Civil Rights Archives - The National Law Forum

OFCCP Requiring Construction Companies to Submit Monthly Data Reports starting April 2025

OFCCP announced it is reinstating a monthly reporting requirement (CC-257 Report) for federal construction contractors, nearly 30 years after discontinuing it. Beginning April 15, 2025, covered construction contractors must submit a report to OFCCP by the 15^th of each month, with detailed data on its number of employees and work hours by race/ethnicity and gender.

In its announcement, the Agency explained it will use the monthly report to further its “mission of protecting workers in the construction trades, as employment discrimination continues to be a problem in the construction industry.” OFCCP says the report will allow the Agency to strengthen both enforcement and compliance assistance.

OFCCP proposed reinstating CC-257 in February 2024, and in its Supporting Statement, indicated that the report would allow the Agency to “better identify if there are potential hiring or job assignment issues that warrant further investigation during a compliance evaluation.”

The new reporting requirement will include data on number of employees and trade employees’ hours worked by race and gender within each Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or Economic Area (EA) each month. For contractors with employees working on multiple projects, either within a SMSA/EA or across several areas, gathering and preparing the relevant data each month may prove challenging. Contractors must also include whether the work performed is designated by OFCCP as a Megaproject. Other requirements include the contractor’s unique entity identifier (UEI) or Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, both of which OFCCP uses to identify entities doing business with the federal government, and a list of the federal agencies funding their projects.

The Agency published Frequently Asked Questions on its CC-257 Report landing page and intends to provide additional compliance assistance, including a webinar, in early 2025.

Federal Contractors Beware – More Data Disclosures Coming!

On October 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) notice, inviting federal contractors to respond to FOIA requests that the OFCCP received related to federal contractors’ 2021 Type 2 EEO-1 Consolidated Reports. These reports, required of federal contractors and subcontractors with at least 50 employees, contain data critical to the government’s diversity efforts consistent with anti-discrimination mandates under Title VII and Executive Order 11246. Contractors have previously relied on FOIA Exemption 4 to protect against disclosing sensitive commercial information that could impact competitive positioning, but in late December 2023 as previously reported here, a federal court ruling concluded that certain demographic data did not qualify as confidential under FOIA Exemption 4. That court decision may spur an increase in FOIA requests for EEO-1 reporting information.

Contractors who wish to object to the disclosure of their EEO-1 reporting information must do so via OFCCP’s online portal, email, or mail on or before December 9, 2024. Per the OFCCP’s notice, contractors can object to releasing their 2021 EEO-1 Type 2 data by providing evidence showing the data satisfies FOIA Exemption 4. To do this, contractors should:

Specifically identify the objectionable data;
Explain why this data is commercial or competitive to render it confidential;
Outline the processes the contractor has in place to safeguard the data;
Identify any prior assurances or expectations that the data would remain confidential; and
Detail the damage that would occur if the data were disclosed by conducting assessments to see how disclosure would impact business operations.

In addition to raising timely objections to disclosure of data, contractors should also implement clear policies to maintain a consistent approach to data confidentiality. Specifically, contractors should be thoughtful and consistent as to how they define confidential information and the protection measures they take related to such information.

FOIA requests and court decisions in this space will likely continue to make striking a balance between government transparency and protecting contractors’ confidential business information more difficult. To navigate these changes, federal contractors should remain vigilant by staying informed, preparing objections to FOIA requests, and consulting with legal counsel to ensure compliance with this evolving area of law.

The Spooky Consequences of Halloween Celebrations in the Workplace

There is no greater Halloween horror for employers than a workplace celebration that creates legal risks such as inappropriate costumes or safety hazards, among other issues. Thus, there are many considerations when planning an office celebration for this spooky holiday. If you are a manufacturer hosting an office Halloween party, consider following these three tricks to make the best out of your workplace treat.

1. Provide Guidance on Expectations

First and foremost, manufacturers should be transparent about expectations surrounding employee participation including costumes. With regard to costumes, when crafting guidance, manufacturers should consider both civility as well as safety, especially if the employees will be permitted to wear their costumes during the workday. For example, employees should understand what costumes or outfits do and do not meet manufacturing floor safety guidelines. Employees should also be expressly reminded that costumes must conform to all employer policies including anti-harassment, discrimination and respect policies and that costumes, outfits or accessories that violate such policies will not be tolerated.

This election year in particular, some employees may don political costumes. The free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution do not apply to employees working for private manufacturers. Thus, private manufacturers can generally establish rules that, for example, prohibit costumes that support (or criticize) a political candidate or party. That said, manufacturers should be aware that several states have laws regulating when employers can lawfully discipline employees for political activity; further, there are state and federal laws that may be implicated with regard to employees expressing political views. If manufacturers are considering disciplining an employee for a political costume, they should first consult with legal counsel.

2. Prioritize Safety

There are more safety hazards at workplace Halloween parties than the cavity causing candy. This is especially true if the celebration is being held on the manufacturer’s shop floor. Manufacturers should ensure that all of the decorations in the workplace comply with the fire and safety codes set forth by local governments and by OSHA. Manufacturers should also avoid activities that inherently involve risks and could result in workplace injuries, such as pumpkin carving contests.

Lastly, manufacturers should carefully consider whether to serve alcohol. If the celebration is being held on the shop floor, it is highly recommended that alcohol is not served, especially if heavy machinery is accessible. For celebrations held elsewhere, manufactures should consider taking steps to ensure alcohol is consumed in moderation and is not central to the party, and follow best practices for serving alcohol; when considering tips for limiting alcohol consumption or its impact on employees, employers should consider only serving beer and wine, serving a meal (as compared to light appetizers), limiting the amount of alcohol served by, for example, using a drink ticket system, using bartenders to serve alcohol, serving non-alcoholic options; among other practices. In some circumstances, manufacturers may be legally responsible for the conduct of their intoxicated employees.

3. Make it Optional

Workplace celebrations are a great way to boost employee morale and help foster employee relationships. That said, these celebrations should generally be optional. Manufacturers should keep in mind that employees may not want to attend a Halloween party for various reasons, including, for example, their religious practices and beliefs; therefore, ensuring that the party is optional may support all employees including those that do and do not celebrate Halloween.

If attendance is mandatory, there may be implications from a workers’ compensation perspective if there are any injuries or illnesses. Further, manufacturers should pay the employees for their time pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws regardless of whether the celebration was held outside of normal working-hours. Requiring non-exempt employees to attend unpaid celebrations can expose the manufacturer to wage and hour claims in the future.

by: Abby M. Warren, Madison C. Picard of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more news on Workplace Halloween Party Considerations, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Recent Scrutiny of English-Only Workplace Rules Comes into Focus During National Hispanic Heritage Month

National Hispanic Heritage Month is celebrated each year from September 15 to October 15 in recognition of the contributions of Hispanic and Latino people to the history, culture, and economy of the United States. During this time, several Latin American countries celebrate their independence days. Employers can also use this month as a reminder to remain compliant with anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws.

Quick Hits

National Hispanic Heritage Month starts on September 15 and ends on October 15 each year in the United States.
Hispanic workers constitute approximately 19 percent of the U.S. labor force, or approximately 32 million people, and that proportion continues to rise. Foreign-born workers, of which Hispanics account for 47.6 percent, make up 18.6 percent of the U.S. civilian workforce.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports that in 2023 just nineteen lawsuits alleging race or national origin discrimination cost employers $4.9 million.

Recent EEOC Cases

Employers usually have anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to protect Hispanic/Latino employees and applicants from employment discrimination. However, protections from discrimination based on national origin—particularly, workplace policies prohibiting language discrimination—sometimes are overlooked by employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on national origin, and the EEOC considers an individual’s primary language “often an essential national origin characteristic.” (See 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(a).)

This means employers generally may not mandate that employees or applicants speak English. While employers may require English in certain employment situations, such as when speaking only English is needed to ensure safe and efficient communication for specific tasks, an English-only rule must be justified by business necessity and put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons. These situations will typically be specified, limited, and communicated to all employees in a language they understand. Recent cases show how this aspect of Title VII is being enforced.

On June 26, 2024, the EEOC announced a settlement with a housekeeping company that allegedly required its employees in California to speak only English at all times. As a result, the employer agreed to pay monetary damages to the complainant—a Spanish-speaking housekeeper who worked in a nursing home in Concord, California. Additionally, the employer agreed to provide training for its California employees and to revise its policies to clearly state that it would not restrict languages spoken by employees who didn’t perform patient care—and that employees had the right to speak their preferred languages in the workplace. The employer agreed to issue its policies in Spanish, English, and any other language spoken by 5 percent or more of the employer’s California workforce. The EEOC stressed that “[c]lient relations and customer preference do not justify discriminatory [English-only] policies.”

On March 29, 2023, the EEOC announced that a staffing firm based in Washington and Oregon had agreed to pay $276,000 to settle discrimination and retaliation claims. Allegedly, the employer had imposed a no-Spanish rule, which lacked adequate business justification, and then had fired five employees who opposed the rule and continued to speak Spanish in the workplace. The employer agreed to provide an anonymous complaint process for employees, update its policies to be in English and Spanish, perform its investigations promptly, and train its staff on the new anti-discrimination policies. The director of the EEOC’s Seattle field office warned employers that they “should think twice before imposing limitations on what languages are ‘allowed’ to be used at work.” She further warned that in the absence of “a legitimate business necessity, such policies [were] likely to discriminate against workers based on their national origin.”

A Growing Demographic

In 2023, there were 65.2 million Hispanic people in the United States, representing approximately 19.5 percent of the U.S. population. Hispanic workers make up 19 percent of the U.S. labor force, and those rates continue to grow, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). By 2030, BLS projects Hispanic workers will constitute 21 percent of the U.S. labor force.

Looking Ahead

The EEOC is likely to scrutinize employers’ English-only rules and policies as potentially violative of Title VII, as national origin discrimination includes discrimination based on language, ancestry, place of origin, origin (ethnic) group, culture, and even accent. Employers may wish to review their hiring and onboarding policies and practices to ensure compliance with Title VII and avoid potential legal issues, as recent cases demonstrate the EEOC’s active enforcement of protections against national origin discrimination.

To mitigate the risk of costly litigation, employers may also want to consider implementing management training focused on ensuring managers understand that requiring English at all times may be considered discrimination on the basis of national origin.

Prayers for Religious Holiday Time Off May Need to be Accommodated by Employers

Knowing several religious holidays are coming up soon, employers can take steps to avoid triggering religious discrimination and reasonable accommodation lawsuits. Consistently applying paid time off rules can help to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and religious reasonable accommodation claims.

Quick Hits

Private and public employers with fifteen or more workers must accommodate reasonable requests from workers to observe religious holidays (pursuant to federal law; however, state law coverage varies and might only require one or more workers).
Employers may avoid confusion by clearly stating leave policies and company holidays in the employee handbook.
Employers can use online systems or software to detect patterns in approving or denying requests for leave on religious holidays.

With many religious holidays taking place in the next two months, employers are likely to see many requests for time off for religious celebrations.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against workers for practicing their religion unless the worker’s religious practice cannot reasonably be accommodated without an undue hardship to the business. If a manager approves holiday leave requests from Christian employees, but rejects holiday leave requests from Muslim or Jewish employees, that could raise the risk of religious discrimination lawsuits. Additionally, some states, including California, also prohibit religious discrimination and require reasonable accommodation.

In June 2023, in Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that employers cannot legally deny a valid religious accommodation request, unless they can show a substantial burden from a proposed religious accommodation. In Groff, an evangelical Christian postal worker sued the U.S. Postal Service for failing to accommodate his request to not work on Sundays for religious reasons. The Supreme Court held in favor of the postal worker and remanded the case to lower courts.

This decision raised the bar for employers to invoke an undue hardship defense. A de minimiscost is no longer enough to demonstrate an undue burden. If an employee holds a sincere religious belief or practice that conflicts with a workplace policy or staffing schedule, then the employer must engage in an interactive process to see whether an accommodation can be made without substantially interfering with its overall business operations.

Some workplaces, including in the healthcare, hospitality, and transportation industries, require staffing 24/7 every day. In that situation, it may be possible to coordinate schedules so that leave requests can be honored for religious holidays. For example, non-Jewish employees may agree to work during Jewish holidays, and non-Muslim workers may agree to work during Muslim holidays. And, then, those employees might cover gaps in staffing caused by time off for Christian holidays. Compliance with the religious accommodation laws contemplates this type of interactive process and teamwork to find an appropriate solution.

If this type of shift-swapping is not possible or practical, it may be helpful for an employer to document why that is the case.

Next Steps

Employers may wish to review their religious accommodation request procedures, leave policies, scheduling process, and related practices to ensure that managers do not engage in religious discrimination when they approve or deny leave requests. In addition, employers may wish to train managers to apply all of the time off rules consistently.

These holidays are upcoming:

The Jewish holidays Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur fall on October 3, 2024, and October 12, 2024, respectively. Hanukkah will be celebrated December 25 through January 2, 2025.
The Hindu holiday Diwali falls on November 4, 2024.
The Buddhist holiday Bodhi Day falls on December 8, 2024.
The Christian holiday Christmas Day falls on December 25, 2024.

Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action and Impact on Companies’ DEI Programs

In June 2023, the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 in a decision that significantly changed the way colleges and universities used affirmative action in their admissions. The targets of the lawsuit were Harvard University and University of North Carolina for alleged racial discrimination in admissions.

The Ruling

The Court ruled that race conscious college admission policies aimed at maintaining racially diverse student bodies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, though ruling out admissions solely based on race, did state, “Nothing in the opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.” It should be noted that court did not impose the same ruling on military academies because of their “distinct interest” in the benefits of a diverse officer corp. Though the ruling has caused an uproar in both academic and business communities, we need to remember the ruling does not significantly impact effect corporate America, yet.

Race Based Employment

The affirmative action ruling only applies to colleges and universities admissions processes. Employers are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on certain factors which include race, color, religion sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity) and national origin. Further, Title VII applies to all aspects of employment, including, but not limited to recruiting, hiring, promoting training and discharge. Several states, like Massachusetts, have their own version of Title VII to protect both employers and employees. Despite these protections, employers are still cautious with implementing and maintaining diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. This is probably true because most companies do not see the difference between the two. Though they are similar, Title VII protects the employer and employee, while DEI programs aim to enhance the workplace experience and to some extent maximize profits. Plus, most DEI programs go beyond race based concerns and tend to embrace various other aspects of people’s lives that may be subject to bias.

Attack on DEI

Since the ruling by the Supreme Court, several state attorney generals sent letters to Fortune 500 companies stating that race-based preferences “whether under the label of diversity, equity and inclusion or otherwise” may violate federal and state antidiscrimination laws. In addition, corporations like Amazon and Comcast have had their DEI practices challenged. Several states like Florida have proposed and passed anti-DEI legislation banning certain DEI practices in state agencies. All this fervor has created the concern that the “right case” can outright destroy DEI practices and programs. Most recently, which seems like an act out of an abundance of caution, the well-known longstanding Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) changed their focus from Inclusion, Equity and Diversity (IE&D) to Inclusion and Diversity (I&D). The concern relating to the future of DEI is palatable.

Safety Net for DEI Programs

The DEI movement is far from defeated, we must remember DEI and Affirmative Action are not the same. DEI programs, though want to ensure that various races feel accepted in the workplace, should focus on anti-bias, inclusion of all employees from various backgrounds, allyship and the appreciation of everyone’s professional and personal life experiences. You can call your program whatever you want, but it is really the approach used by employers that will survive future legal scrutiny.

EEOC Unveils Final Rule Implementing Pregnant Workers Fairness Act PWFA

Go-To Guide:

Effective June 18, employers covered by the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) are required to offer reasonable workplace accommodations to workers who are pregnant or have a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.
PWFA applies to covered entities, which include public and private employers with 15 or more employees, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government.
A preliminary injunction was entered on June 17, which “postpones the effective date of the Final Rule’s requirement that covered entities provide accommodation for purely elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy” for the states of Louisiana and Mississippi.
Covered employers should review the requirements of the PWFA to ensure that their workplace policies and procedures allow for the requisite accommodations under the Act and follow current challenges to accommodations regarding elective abortions under the law.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) final rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect June 18, 2024, but not without legal challenge.

The final rule, covered in a previous GT Alert, requires employers to offer reasonable workplace accommodations to workers who are pregnant or have a condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. The rule includes an exception for employers if the requested accommodation would cause the business an undue hardship.

However, the requirement of a workplace accommodation for “purely elective abortions” has been enjoined from implementation and enforcement in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and against four Catholic organizations. On June 17, 2024, Judge David C. Joseph in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that the EEOC overstepped its authority by requiring workplace accommodations for “purely elective abortions.”

The motions for preliminary injunction, filed by the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as four entities affiliated with the Catholic Church, sought injunctive relief to the extent that the PWFA requires employers to accommodate purely elective abortions of employees. The court rejected the EEOC argument “that Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted [it] the authority to interpret the scope of the PWFA in a way that imposes a nationwide mandate on both public and private employers – irrespective of applicable abortion-related state laws enacted in the wake of Dobbs – to provide workplace accommodation for the elective abortions of employees.”

Based on its analysis, the court entered a preliminary injunction which “postpones the effective date of the Final Rule’s requirement that covered entities provide accommodation for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to pregnancy” for the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and any agency thereof, any covered entity under the final rule with respect to all employees whose primary duty station is located in Louisiana or Mississippi, and the entities affiliated with the Catholic Church that sought the court’s involvement.¹

What should employers know to ensure compliance with the PWFA, given the limited injunctive relief issued? Below is a summary of the law and considerations for implementing the rule, which is now effective.

Application

The PWFA applies to employees, which include applicants and former employees where relevant based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
The PWFA applies to covered entities, which include public and private employers with 15 or more employees, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government.
The states of Louisiana and Mississippi; employers located in Louisiana and Mississippi and with employees whose primary duty station is located within the states; and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles, the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lafayette, and the Catholic University of America are not required to provide accommodations for the elective abortions of employees that are not necessary to treat a medical condition related to the pregnancy.

What Is Considered a ‘Known Limitation’?

A limitation is “known” to a covered entity if the employee, or the employee’s representative, has communicated the limitation to the covered entity.
The physical or mental condition may be a modest or minor and/or episodic impediment or problem.
An employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that had a need or a problem related to maintaining their health or the health of the pregnancy. “Pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes uncomplicated pregnancies, vaginal deliveries or cesarian sections, miscarriage, postpartum depression, edema, placenta previa, and lactation.
An employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions who sought health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself.
There is possible overlap between the PWFA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because in these situations, the qualified employee may be entitled to an accommodation under either statute, as the protections of both may apply.

What Is an ‘Undue Hardship’?

An employer or covered entity does not need to provide a reasonable accommodation if it causes an undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense, to the employer.

The PWFA Prohibits the Following Conduct by Covered Employers

Failure to make a reasonable accommodation for the known limitations of an employee or applicant, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship;
Requiring an employee to accept an accommodation other than a reasonable accommodation arrived at through the interactive process;
Denying a job or other employment opportunities to a qualified employee or applicant based on the person’s need for a reasonable accommodation;
Requiring an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided that would let the employee keep working;
Punishing or retaliating against an employee or applicant for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation for a known limitation under the PWFA, reporting or opposing unlawful discrimination under the PWFA, or participating in a PWFA proceeding (such as an investigation); and/or
Coercing individuals who are exercising their rights or helping others exercise their rights under the PWFA.

Non-Exhaustive List Of Examples of ‘Reasonable Accommodations’

Additional, longer, or more flexible breaks to drink water, eat, rest, or use the restroom;
Changing food or drink policies to allow for a water bottle or food;
Changing equipment, devices, or workstations, such as providing a stool to sit on, or a way to do work while standing;
Changing a uniform or dress code or providing safety equipment that fits;
Changing a work schedule, such as having shorter hours, part-time work, or a later start time;
Telework;
Temporary reassignment;
Temporary suspension of one or more essential functions of a job;
Leave for health care appointments;
Light duty or help with lifting or other manual labor; or
Leave to recover from childbirth or other medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Employer Training

Employers should consider training supervisors on how to respond to requests for accommodation.
Unlike requests for accommodation under the ADA, an accommodation pursuant to the PWFA may include a temporary suspension of essential job functions for qualified individuals (barring undue hardship to the employer).
Employees do not need to use specific words to request an accommodation to begin the interactive process.
Employers may not require that the employee seeking an accommodation be examined by a health care provider selected by the employer.

¹Further efforts to enjoin the implementation of the Rule were thwarted when the U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas denied a motion for injunctive relief filed by a group of Republican state attorneys general on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the rule.

Navigating the Nuances of LGBTQ+ Divorce in California

The end of a marriage is always challenging for the couple involved, and the impact on family members can be significant. Those in LGBTQ+ marriages are no different. Issues around child custody, property division, spousal support, and the enforcement of prenuptial agreements all apply to same-sex couples.

In California, there is no common-law marriage. In some cases, the LGBTQ+ couple may not have been married long at the time of the divorce, but they may have been together for much longer than the marriage itself. Whether they were registered as a domestic partnership will make a difference. In such cases, the couple will have similar rights and obligations as those married for the same length of time.

For example, in California, if the couple were married four years ago, spousal support—in most cases—would only be for approximately two years. However, if they were registered as domestic partners for 20 years and then had a four-year marriage, spousal support could be until either party’s death or the recipient spouse’s remarriage.

The Unique Challenges Around Parental Rights

Dealing with parental rights is difficult regardless of the orientation of the couple involved. When I advise clients, I try my best to have them focus on the best interests of their children. Divorce is typically the most challenging for the children.

Nuanced complications can arise depending on how the children came into the family. Was it by adoption, surrogacy, or assisted reproductive technology? For LGBTQ+ couples, it is essential that everything is done legally and correctly and that both parents are included in legally binding contracts. In the case of surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology (also known as IVF), mainly when sperm or eggs are donated from someone outside the relationship, it is critically important that the sperm or egg donor has no rights or obligations. Otherwise, things can get murky in a legal sense.

The bottom line is that couples need to secure an excellent lawyer to protect their interests and those of their children. Putting the children first should always be the priority.

Additional Considerations

I have been told that in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly amongst those who identify as men, there can be a preponderance of open relationships. I have been asked if that can complicate a potential divorce. Because California is a no-fault state regarding divorce, it does not matter who sleeps with whom. The only issue is if one person spends community dollars on another person outside the marriage. A relevant factor would be if it were an open marriage and what the understanding of that meant financially and otherwise. Ideally, a couple would document these nuances with their lawyer. Without pre- or post-nuptial agreements addressing such relationship guidelines, spending outside the marriage on another relationship can become a problem during divorce proceedings.

Another question I am often asked is if same-sex couples should seek divorce attorneys who identify as similar to themselves. I can easily see how that might be a comfortable choice. And I do not advocate against it. The most important criterion is the attorney’s skill and if you can relate to them. I know for myself, I am confident I can help my clients, whether they are gay, non-binary, or fluid. My commitment and level of advocacy are always going to be the same.

Concerns over the Future Loom Large

In the past, same-sex couples who married in other states faced the risk that their marriages would not be recognized in another state. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015 required that all states, including California, recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. For those married in California, we are fortunate that LGBTQ+ rights have long been progressive. On the other hand, recent rumbling from the U.S. Supreme Court suggests those protections may be in jeopardy.

I am personally troubled by what some Justices have indicated in dissenting opinions. I remember life before Roe v. Wade and life before Obergfell. I have always been concerned about subsequent elections and the future makeup of our nation’s highest court. Personally, I would hate to see our country go backward on marriage equality.

I have always believed in the institution of marriage. And I am a realist who recognizes that marriages can and do end for a multitude of reasons. It might be surprising to hear a divorce attorney say this, but I would prefer to see couples work things out. But when they cannot, I will be the best advocate for my clients, regardless of how they identify. In the end, divorce is a tricky thing to go through, and whether you are part of a same-sex couple or opposite-sex makes little difference.

For more news on LGBTQ+ Family Law, visit the NLR Family Law / Divorce / Custody section.

HHS Publishes Final Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to eliminate the federal constitutional right to abortion continues to alter the legal landscape across the country. On April 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) published the “HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy” (the “Final Rule”).

The Final Rule—amending the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy Rule”) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), as well as the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act)—strengthens privacy protections related to the use and disclosure of reproductive health care information. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule limits the disclosure of protected health information (PHI) and is part of HHS’s efforts to ensure that patients will not be afraid to seek health care from, or share important information with, health care providers.

The Final Rule:

Prohibits the use or disclosure of PHI when it is sought to investigate or impose liability on individuals, health care providers, or others who seek, obtain, provide, or facilitate reproductive health care that is lawful under the circumstances in which such health care is provided, or to identify persons for such activities.
Requires covered entities and business associates to obtain a signed attestation that certain requests for PHI potentially related to reproductive health care are not for these prohibited purposes.
Requires covered entities to modify their NPPs to support reproductive health care privacy.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, providers have shared concerns that when patients travel to their clinics for lawful care, their patients’ records will be sought, including when the patient goes home,” OCR Director Melanie Fontes Rainer said in a news release. OCR administers the Privacy Rule, which requires most health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses (“covered entities”) and business associates to safeguard the privacy of PHI.

Commenters to an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (“2023 NPRM”) raised concerns that PHI related to reproductive health care would be used and disclosed to expose both patients and providers to investigation and liability under state abortion laws, particularly new and revived laws. This Final Rule is intended to prohibit the disclosure of PHI related to lawful reproductive health care—a change from the current Privacy Rule where an entity is generally permitted, but not required, to disclose relevant and material information in a legitimate law enforcement inquiry.

Key Takeaways

New Category of Protected Health Information. The Final Rule changes the HIPAA Privacy Rule by defining a new category of protected health information and adds a new “prohibited use and disclosure” under the HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.502—mandating that a covered entity or business associate may not use or disclose PHI:

To conduct a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation into any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating “reproductive health care”;
To impose criminal, civil, or administrative liability on any “person” for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating “reproductive health care”; and
To identify any “person” for any of those above described purposes.

Prohibition. Under the Final Rule, HIPAA-covered entities and business associates who receive requests for protected health information must make a reasonable determination that one or more of the following conditions exists:

The reproductive health care is lawful in the state in which such health care is provided under the circumstances in which it is provided (e.g., if a resident of one state traveled to another state to receive reproductive health care, such as an abortion, that is lawful in the state where such health care was provided).
The reproductive health care is protected, required, or authorized by federal law, including the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the state in which such health care is provided (e.g., reproductive health care such as contraception is protected by the Constitution).

Presumption. Such care is presumed lawful unless the HIPAA-covered entity or business associate has

actual knowledge that the reproductive care was not lawful under the circumstances it was provided; or
factual information supplied by the requester demonstrating a substantial factual basis that the reproductive health care was not lawful under the specific circumstances in which it was provided.

Attestation Requirement. The Final Rule adds 45 CFR § 164.509(c) to require a covered entity or business associate, when it receives a request for PHI potentially related to reproductive health care, to obtain a signed attestation from the requester. However, obtaining the attestation does not relieve a covered entity or business associate from its responsibility to determine whether the reproductive health care that may be the subject of the requested information was lawful. An attestation must contain the following elements:

A description of the information requested that identifies the information in a specific fashion, including one of the following:
- The name(s) of any individual(s) whose protected health information is sought, if practicable;
- If that name is not practicable, the name(s) or other specific identification of the person(s) or class of person(s) who are requested to make the use or disclosure;
The name or other specific identification of the person(s) or class of persons to whom the covered entity is to make the requested use or disclosure;
A clear statement that the use or disclosure is not for a purpose prohibited under 45 CFR § 164.502(a)(5)(iii)(i.e., identifying any person under the newly added prohibition);
A statement that a person may be subject to criminal penalties if they use or disclose the reproductive health information improperly;
Must be in plain language and contain the elements set forth in 45 CFR § 164.509(c) (inclusion of other elements not set forth in 45 CFR § 164.509(c) is prohibited); and
Must be signed by the person requesting the disclosure (which may take an electronic format).

The Final Rule prohibits the attestation from being “combined with” any other document (yet allows additional supporting information or documentation needed for the request to be submitted with the attestation (for example, a clearly labelled subpoena). While covered entities can develop their own attestation form, to reduce the compliance burden, HHS plans to publish a model attestation form prior to the compliance date.

Notices of Policy Practices. With the new processes for using and disclosing reproductive health information, covered entities must update their Notices of Privacy Practices (NPPs) required under 45 CFR § 164.520. For purposes of this Final Rule, updates to the NPPs must describe among other things the types and uses of disclosures of PHI that are prohibited under 45 CFR 164.502(a)(5)(iii). The notice should also contain a description of the uses and disclosures for which an attestation is required under the new 45 CFR § 164.509. Further, the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this Final Rule meets the criteria in 5 USC § 804(2) for being a major rule because it is projected to have an annualized impact of more than $100,000,000 based on the number of covered entities and business associates that will have to implement these changes.

Practical Implications for HIPAA Covered Entities & Business Associates

Considering the significant changes this Final Rule introduces, there is no time like the present for covered entities and business associates to consider the compliance implications that a new category of PHI will have on existing HIPAA policies and procedures. In addition to developing and/or obtaining new attestation forms, making reasonable determinations of the lawfulness of reproductive health care and updating notices of privacy practices, privacy and security officers will likely need to evaluate the impact these changes will have on the policies that govern data dissemination, and the processes and procedures that may change as well. Covered entities and business associates will also likely want to include these changes into training for employees involved in these activities.

The Final Rule goes into effect on June 25, 2024, with a compliance date of December 23, 2024. The NPP requirements, however, take effect on February 16, 2026—consistent with OCR’s 42 CFR Part 2 Rule of February 16, 2024, so that covered entities regulated under both rules can implement changes to their NPPs at the same time.

HIPAA covered entities and business associates should consider the context and framework of the HIPAA Privacy Rule and these new modifications as they consider third-party requests for any PHI that may include reproductive health information (the current HIPAA Privacy Rule remains in effect until the new rule takes effect). If the new reproductive health prohibition is not applicable, HIPAA covered entities should still consider the fact that HIPAA otherwise permits, but does not require, them to disclose PHI under most of the HIPAA exceptions contained in 45 CFR § 164.512. Therefore, HIPAA affords covered entities the ability to protect the privacy interests of their patients, especially in the current post-Dobbs environment.

Covered entities and business associates now face the challenge of implementing these new requirements and training their workforce members on how to analyze and respond to requests that include reproductive health care information. Questions remain surrounding a covered entity or business associate’s burden of determining that the reproductive health care provided to an individual was in fact lawful. For example, if a complaint follows, does a covered entity have to account for the disclosures that are made? While the Final Rule is gender-neutral, what is the likelihood that it would be applied to men—could it? In any case, we will continue to monitor developments, including questions of how HIPAA and other privacy concerns interact with reproductive health care, in the wake of Dobbs. For more on the subject, please see our past blog on the 2023 proposed rule.

Ann W. Parks contributed to this article.

Payday: Terminated Employee Awarded $78,000 in EEOC Settlement

Employees returning to work following a hospitalization or illness can present legally nuanced issues, particularly if an employer is considering terminating an employee in close proximity to such a leave. A recent case settled by a company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlights some of the legal risks that can come into play.

According to an EEOC press release: “The EEOC charged in [a lawsuit] that, in February 2022, [a company] fired a long-tenured receptionist, despite having recognized the 78-year-old employee as one of its employees of the year in January 2022. The receptionist’s termination came shortly after a brief hospitalization. The EEOC alleged that upon the receptionist’s return to work, [the company’s] general manager asked her how long she planned to continue to work, whether she needed to work, and whether she would prefer to spend her time traveling and seeing family instead of working.

Although the receptionist expressed her desire to continue working, and despite having never previously raised substantial performance concerns to the receptionist, the general manager told the receptionist that [the company] had lost confidence in her ability to work, citing her recent hospitalization. The receptionist was fired the next day and replaced by substantially younger employees.”

The EEOC alleged that these actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), noting the alleged statements about “losing confidence” in the employee due to a hospitalization could be viewed as disability discrimination (the ADA defines “disability” very broadly), and the fact the employee was over the age of 40 (i.e., in the protected age group) and replaced with a younger employee could give rise to an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA.

The company elected to settle the allegations. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $78,000 to the terminated employee. In addition, it entered into a two-year consent decree that also requires it to “revise its ADEA and ADA policies, post a notice in the workplace informing employees of the settlement, and train all employees and supervisors on their rights and responsibilities under both the ADEA and the ADA. Moreover, the company agreed to provide the EEOC with periodic reports regarding any future complaints of age or disability discrimination including a description of each employee’s allegations and the company’s response.”

Accordingly, this case serves as an important reminder that employee terminations should be carefully evaluated with respect to legal risks under various employment laws. Vetting such risks on the front end may mitigate pain on the back end.

Category: Civil Rights

OFCCP Requiring Construction Companies to Submit Monthly Data Reports starting April 2025

Like this:

Federal Contractors Beware – More Data Disclosures Coming!

Like this: