On July 13, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released a proposed revised Employer Information Report (EEO-1) (“Proposed Revision”). This slightly changes the original EEOC proposal to add compensation and hours worked data to the EEO-1 Report. An example of the proposed EEO-1 report can be found here. The
EEOC Releases Proposed Guidance on National Origin Discrimination
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is working to check off another initiative from its Strategic Enforcement Plan, having released for public comment an updated draft of its “Enforcement Guidance on National Origin Discrimination.” The enforcement guidance frames out the agency’s policy for addressing national origin claims under Title VII of the Civil Right Act
EEOC Issues Final Rules on Wellness Programs
On May 16, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued final regulations regarding employers’ use of wellness programs. Such programs seek to promote healthy behavior by employees, often through financial incentives such as reduced healthcare benefits premiums or reduced gym membership costs. The EEOC rules amend existing regulations under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
EEOC Proposes Addition of Pay Data to EEO-1 Reports
On January 29, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a proposed revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1). The proposed revision to the EEO-1 would require employers to report data on the EEO-1 regarding their employees’ W-2 earnings and hours worked.
Currently, employers report on the EEO-1 their employees’ race, ethnicity and sex
EEOC Releases Draft Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Claims of Retaliation
On January 21, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued proposed enforcement guidance concerning retaliation claims. This guidance is intended to replace the 1998 Compliance Manual on Retaliation, and, not surprisingly, the guidance takes a broader view than many of the cases that have been decided since then.
The guidance makes clear that the
Woman Wearing a Headscarf for Religious Reasons Wins Before The Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 1, 2015 decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. __ (2015), signals to employers that employment decisions based upon neutral policies may run afoul of Title VII, where the policy’s application limits an individual’s religious beliefs or practices. Such is the case even when the individual
EEOC Signals New Enforcement Priority: Sexual Orientation
On October 9th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed an amicus brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago seeking reconsideration of the court’s decision to affirm the dismissal of a plaintiff’s sexual orientation discrimination/harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court had dismissed the plaintiff’s
First Blow to EEOC’s Effort to Enforce Broad Criminal Background Check Rules under Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination
Following last year’s issuance by the EEOC of controversial criminal background check guidelines, the EEOC has filed a number of lawsuits attempting to enforce these guidelines. Late last week, Judge Roger Titus, United States District Court District of Maryland, dismissed the lawsuit EEOC filed against Freeman, holding that the EEOC failed to present a prima
EEOC Issues Guidelines on Criminal Background Checks
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has just issued new Guidelines on employers’ use of criminal records to make employment decisions. Despite the opposition of employer groups, its guidelines represent a significant restriction upon what the EEOC thinks employers can do, and how employers can justify to the EEOC their use of
EEOC Investigates Practice of Hiring Only Currently Employed Applicants
Not content with managing its current workload, the EEOC is looking for new theories of discrimination. It held a hearing yesterday to consider whether employers may be refusing to consider job applicants who are unemployed, and then whether that “practice” might amount to discrimination. The argument would go something like: minorities have a higher unemployment