Tag: EEOC

Will Religiously Based Federal Contractors Challenge OFCCP's New LGBT Regulations?

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan logo

As 2014 headed toward close, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) gave the federal contractor community, already presented with five Executive Orders in 2014, one last compliance gift. On December 9, 2014, without notice or an opportunity for public comment, OFCCP issued its final rule (“Rule”) implementing Executive Order (“EO”) 13672. President Obama signed EO 13672 on July 14, 2014, extending protections against workplace discrimination to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community by amending Executive Order 11246 to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. It also requires contractor employers to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity during their employment. The Executive Order was effective immediately. The Rule is effective April 8, 2015, and applies to all new or modified federal contracts and subcontracts after that date.

The issuance of EO 13672 and the requirements of its implementing Rule highlight OFCCP’s intention to focus on LGBT protections and might be seen as steps to squarely tee up the issue of enforcement of LGBT protections in the post-Hobby Lobby era. First, and seemingly to leave no doubt of its intention, OFCCP had also issued Directive 2014-02 in August 2014, with its stated purpose, “[t]o clarify that existing agency guidance on discrimination on the basis of sex under Executive Order 11246, as amended, includes discrimination on the bases of gender identity and transgender status.” The directive explicitly piggybacked off of the EEOC’s 2012 decision in Macy v. Holder, where the EEOC concluded that gender identity and transgender status did not need to be specifically addressed in Title VII in order to be protected bases of discrimination, as they are simply part of the protected category of “sex” under Title VII. Anticipating the question of why EO 13672 was then necessary if already protected under Title VII, OFCCP offered a questionable explanation that the directive “does not address gender identity as a stand-alone protected category, which (along with sexual orientation) is the subject of Executive Order 13672.”

Second, as written, the Rule is relatively straightforward. It amends EO 11246’s implementing regulations by replacing the phrase “sex or national origin” with the phrase “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” wherever the former appears in the regulations.  The Rule also places the following obligations on employers:

  1. Ensure that applicants and employees are not discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

  2. Update existing affirmative action plans and all equal opportunity, harassment, and nondiscrimination policies to reflect the additional protected categories.

  3. Make available to applicants and employees a revised version of the “EEO is the Law” poster that includes a notice regarding the protections for LGBT workers.

  4. Include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected traits in the equal opportunity job solicitation taglines. (OFCCP suggested in the Rule preamble that “equal opportunity employer” may be sufficient to cover all protected categories of EO 11246.)

  5. Incorporate the new categories into new or modified subcontracts and purchase orders.

  6. Report to OFCCP and the Department of State any suspicion that it cannot obtain a visa for an employee, from another country with which it does business, due to the employee’s sexual orientation.

  7. Ensure that facilities (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing areas) provided for employees are not segregated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Rule does not burden contractor employers with the same data collection and analysis obligations that are required with respect to females and minorities and does not require contractor employers to set placement goals on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does it require them to collect or analyze any data with respect to the sexual orientation or gender identity of their applicants or employees. Contractor employers are also not required to, or prohibited from, soliciting applicants or employees to self-identify regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Finally, it is notable that EO 13672 and its implementing Rule were issued despite the growing number of states (currently 20 states plus the District of Columbia) that have implemented protections against sexual orientation and/or gender identity discrimination. And further, that they are set within the larger context of the legalization of same sex marriage by, as of this article, 37 states, as well as the US Supreme Court’s consideration of the status of same sex marriage this year. Thus, the issue brought to focus by these OFCCP actions and the Executive Order may be more pointed than an identification of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected traits and may go towards whether a religious contractor employer may base employment decisions on the LGBT status of an applicant or employee.

EO 13672 contains no exemption for religiously affiliated federal contractors. Section 204(c) of EO 11246, which allows a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society, to base employment decisions on the religious membership of a particular individual (rather than on the beliefs of the organization), was specifically not amended by EO 13672. Possibly by design, this may result in a test of the reach of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which, broadly speaking, allowed a closely-held, for-profit corporation to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate based upon its owners’ religious objection because it found that there was a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest.

A similar legal challenge may play out in the arena of employee benefits governed by EO 13672. OFCCP enforcement of the new Rule’s nondiscrimination prohibitions would bring within OFCCP’s purview the provision of benefits to an employee’s same sex spouse. Title VII and Supreme Court precedent require employers to make available the same benefits for spouses regardless of the gender of the employee. Closely-held contractor employers who oppose same sex marriage as a violation of religious belief may object to this requirement’s enforcement as a burden on their religious beliefs, similar to the arguments made by Hobby Lobby. While the Hobby Lobby majority attempted to dismiss the idea that its decision might allow an employer to “cloak as religious practice” prohibited acts, such as racial discrimination in hiring, the reach of the Hobby Lobby decision is far from settled, and the next batch of cases may seek to extend that decision to regulations requiring equal benefits based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

And, lest employers think that the OFCCP was done, just today it announced that on January 30, 2015, it will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update contractors’ obligations to not discriminate on the basis of sex under EO 11246 to “reflect present-day workplace realities and align OFCCP’s rules with current law under Title VII.” The new rules will touch on “compensation discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to provide workplace accommodations for pregnancy, and gender identity and family caregiver discrimination, among other topics.” The regulatory landscape for federal contractors saw many changes in 2014, and it seems 2015 is shaping up to be no different.

ARTICLE BY

Jill Pedigo Hall
Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

Will The EEOC Get its Wings Clipped? Mach Mining's Challenge to the EEOC Before the Supreme Court

On Jan. 13, during oral argument, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia echoed businesses’ skepticism about the EEOC’s pre-suit settlement strategy, saying  “there is considerable incentive on the EEOC to fail in conciliation so that it can bring a big­deal lawsuit and get a lot of press and put a lot of pressure on this employer and on other employers. There are real incentives to have conciliation fail.”

Justice Scalia made his comments in the case of Mach Mining L.L.C. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the Mach Mining case, the EEOC sued the company for sex discrimination on behalf of a class of women who were denied jobs. The EEOC’s pursuit of high-profile litigation (accelerated during the Obama Administration and intended to “send a message to employers”)  is supposed to come after the EEOC has attempted to conciliate discrimination charges. But that conciliation process, and–in particular, court review of that process—is now before the Supreme Court.

By law, the EEOC is to “conciliate” cases after having found “reasonable cause” that a violation of the law has occurred, andbefore filing a lawsuit against the employer. Importantly, the language of Title VII specifically requires the EEOC to “endeavor to eliminate” alleged discrimination by “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.”

But, after the EEOC filed suit against Mach Mining, the company accused the EEOC of failing to conciliate in good faith. The battle over the “good faith” conciliation has derailed the underlying case and for nearly two years, the case has been mired in a mini-battle about whether the EEOC has discretion on conciliation, or its conduct should be reviewed by a court. The EEOC’s position is that it has the discretion and should not be second-guessed; Mach Mining insists that “conference, conciliation, and persuasion” must be done in good faith, and subject to court review.

During the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts said, “I am very troubled by the idea that the government can do something and we can’t even look at whether they’ve complied with the law.” Justice Kennedy noted that he couldn’t find another situation in which a court “has essentially declined to review a statutory precondition” to filing a lawsuit.

Yet, some justices were sympathetic to the EEOC’s position that companies are turning conciliation tactics into a legal strategy– to fight the EEOC about “good faith” conciliation to avoid and prolong the underlying discrimination case.

In the end, there seemed to be some agreement that judicial review of the conciliation process is appropriate, but, as Justice Breyer queried, “the issue is how much.” The lawyers and justices hinted at several options, even including directing the EEOC to issue regulations. Mach Mining and its supporters hope that the prospect of court review will cause the EEOC to be reasonable in its demands to employers before rushing to the Courthouse.

For more detailed legal analysis, visit the Supreme Court blog.

ARTICLE BY

Jeanine M. Gozdecki
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

The Year in Social Media: Four Big Developments from 2014

Barnes Thornburg

As social networking has become entrenched as a tool for doing business and not just a pastime of our social lives, employers, government agencies, and even academia have taken big steps in 2014 to define how social media can and cannot, or should and should not, be used. Below is a summary of some of the big developments in social media in the workplace this year.

The EEOC Turns Its Attention to Social Media

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has turned its attention toward social networking, meeting in March to gather information about social media use in the workplace. To no surprise, the EEOC recognized that although using social media sites such as LinkedIn could be a “valuable tool” for identifying employment candidates, relying on personal information found on social networks, such as age, race, gender, or ethnicity, to make employment decisions is prohibited.

More controversially, the EEOC expressed concern that employers’ efforts to access so-called “private” social media communications in the discovery phase of discrimination lawsuits might have a “chilling effect” on employees filing discrimination cases. However, it is unclear how the EEOC might prevent employers from getting this information if it is relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. It remains to be seen what steps the EEOC might take to address this “chilling effect.”

 The NLRB Continues to Refine Its Position on Social Media Policies

The National Labor Relations Board has spent the past few years attacking social media policies as overbroad, but perhaps a shift in that policy is at hand. This summer, an NLRB administrative law judge upheld a social media policy that discouraged employees from posting information on social networks about the company or their jobs that might create morale problems. The ALJ held that the policy did not prohibit job-related posts, but merely called on employees to be civil in their social media posts to avoid morale problems. The ALJ’s finding is at odds with recent NLRB decisions, which have gone much further to limit any policies that might affect employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. While it is unclear whether this holding is an outlier or a shift in the NLRB’s approach, it brings with it some hope that the NLRB may be moving toward a more pro-employer stance.

States Continue to Limit Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

State governments also are getting involved with social media regulation. In April, Wisconsin became the newest state to pass legislation aimed at protecting employees’ social media accounts, passing the Social Media Protection Act. The Act bars employers, schools, and landlords from requiring their employees, students, and tenants to produce their social media passwords. Significantly, the Act does not ban them from viewing social media posts that are publicly accessible.

Wisconsin was not alone in enacting legislation to protect social media passwords this year, as Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee enacted similar laws during 2014 and 12 other states did so in previous years. While not every state has passed such legislation, it is clear that state governments increasingly will not tolerate employers asking employees or applicants for access to their private social networking accounts. Employers should be mindful of their state laws before seeking social media information that might be protected.

Academia is Drawing Its Own Conclusions Regarding Social Media in the Workplace

Federal and state governments are not the only institutions weighing the implications of social media in the workplace. University researchers also are studying employers’ stances on social media – a North Carolina State University study concluded that applicants tend to have a lower opinion of employers that looked at their social media profiles before making a hiring decision, and a Carnegie Mellon University study concluded that employers risked claims of discrimination by reviewing applicants’ social media profiles, based on employers being more likely to screen out candidates based on their personal information such as ethnicity.

While these studies weigh against employers searching applicants’ social media before making hiring decisions, there is certainly logic to the contrary, as employers are entitled to view publicly-accessible information about their applicants, and thorough employers will want to learn as much as they can to do their due diligence in making important hiring decisions.

Laws, best practices, and public opinion regarding social media in the workplace will continue to evolve in 2015. Employers would be wise to look at the most recent developments before making any major decisions affecting their social media policies and practices.

ARTICLE BY

Douglas M. Oldham
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Employment Related Lawsuits Are on the Rise. Are You Covered?

Gilbert LLP Law FirmOn September 25, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed the first two suits in its history challenging transgender discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  As discrimination litigation evolves, it is important to know whether your insurance coverage is evolving with it.

Coverage for employee-related lawsuits has always been important, but the increase in suits brought by the EEOC over the last several years (and the last several decades) has made employment practices liability (“EPL”) insurance of particular importance to protecting your company.  Last year, the EEOC recovered a record-setting $372.1 million.

Now, the scope of EEOC suits is increasing as a result of the EEOC’s ongoing efforts to implement its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”), adopted in December of 2012.  As part of its SEP, the EEOC makes “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions, as they may apply” a “top commission enforcement priority.”

Comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) policies, are a type of commercial third-party liability insurance.  Most businesses in the United States purchase CGL policies in order to protect against the risk of suits by third parties.  If a patron sues you for a slip and fall in your mom-and-pop shop, your CGL policy probably covers the suit.  Likewise, if you distribute across the entire country a product that allegedly causes bodily harm to thousands of people, your CGL policy probably covers the suits.

As broad as CGL coverage is, however, it is only one piece to a balanced insurance portfolio.  CGL policies typically exclude coverage for suits brought by employees of the company.  EPL polices step in to fill one part of the gap in coverage.  Other parts of the gap are filled by workman’s compensation policies and directors and officers liability policies.

A typical EPL policy may list a number of categories of protected classes covered by insurance, and then add coverage for “other protected classes.”  A policy may also protect against claims for “Discrimination,” and define that discrimination broadly to mean “any actual or alleged violation of any employment discrimination law.”  However, some polices offer more limited coverage.  For example, some carriers may restrict coverage to only sexual harassment.

Just as you protect your company from fire by installing sprinklers in your warehouses and doing regular safety inspections, it is imperative that you keep your employment practices up to date.  Educate your employees on proper workplace behavior, and try to think about ways to get ahead of the curve to minimize your liability for alleged workplace discriminations.

Just as discrimination litigation is evolving, other areas of litigation continue to evolve and create new risks for your company.  In addition, coverage law continues to evolve across the United States, on a state-by-state basis.  As coverage law evolves, it has a direct effect on the value of your insurance portfolio.

ARTICLE BY

João Santa-Rita
OF
Gilbert LLP

EEOC Part of Increasing Focus On LGBT Issues

Barnes Thornburg

We seem clearly to be in the midst of a shift towards greater employment protections for LGBT employees, evidenced both by discrimination legislation largely at a state and local level and less directly in the legal environment by developments such as greater acceptance of gay marriage including the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to consider lower court decisions invalidating state statutes prohibiting gay marriage.

EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum recently released thisinteresting summary of the EEOC’s activities and positions on LGBT issues. Highlights include:

  • Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  The EEOC interprets the law to provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  This has not always been the case – in the 1970s the EEOC held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity (1974) and sexual orientation (1976) were not prohibited under Title VII.
  • Courts have not yet developed a clear position on this.  (And for lawyer readers, there are numerous case cites that provide a useful reference.)
  • The EEOC has accepted discrimination charges from LGBT individuals since January 2013 and reports that it is has received and resolved hundreds of them.
  • Commissioner Feldblum states that strong laws at all levels of government explicitly protecting LGBT workers are still necessary.

Anecdotally, more and more employers seem to be voluntarily extending to LGBT employees the protection they extend to employees in generally accepted protected classes.  In many cases, the employer is required to do so under the laws of some places it does business, and simply implements the protection uniformly.  Employers who choose not to do so voluntarily and are not yet required to do so in places where they do business should at least be thinking ahead on administering what seem like inevitable changes.

As always, regardless of what classes are protected in what jurisdictions, the best defense against discrimination liability are making good business decisions and being able to document that you have done so.

ARTICLE BY

William A. Nolan
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

EEOC Loses on Procedural Grounds in Hotly Contested Case Challenging CVS Pharmacy Separation Agreement

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Employers should continue to proceed with caution despite the recent pro-employer decision in EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a closely-watched case in which the EEOC alleged that CVS’ standard separation agreement interfered with the rights of former employees to file an EEOC charge or participate in an EEOC investigation. Although summary judgment was granted in favor of CVS by Judge John W. Darrah of the Northern District of Illinois, the court chose not to address the merits of the case, and instead dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds based on the EEOC’s failure to conciliate the case prior to filing its lawsuit.

This lawsuit was unique because there was no allegation that CVS had engaged in discrimination or retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Rather, the EEOC alleged that CVS’ mere use of its standard separation agreement constituted a “pattern or practice” of resistance under Section 707 of Title VII. Among several challenged provisions, the separation agreement required former employees to release all waivable claims against CVS, prohibited them from filing any lawsuits or claims against CVS, and required former employees to notify CVS if they participated in an agency investigation. A disclaimer expressly stated that execution of the separation agreement was not intended to interfere with the right to participate in an agency proceeding or from cooperating with such agency.

The court granted summary judgment to CVS due to the EEOC’s failure to conciliate prior to filing suit. Yet, this decision provides little comfort for employers that utilize separation agreements with similar terms. Although the issue of whether the agreement constitutes a “pattern or practice” violation of Title VII remains unsettled, a resolution may be forthcoming as the EEOC is currently pursuing a similar theory in a case pending in the District of Colorado.

The court’s opinion includes a footnote that may prove helpful to employers. Judge Darrah noted that it was unreasonable to interpret CVS’ separation agreement as prohibiting employees from filing an EEOC charge and that, even if the agreement did prohibit the filing of a charge, that provision would simply be unenforceable and “could not constitute resistance to [Title VII]” such that the agreement would violate Title VII. However, this comment is non-binding dicta and not precedential.

ARTICLE BY

Lauren S. Novak
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

United States Supreme Court Round-Up: Key Opinions from 2013 to 2014 and Upcoming High-Profile Business Disputes

Andrews Kurth

The 2013–2014 term of the United States Supreme Court resulted in a wide range of decisions of importance to business. In this article, we highlight some of the key opinions and explore their likely impacts. We also preview a few of the high-profile business disputes the Supreme Court has agreed to hear next term.

Key Business Cases from the 2013–2014 Term

American Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protection Agency: Holding: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases. Effect: The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s previous recognition that the EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. However, portions of the decision strongly cautioned the EPA against overreach, stating that the agency may not “bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” These comments suggest that the Supreme Court may take a hard line when the Obama Administration’s other climate regulations eventually go to court.

Daimler AG v. Bauman: Holding: A foreign company doing business in a state cannot be sued in that state for injuries allegedly caused by conduct that took place entirely outside of the United States. Effect: Daimler makes it much harder for plaintiffs to establish general jurisdiction over foreign entities. The opinion re-characterizes general jurisdiction as requiring the defendant to be “at home” in the state, a circumstance that the Supreme Court suggested will generally be limited to the places where the defendant is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business. Moreover, the fact that a domestic subsidiary whose activities are imputed to the foreign parent may be “at home” in the state will not make the foreign parent “at home” in that locale for purposes of general jurisdiction.

Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: Holding: Plaintiffs in private securities fraud actions must prove that they relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations in choosing to buy stock. Basic v. Levinson’s holding that plaintiffs can satisfy this reliance requirement by invoking a presumption that the price of stock as traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material information, including material misstatements, remains viable. However, after Halliburton, defendants can defeat the presumption at the class certification stage by proving that the misrepresentation did not in fact affect the stock price. Effect: While investors will continue to pursue class actions following large dips in stock prices, the Halliburton decision helps to level the playing field by providing defendants a mechanism to stop such suits at the class certification stage.

Lawson v. FMR LLC: Holding: Employees of privately held contractors or subcontractors of a public company are protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Effect: Following Lawson, there will likely be an increase in SOX litigation against public and non-public companies. Because many of the issues concerning the scope and meaning of SOX have yet to be resolved, lower courts will continue to wrestle with defining the parameters of the law. Questions left unanswered byLawson include whether the whistleblower’s accusation must be related to work he or she performed for the company and whether the contract with the public company must have some relation to public accounting or securities compliance.

Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice: Holding: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1988 (SLUSA) does not preclude state-law class actions based on false representations that the uncovered securities that plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities. Effect: SLUSA bars the bringing of securities class actions “based upon statutory or common law of any state” in which the plaintiff alleges “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with a purchase of sale of covered securities.” The statute defines “covered securities” to include only securities traded on a national securities exchange or those issued by investment companies.

U.S. v. Quality Stores: Holding: Severance payments to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Effect: Employers should, under most circumstances, treat severance payments to involuntarily terminated employees as wages subject to FICA taxes. There are exceptions, however, and employers should therefore seek legal counsel to assist in determining the tax status of a particular severance arrangement.

Business Cases to Watch in the 2014–2015 Term

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk: Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Whether and to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund: Whether, for purposes of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was untrue merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false through allegations that the speaker’s actual opinion was different from the one expressed.

Young v. UPS: Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

As in recent years, the Supreme Court continues to grant review on more and more cases involving matters of concern to U.S. businesses. Andrews Kurth attorneys are available to provide further detail and guidance on the decisions highlighted here, and on any other issues of concern to your company that have reached the high court.

ARTICLE BY

Kelly Sandill
OF
Andrews Kurth

EEOC Sues Sushi at the Lake for Disability Discrimination

EEOCSeal

Cornelius Restaurant Unlawfully Refused to Hire Applicant Because of Amputated Arm, Federal Agency Charges

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc., dba Sushi at the Lake, which operates a restaurant in Cornelius, N.C., violated federal law when it refused to hire a job applicant because of his disability, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Matthew Botello’s left arm was amputated above his elbow around November 2010. On or about Oct. 4, 2013, Botello applied to work as a busboy (or “busser”) at Sushi at the Lake, and on Oct. 10, Botello was told to report to the restaurant to work the following day. Shortly after Botello arrived on Oct. 11, the restaurant’s owner saw that Botello’s left arm had been amputated. The EEOC said that the owner gestured at Botello’s left side and told Botello that he could not bus tables because he had only one arm. Although Botello told the owner that he had bussed tables at another restaurant, the owner told Botello he could not work and to leave Sushi at the Lake.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their disabilities. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division (EEOC v. Greenhouse Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Sushi at the Lake, Civil Action No.3:14-cv-00569 after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

“Employers need to understand the importance of treating people equally despite whatever physical challenges they may face,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “In this case, we allege that Mr. Botello was not hired because of assumptions made about his abilities based on his arm amputation. Employers must be careful not to violate federal law by making assumptions about people with disabilities.”

ARTICLE BY

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC Sues Florida and Michigan Companies for Transgender Discrimination

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has just filed suit against two companies for alleged discrimination against transgendered employees. The suits were filed separately in Florida and Michigan, against Lakeland Eye Clinic and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., respectively. In both cases, employees alleged that they were fired after they disclosed they were undergoing gender transitions.

Title VII does not specifically protect against transgendered persons. In 2012, however, in Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination against employees because they are transgender, because of gender identity, and/or because they have transitioned (or intend to transition) is discrimination based on sex, and thus violates Title VII.

The EEOC identified “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions” as one of their top enforcement priorities in its 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan. Thus, these suits should not be surprising. Earlier this year, President Obama also issued an Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

In light of the recent emphasis on the protection of these individuals, employers should take extra precautions to ensure that no discriminatory practices are in force in the workplace. Further, all adverse employment decisions should be properly documented and managers and supervisors should be properly trained about what to do should a discrimination-related issue arises.

© 2014 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE BY

Benjamin L. Riddle
OF
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

EEOC Signals Intent to Tighten Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Pregnancy-Related Discrimination

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

Noting that it continues to see “a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination,” and that its “investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (“Enforcement Guidance”). The full text of the Enforcement Guidance is available here. 

The EEOC’s issuance of the Enforcement Guidance, which focuses primarily on the fundamental requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), while also touching on the pregnancy-related protections provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), sends a strong signal to employers that their employment decisions and policies will now be more intently scrutinized for actionable pregnancy discrimination.1

The Enforcement Guidance focuses on the issue of equal access to benefits – in particular, to light duty, leave, and health insurance. With regard to light duty, employers may not treat employees whose capacity is limited by pregnancy, or a pregnancy-related condition, any differently than they do employees who are similarly limited, but for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

As for leave, employers should be cognizant of the following. First, they may not force an employee to take leave because she is or has been pregnant, so long as she is able to perform her job. Second, the PDA mandates that employers permit women with pregnancy-related physical limitations to take leave on the same terms and conditions as employees who are similarly limited for other reasons. Finally, while leave related to pregnancy-related medical conditions will, necessarily, be limited to female employees, leave to bond with or care for a newborn must be extended to male and female employees on an equal basis.

With regard to health insurance, employers should note that an employer-provided health insurance benefit plan must cover pregnancy-related costs to the same extent it covers medical costs unrelated to pregnancy. This required symmetry of coverage must extend to costs stemming from an insured employee’s pre-existing pregnancy. Additionally, an employer may be in violation of the PDA if the health insurance it provides does not cover prescription contraceptives, regardless of whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes. The Enforcement Guidance does not address whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, certain employers may be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.

The guidance also addresses the obligations under the ADA to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations to address pregnancy-related limitations. Such accommodations may include:

  • redistributing marginal or nonessential functions – such as occasional lifting – that a pregnant worker cannot perform;

  • modifying workplace policies, such as to afford a pregnant employee more frequent breaks; 

    • allowing a pregnant employee placed on bed rest to work remotely (where

      feasible); or

    • granting leave to a pregnant employee in excess of what the employer typically provides under its sick leave policy.

      The final section of the Enforcement Guidance provides “best practices” that employers can utilize to reduce their exposure to pregnancy-related liability under the PDA and ADA. The EEOC suggests, as a general matter, that employers should:

    • develop, disseminate and enforce a strong policy based on the requirements of the PDA and ADA;

    • train managers and employees regularly about their rights and responsibilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions;

    • conduct employee surveys and review employment policies to identify and correct any policies or practices that may disadvantage women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, or that may perpetuate the effects of historical discrimination in the organization;

    • respond to pregnancy discrimination complaints efficiently and effectively; and

  • protect applicants and employees from retaliation.

    In light of the EEOC’s heightened emphasis on PDA and ADA enforcement, employers should consult counsel before undertaking employment actions that may implicate pregnancy-related protections under the PDA or ADA, and to evaluate whether revisions to existing employment policies are needed to limit exposure to pregnancy- related liability. 

ARTICLE BY

David I. Rosen
Galit Kierkut
Charles H. Kaplan
Damon Werner Silver
 
OF
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.