Category: EEOC

New EEOC Hours Reporting Requirements

EEOC Hours Reporting RequirementsAs you may have heard, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released revised EEO-1 reporting guidelines on July 13, 2016 (for an overview of the new guidance in its entirety, see EEOC Issues Revised EEO-1 Proposal). These new guidelines apply to employers with 100 or more employees and require them to report, among other things, hours worked by exempt and non-exempt employees, subdivided by gender, race, ethnicity, job classification, and pay band.  For an example of the proposed new reporting form, click here. Although employers and other members of the public will have until August 15, 2016 to comment on the revised proposal, it is unlikely that any further substantive revisions will be made. Currently, it appears that employers will be required to submit the new EEO-1 form on March 31, 2018, giving them approximately a year and a half to prepare their recordkeeping systems to capture the newly required data.  Therefore, employers are advised to review, and update if necessary, internal recordkeeping systems to be prepared to report hours worked, and pay data, for calendar year 2017 when filing the EEO-1 on March 31, 2018.

What Are “Hours Worked” And Why Does The EEOC Want Them?

In response to employer requests for guidance concerning the definition of “hours worked,” the EEOC has specified that, for employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), their hours should be recorded as follows:

Non-exempt Employees: The EEOC should report “hours worked” as defined by the FLSA.  “Hours worked” includes time when the employee is actually working (either at the employer’s premises or remotely).  Therefore, “hours worked” would not include meal time, vacation, PTO or other leave, even if the non-exempt employee is paid for that time off, and even though the compensation for those hours will be reflected in the W2 data provided on the EE0-1 form.

Exempt Employees. Employers have two options: (1) provide the actual hours of work of exempt employees if the employer already maintains accurate records of this information, or (2) report a proxy of 40 hours per week for full time exempt employees and 20 hours per week for part-time exempt employees, multiplied by the number of weeks the individuals were employed during the reporting year.

The EEOC provides a few reasons for requiring disclosure of hours worked. First, if the EEOC discovers a pay disparity, it intends to use this information to it assess whether a disparity is caused by the part-time or full-time status of the respective employees, rather than by gender, race, or ethnicity.  Second, the EEOC intends to use the hours worked data to assess whether employees in protected classes are subject to discrimination in terms of hours instead of pay, with an employer habitually assigning more hours and overtime to some employees while denying it to others.

Next Steps For Employers

Employers are well-served to apply the same analysis that the EEOC intends to use while doing internal audits to determine if there are statistical concerns, and the reasons behind the patterns.  The employer can then consider if actions are warranted now to remediate any issues before 2017, or, be able to explain the legitimate business reasons for any disparities if called upon to defend pay practices.

Employers should also audit time-keeping protocols and policies to be sure that non-exempt employees are accurately recording “hours worked”.  Employers should also confirm that their HRIS systems can run reports of hours worked, that do not include paid timeEEOC Hours Reporting Requirements off.  Additionally, if employers intend to report actual hours worked for exempt employees, rather than the 40 hour proxy for full time employees, then the same recommendations apply.

ARTICLE BY Valerie Kahn, Kate S. Gold & Lynne Anne Anderson ofDrinker Biddle & Reath LLP

©2016 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

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

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.

EEOC’S Lawsuit Against Costco to Proceed

Costco smallA federal district court judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) claim that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee at the company’s Glenview, Ill. warehouse will be decided by a jury.

Judge Ruben Castillo, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment on EEOC’s claim it failed to protect one of its former employees from a sexually hostile work environment. The decision in EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 14-cv-6553, was entered on Dec. 16, 2015. The court announced it will select a jury trial date at a status hearing in January.

The court said it found evidence the employee was subjected to harassing behavior by a customer for more than a year, including ominous staring, unwanted physical touching, unwanted requests for dates and overly intrusive personal questions. The court found evidence the customer interactions continued to escalate, even though he had been talked to by Costco’s managers and the Glenview police to avoid her. The court also concluded that, added together and given the length of time over which the incidents occurred, they amounted to a level of a hostile work environment.

The court also found evidence Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, noting that Costco waited more than a year to ban the customer from the store. The court granted summary judgment for Costco on EEOC’s constructive discharge claim.

Costco is an international membership warehouse retailer which, according to its website, has over 650 locations worldwide, annual revenues over $100 billion, and over 125,000 employees in the United States.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. This information was previously published on the EEOC website, www.eeoc.gov.

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

United Airlines to Pay over $1 Million To Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit

In a case that garnered nationwide attention, air transportation giant United Airlines Inc. has agreed to pay more than $1 million and implement changes to settle a federal disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seal

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that United’s competitive transfer policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship for the employer. By requiring workers with disabilities to compete for vacant positions for which they were qualified and which they needed in order to continue working, the company’s practice frequently prevented employees with disabilities from continuing employment with United, the EEOC said.

The consent decree settling the suit, signed by Hon. Judge Harry Leinenweber and entered today, requires United to pay $1,000,040 to a small class of former United employees with disabilities and to make changes nationally. United will revise its ADA reassignment policy, train employees with supervisory or human resource responsibilities regarding the policy changes, and provide reports to the EEOC regarding disabled employees who were denied a position as part of the ADA reassignment process.

This resolution concludes a lengthy and complicated lawsuit. Although the EEOC originally filed the lawsuit on June 3, 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – San Francisco, United successfully moved for a change of venue to the Northern District of Illinois. Bound by an earlier precedent which held that a competitive transfer policy similar to United’s policy did not violate the ADA, the lower court dismissed the EEOC’s case in February 2011.  However, in a decision reviewed by the full court, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the EEOC that EEOC v. Humiston Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) “did not survive” an intervening Supreme Court decision, U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).  The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal and found that “the ADA does indeed mandate that an employer assign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to the employer.” The Supreme Court refused United’s subsequent request for review on May 28, 2013. EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan handled the appeal and Supreme Court briefing for the agency.

“The appellate court’s decision provided an important clarification regarding an employer’s responsibility under the ADA to provide a reasonable accommodation so qualified employees may lead economically independent lives,” said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. “I am pleased this major decision also served as a springboard for the strong monetary and non-monetary remedies in today’s resolution.”

EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo said, “If a disability prevents an employee from returning to work in his or her current position, an employer must consider reassignment. As the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights, requiring the employee to compete for positions falls short of the ADA’s requirements. Employers should take note: When all other accommodations fail, consider whether your employee can fill a vacant position for which he or she is qualified.”

EEOC San Francisco Acting District Director Michael Connolly noted, “We commend United for agreeing to make these important companywide changes that will enable employees with disabilities to stay employed at jobs they are qualified to do, as was intended under the ADA’s protections.”

According to the company website, United Airlines has almost 84,000 employees in every U.S. state and in many countries around the world. The air carrier has the world’s most comprehensive route network, including U.S. mainland hubs in Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York / Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. and operates an average of nearly 5,000 flights a day to 373 airports across six continents.

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

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission