However, given the timing requirements for distribution of the HIPAA notice and the fact that the EEOC rules apply to wellness programs outside of the group health plan, a separate ADA notice may be required.

Questions and Answers: Sample Notice for Employees Regarding Employer Wellness Programs

Sample Notice for Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs

ARTICLE BY Susan M. Nash of McDermott Will & Emery

© 2016 McDermott Will & Emery

In Case You Missed It: The EEOC Sneaks in Its Final Wellness Program Rule Ahead of The DOL’s New OT Rule

eeoc wellness programThe employer community was sent into a frenzy with the Department of Labor’s release on May 18, 2016 of its final white-collar overtime regulations.  Just two days before however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also released its own final regulations regarding employer wellness programs.

We had previously posted about the Commission’s proposed wellness program rule, and followed with a post discussing the future of wellness programs in light of two recent court decisions – EEOC v. Flambeau, Inc. and Seff v. Broward County.  In its recently issued regulations (which you can access here and here), the EEOC has set forth its final position on how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information and Discrimination Act (GINA) apply to employer wellness programs that request the health information of employees and/or their spouses.  While most provisions of the final ADA rule and final GINA rule are identical to their respective proposed rules, there are some key differences, which we explain below in Q&A format below.

  1. Does the ADA’s safe harbor provision apply to employer wellness programs?

No.  The ADA’s safe harbor provision states that the ADA “shall not be construed to prohibit or restrict  . . . a person or organization covered by this chapter from establishing, sponsoring, observing or administering the terms of a bona fide benefit plan that are based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with State law.”  42 U.S.C. § 12201(c).

The Commission made no secret about its opinion that Seff and Flambeau were “wrongly decided” (including by appealing the Flambeau decision to the Seventh Circuit).  Despite case law to the contrary and pending appeals, the Commission reaffirmed its position in the final ADA rule that “the safe harbor provision does not apply to an employer’s decision to offer rewards or impose penalties in connection with wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries or medical examinations.”  Rather, the safe harbor provision only applies “to the practices of the insurance industry with respect to the use of sound actuarial data to make determinations about insurability and the establishment of rates.”  An employer’s use of wellness program to make employees healthier and reduce the costs of health care is not the type of underwriting or risk classification that is protected by the safe harbor provision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(6).

  1. What wellness programs are subject to these final rules?

Any wellness program that includes disability-related inquiries and/or medical exams is subject to the rule.  This includes wellness programs: (a) offered only to employees enrolled in an employer-sponsored group health plan; (b) offered to all employees regardless of enrollment in the employer-sponsored group health plan; and (c) offered as a benefit of employment by employers that do not sponsor group health plans/insurance.

  1. Do the final rules provide additional clarification as to what makes a wellness program “voluntary”?

Yes.  The Commission has held steadfast in its decision to apply the “30 percent rule” for incentives set under HIPAA and the Affordable Care Act to participatory wellness programs that inquire as to employee disabilities or require employees to undergo medical examinations.  In doing so, the final rule limits the size of the incentives offered by these programs to 30% of the employee’s total cost of coverage.  Many commenters wanted the Commission to adopt an “affordability standard” to protect low-income workers from incentives that prove to be large enough to render health insurance coverage unaffordable.  The Commission declined to adopt this standard however, because in its view, “this rule promotes the ADA’s interest in ensuring that incentive limits are not so high as to make participation in a wellness program involuntary.”

Additionally, in the rule’s preamble specific to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(2)(ii), the Commission clarifies that it is of the opinion that the ADA prohibits “the outright denial of access to a benefit available by virtue of employment”, but does not prohibit “an employer from denying an incentive that is within the [30% limit] . . . nor does it prohibit requiring an employee to pay more for insurance that is more comprehensive.”  The Commission likely included this comment to further emphasize its disagreement with the Flambeau and Seff decisions – the Commission has concluded that an employer discriminates against an employee in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4), when it “denies access to a health plan because the employee does not answer disability-related inquiries or undergo medical examinations.”

The final rule explaining the notice requirement, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(2)(iv), also clarifies that it applies to “all wellness programs that ask employees to respond to disability-related inquiries and/o undergo medical examinations.”

  1. What types of incentives may be offered to employees and how can employers calculate incentive limits?

In addition to financial incentives, employers are permitted to offer in-kind incentives (e.g., employee recognition, parking spot use, relaxed dress code) and de minimis incentives to employees, despite any difficulties in valuing these incentives.

The final ADA rule, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(3), also explains how employers can calculate incentive limits in four situations: (a) where participation in a wellness program depends on enrollment in a particular health plan; (b) where wellness program participation does not depend on employee’s enrollment in an employer-offered single group health plan; (c) where wellness program participation does not depend on employee’s enrollment in any of employee’s group health plans; and (d) where an employer does not offer a group health plan or insurance.

  1. How do these rules relate to other federal discrimination laws?

Employers should pay special attention the interpretative guidance following the final ADA rule.  In it, the Commission states:

“[E]ven though an employer’s wellness program might comply with the incentive limits set out in [29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(d)(3)], the employer would violate federal nondiscrimination statutes if that program discriminates on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, transgender status, and sexual orientation), color, religion, national origin, or age.  Additionally, if a wellness program requirement (such as a particular blood pressure or glucose level or body mass index) disproportionately affects individuals on the basis of some protected characteristic, an employer may be able to avoid a disparate impact claim by offering and providing a reasonable alternative standard.”

This appears to place the additional burden on the employer to examine all wellness program incentives and requirements for potential disparate impact.  The extent to which an employer must understand specific medical characteristics of every protected class on its employee roster is unknown.

  1. What changes did the Commission make in the final GINA rule?

There are four changes of note, all of which were added to the final GINA rules to clarify and/or enhance the proposed rules.

  • The final GINA rule extends the prohibition on offering inducements for information from the children of employees to all children (minor children and those 18 years of age or older).

  • Every provision of the final GINA rule now applies to all employer-sponsored wellness programs requesting genetic information.

  • There is no longer a different inducement limit threshold for employee spouses. The final GINA rule uses the “30 percent rule” when an employee and the employee’s spouse are given the opportunity to enroll in the employer-sponsored wellness program.  The final rule provides examples of how to calculate incentive limits where this is the case.  See 29 C.F.R. 1635.8(b)(2)(iii)(A)-(D).

  • Employers may not condition an employee’s or an employee’s spouse’s participation in an wellness program or their eligibility for offered incentives on the employee, the employee’s spouse, or a covered dependent agreeing to the sale, exchange, sharing, transfer, or other disclosure of genetic information or waiving GINA’s confidentiality protections.

What’s Next?

The final rules apply proactively – thus, are only applicable to wellness programs as of the first date of the plan beginning January 1, 2017 or thereafter.  In the meantime, we await the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the EEOC’s appeal of Flambeau regarding whether the ADA safe harbor provision applies to employer wellness programs.  Given the EEOC’s position that the provision does not apply and the growing number of courts that think otherwise, it is looking like the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court (think: Young v. UPS – a Supreme Court decision that prompted the EEOC to revise its pregnancy discrimination guidance).

Article By Alden J. Bianchi & Alta M. Ray of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Coca-Cola Bottling Of Mobile to Pay $35,000 to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit

Company Refused Job to Experienced Applicant Because of Gender, Federal Agency Charged

Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Mobile, a manufacturer, bottler and distributor of soft drink products, will pay $35,000 and furnish other significant relief to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to EEOC’s suit, Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Mobile, a subsidiary of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, refused to hire Martina Owes, an applicant for two vacant warehouse positions, because she is female. While Owes had the required warehouse and forklift experience, the company chose to hire less qualified men for the available positions. EEOC also charged that, by not preserving all application materials related to those positions, the company violated federal record-keeping laws.

Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees against discriminatory practices based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Division (EEOC v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00486) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, entered by U.S. District Judge William H. Steele, provides that Coca-Cola Bottling will pay Owes $35,000 and prohibits further discrimination. Also, the company is required, for three years, to conduct annual training of its Mobile employees on discrimination and retaliation, develop new or revised anti-discrimination policies and a written hiring process, and designate a director-level employee to coordinate its compliance with anti-discrimination laws and compliance with the decree.

“Employers are required to provide women with equal employment opportunities, and that includes jobs that traditionally have been dominated by men,” said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, which has jurisdiction over Alabama and portions of Mississippi and Florida. “We appreciate Coca-Cola Bottling’s desire to cooperate with EEOC early in the litigation process to resolve this matter.”

EEOC Birmingham Regional Attorney C. Emanuel Smith, said, “EEOC will continue to litigate when necessary in cases involving arbitrary and unfair barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace based on sex. The law requires that female applicants be judged on their qualifications and not passed over because of their gender.”

The elimination of recruiting and hiring practices that discriminate against women, racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, and people with disabilities is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

EEOC’s litigation and settlement efforts were led by Senior Trial Attorney Gerald Miller and Trial Attorney Christopher Woolley of its Birmingham District Office.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

You can read the original article on the EEOC’s website here.

Article By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Proposes Rule Requiring Employers to Disclose Pay Data on EEO-1 Forms and Key Recent Pro-Employee Changes in New York State’s and New York City’s Employment Laws and Regulations

EEOC EEO-1 Form Pay Data Requirement Raises Risks for Management

In a proposed regulation announced on January 29, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission set forth changes that would require federal contractors and all other private-sector employers throughout the nation of more than 100 employees to report wage and salary data on their annual EEO-1 Forms. This new rule would mandate that such employers disclose compensation ranges and hours worked on their EEO-1 Forms, which already must contain data on employees’ gender, ethnicity, and race.

The Commission’s plans to require management to submit this data is part of the Obama Administration’s aggressive efforts to enforce the federal Equal Pay Act and other fair employment statutes and to promote pay equity in the workplace. Complying with the new regulation would require employers to spend substantial additional time and resources in gathering compensation information, which often involves many variables, and then organizing it into the format that the EEOC will mandate. Reporting this data to the EEOC would give the U.S. Government data without context and may lead to burdensome Commission investigations and enforcement actions based on misunderstandings of incomplete compensation information. Further, even though EEO-1 data enjoys some protections, the confidential status of employers’compensation information will now be vulnerable either to Freedom of Information Act requests or to kind of hacking attacks to which the federal government, with its antiquated IT systems in agencies such as the EEOC, has already suffered.

In sum, employers in New Jersey, New York, and around the country would become subject to higher EEOC scrutiny of their payroll practices, would face more Commission inquiries and litigations, would have to expend additional resources to complete EEO-1 Forms, and would need to live with a higher risk that their competitors will be able to obtain the confidential compensation data that the new rule would require management to submit each year to the EEOC.

Key Pro-Employee Changes in New York State and New York City Employment Laws and Regulations

New York State and New York City made significant changes in their labor and employment laws and regulations last year and this month. The NYS Legislature enacted, and Governor Cuomo signed, key revisions to laws that affect management throughout New York State. Mayor de Blasio and the City Council expanded local laws that further burden employers in the City. These important developments include:

A. New York State Women’s Equality Agenda

The Women’s Equality Agenda that went into effect on January 19, 2016 significantly amended New York State’s sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and equal pay laws to afford women greater protection in the workplace. These new statutes promoting gender equality in New York State include provisions that:

1. Amend New York State’s Equal Pay Act to require that an employer which pays lower wages to women than to men, for a job of equal skill, effort, and responsibility, demonstrate that such disparity is due to a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, and that the difference in pay is job related and consistent with business necessity.

2. Make it unlawful for employers, in general, to prohibit employees from discussing or disclosing their wages — a new provision which affects both women and men.

3. Significantly increase the penalties for New York State Equal Pay Act violations by allowing employees to recover liquidated damages of three times (300%) the unlawfully unpaid wages, in addition to making the employee whole by requiring payment of the unpaid wages.

4. Allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff in sexual harassment and other sex discrimination actions.

5. Add familial status as a protected class under the New York State Human Rights Law. This new provision applies equally to men and women who are parents or guardians.

6. Expand the New York State Human Rights Law’s coverage of sexual harassment claims to all employers, including employers of from one to three employees who were not previously covered.

7. Require employers to provide reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related medical conditions.

B. New NYS and NYC Protections for Transgender Individuals

1. Earlier this month, the New York State Division of Human Rights adopted regulations that make discrimination on the basis of a person being transgender unlawful under the New York State Human Rights Law. These regulations also prohibit harassment of transgender persons and require New York employers to reasonably accommodate employees who have been diagnosed with a “gender dysphoria” medical condition.

2. On December 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines on discrimination against transgender individuals, which the New York City Human Rights Law prohibits. The guidelines provide for penalties of up to $250,000 for violations that are found to be willful, wanton, or malicious.

C. New NYC Protections for Caregivers

1. The New York City Council has amended the New York City Human Rights Law to include caregiver as a protected class. The new local legislation, which Mayor de Blasio signed on January 5, 2016, defines caregivers as persons who provide direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient, such as a relative or individual with a disability who resides in the caregiver’s household. This amendment will go into effect on May 4, 2016.

Article By David I. Rosen, Galit Kierkut & Charles H. Kaplan of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

© Copyright 2016 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Rights of HIV-Positive Employees Applicable to Health Care Providers and Employers

In December 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released new guidance for job applicants and employees with HIV infection that is particularly applicable to employers in the health care industry.  This guidance is applicable not only to applicants and current employees with HIV infection, but also to physicians and other health care providers who treat individuals with HIV infection to the extent their assistance is requested in obtaining workplace accommodations.

The first publication, “Living with HIV Infection: Your Legal Rights in the Workplace Under the ADA,” discusses rights provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Although the guidance is directed to applicants and employees with HIV infection, there are key takeaways for employers.  First, the EEOC emphasizes the workplace privacy rights of those with HIV infection, but reminds individuals that in certain situations an employer may ask medical questions about their condition.  Second, HIV infection should be treated as a disability and HIV-positive individuals are protected against discrimination and harassment at work because of the condition.  Finally, those with HIV infection may have a legal right to reasonable accommodations at work, which may include altered break and work schedules, changes in supervisory methods (e.g., written instructions from a supervisor), accommodations for visual impairments, ergonomic office furniture, unpaid time off (e.g., for treatment), and reassignment to a vacant position.

The second publication, “Helping Patients with HIV Infection Who Need Accommodations at Work,” informs physicians about their HIV-positive patients’ rights to reasonable accommodations at work.  While the guidance effectively coaches health care providers to advocate for their patients’ rights to accommodation, the EEOC reminds providers that that their legal and ethical obligations are not altered by the ADA.  Thus, providers should only disclose the medical information if requested by the patient and an appropriate release is signed.  Further, providers are reminded not to overstate the need for a particular accommodation in case an alternative accommodation is necessary.

Health care entities should be aware that, in its press release regarding the guidance, the EEOC continues to take the position that HIV-positive employees, even in health care settings, should not be excluded from jobs unless they pose a “direct threat” to safety, a strict standard under the ADA.  The EEOC—following CDC guidance—has said that “HIV-positive health care workers who follow standard precautions and who, except in specified circumstances do not perform specially defined exposure-prone invasive procedures, do not pose a safety risks in their employment based on HIV infection.”  For example, says the EEOC, an HIV-positive phlebotomist who draws blood does not pose a direct threat to patient safety based on her HIV-positive status if she follows standard precautions.

The EEOC guidance makes clear that HIV infection is a disability under the ADA.  Employers should be aware that applicants and employees have a right to privacy and, in most situations,  need not reveal the exact diagnosis of their medical illness. Employers should not unnecessarily inquire about the exact illness diagnosis if it is not needed for the purposes of determining reasonable accommodations.  Most importantly, health care employers should not use stereotypes or misinformation in evaluating patient safety implications for those employees with HIV infection.  Even in safety sensitive positions, an HIV-positive health care employee generally poses no safety risk when using standard precautions.  Health care employers should make sure that their front-line supervisors are also aware of the rights of their subordinates who may have HIV infection.

Article By Nathaniel M. Glasser & Jonathan K. Hoerner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Executive Action: Obama’s Legacy and 2016 Predictions (Part 2 of 2)

As promised in our previous post, today we conclude our predictions on President Obama’s 2016 executive activity.  While we believe the President’s final executive orders will target immigration and perhaps even corporate political expenditures, we predict executive agency action will cover a broad range of pressing labor and employment issues.  With federal legislative gridlock expected to continue through 2016, employers should prepare themselves for a barrage of agency activity, especially from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and Department of Labor (“DOL”).  Our summary is below.

Expected Agency Activity of 2016

Based on the 2015 Supreme Court decisions in Young v. UPS and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and the EEOC’s interest in systematic discrimination in the workplace, we predict the EEOC will focus heavily on companies’ policies regarding pregnancy and religious discrimination and accommodation in 2016.  As a refresher, in Young the Court held a genuine factual dispute existed as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation “cannot reasonably be distinguished” from Ms. Young’s —e.g., workers unable to lift up to 70 pounds due to reasons other than pregnancy limitations such as a workplace injury or a recognized disability.  In Abercrombie (blogged about here) the Court concluded an employer violates Title VII by rejecting an applicant in order to avoid making a religious accommodation, even if the employer only has an “unsubstantiated suspicion” that the applicant may eventually request an accommodation.

Along with discrimination/accommodation policies, we predict the EEOC and NLRB will focus on company-wide social media policies in 2016. While the NLRB has been hounding employers on social media policies since 2010, the EEOC did not really begin gathering information on the issue until 2014.   We believe 2016 will be the year the EEOC begins targeting employers’ social media policies to evidence discrimination.  We also predict the EEOC’s focus on gender identity discrimination and the NLRB’s focus on FLSA class action settlements will continue with full force into 2016.

With the DOL’s Final Rule on overtime exemption updates expected to roll out this year, we predict the agency will focus on wage-hour reform and that employers will be expected to get into compliance sooner rather than later. Although Solicitor of Labor Patricia Smith stated in November 2015 that final guidelines will not likely be issued until “late 2016,” we believe the DOL will push them out before November’s presidential election.  Employers should expect the Final Rule to increase the minimum salary exemption requirement from $455/week to $970/week.  We would not be surprised if the DOL also finalizes revisions to the duties test, which is a factor along with salary level used to determine whether an employee qualifies under a white collar exemption to minimum wage and overtime rules.

Although the 2016 federal legislation horizon looks bleak, President Obama and his executive agencies are poised for a busy final year. Stay tuned for further developments.

Article By Kristine M. Woliver of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Happy New Year: Looking Back and Looking Ahead at EEOC’s Strategic Plan

EEOCSealIn December 2012, the EEOC adopted its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2016 (the “SEP”), in which it highlighted the agency’s enforcement priorities for the coming three years.  Now two years into the plan, the EEOC continues to refine its strategic enforcement efforts and employers are responding to them.

The EEOC’s SEP identified six priorities:

  1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring.

  2. Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers.

  3. Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues.

  4. Enforcing Equal Pay Laws.

  5. Preserving Access to the Legal System.

  6. Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

In 2015, the EEOC continued its effort to pursue these stated priorities through systemic investigations and litigation arising from those investigations, despite a mixed record of success in the courts.  For example:

  • Background Check Litigation: Despite some notable setbacks, such as the Fourth Circuit’s affirmance of summary judgment against the EEOC and scathing rebuke of its litigation conduct in EEOC v. Freeman, the EEOC has continued to pursue cases involving background checks in furtherance of its stated priority of eliminating barriers in hiring.

  • Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination: Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, the EEOC reissued its pregnancy discrimination guidance, noting that the “Court explained that employer policies that are not intended to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy may still violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act if the policy imposes significant burdens on pregnant employees without a sufficiently strong justification.”  The EEOC also noted that the ADAAA does not require an impairment to “last a particular length of time to be considered substantially limiting,” thereby potentially including pregnancy.  The EEOC filed numerous ADA lawsuits in 2015, particularly focusing on reasonable accommodation issues.

  • Equal Pay: Although the EEOC continues to assert its pronounced attention to alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act, it has not expended litigation resources commensurate with its statements.  The EEOC may well monitor developments in equal pay protection under state law (e.g., California’s Equal Pay Act, effective January 1, 2016) to assess the value of its own litigation efforts.

  • Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Discrimination: In an effort to address “emerging and developing issues,” the EEOC continues to include sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in its definition of discrimination based on sex.  In its August 2015 fact sheet, the EEOC identified numerous private sector lawsuits initiated by the EEOC or in which the EEOC filed amicus briefs, addressing LGBT-discrimination-related issues.

The EEOC appears poised in 2016 to continue pursuing the SEP aggressively through the use of systemic investigations.  Employers can expect the EEOC to seek to expand investigations of individual charges, particularly in substantive areas aligning with the SEP.  Although the United States Supreme Court ruled in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC (2015) that the EEOC’s pre-suit obligation to attempt to conciliate alleged unlawful workplace practices is subject to judicial review, the EEOC will continue to test the limits of judicial review of EEOC’s investigations and attempts to conciliate.  As the new year begins, employers must remain vigilant when challenging failures by the EEOC to conciliate or properly investigate charges and pay particular attention to charges alleging disability, pregnancy and sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

Article By James J. Swartz, Jr. of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Hillshire Brands Company Pays $4 Million to Settle Race Discrimination Suit

EEOCSealAfrican American Bakery Workers Subjected to Racist Comments and Graffiti in the Worksite, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS – Hillshire Brands Company (formerly known as the Sara Lee Corporation) will pay $4 million to a group of 74 African-American former employees and provide other significant relief to settle a lawsuit where they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment at a former Sara Lee facility in Paris, Texas, the agency announced today.

EEOC claimed African-American employees were subjected to racist graffiti on the walls of the bathrooms and locker room. The former bakery employees also alleged that during work hours, they were berated with racial slurs by supervisors and other white co-workers, and complaints by the plant workers went unaddressed by management.

Race discrimination in the workplace, including race harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:15-cv-1347) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“The Commission completed an extensive investigation at the Sara Lee plant, which included conducting interviews with the former bakery workers,” said Meaghan L. Shepard, trial attorney for the Dallas District of EEOC. “EEOC determined racial slurs and graffiti continued at the facility in Paris for years, until the doors finally closed in November 2011.”

“EEOC strongly believes it is critically important for companies to set policies and provide effective avenues for complaints to address racial harassment in the workplace,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Suzanne Anderson. “African-American workers on the Sara Lee bakery production lines in Paris felt embarrassed and intimidated by the graffiti in the bathroom and the racial slurs on the production floor. Strong corporate policies and quick remedial action protects against this type of workplace discrimination.”

The two-year consent decree settling the case provides for an injunction where Hillshire Brands will implement various preventative approaches regarding discrimination or harassment against any employee on the basis of race and will periodically report incidents or investigations to EEOC. Hillshire Brands also agreed to engage in remedial measures such as anti-discrimination training and implementation of procedures to prevent and promptly address graffiti issues.

Belinda McCallister, acting director of EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We are pleased with the approach taken by the employer to acknowledge the hostile environment that once existed and for taking positive steps toward ensuring a healthy workplace in the future.”

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

See original news release here: http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-22-15.cfm

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission