EEOC Releases Fiscal Year 2016 Enforcement and Litigation Data

Agency Adds Statistics Detailing LGBT Charges

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released detailed breakdowns for the 91,503 charges of workplace discrimination the agency received in fiscal year 2016. This is the second year in a row that the number of charges filed with EEOC has increased.

Overall, EEOC resolved 97,443 charges in fiscal year 2016 and secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination in private sector and state and local government workplaces through voluntary resolutions and litigation. The agency reduced the workload of pending charges by 3.8 percent to 73,508 -- the lowest pending charge workload in three years. The agency responded to over 585,000 calls to its toll-free number and more than 160,000 inquiries in field offices, reflecting the significant public demand for EEOC's services. EEOC has previously released fiscal year 2016 highlights.

This is the first year that EEOC has included detailed information about LGBT charges in its year-end summary.  EEOC resolved 1,650 charges and recovered $4.4 million for LGBT individuals who filed sex discrimination charges with EEOC in fiscal year 2016. Additionally, the data show a steady increase in the four years the agency has been collecting LGBT charge data. From fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016, nearly 4,000 charges were filed with EEOC by LGBT individuals alleging sex discrimination, and EEOC recovered $10.8 million for these individuals.

“EEOC advances opportunity for all of America’s workers and plays a critical role in helping employers build stronger workplaces,” said EEOC Chair Jenny Yang. “Despite the progress that has been made, we continue to see discrimination in both overt and subtle forms. The ongoing challenge of combating employment discrimination is what makes EEOC’s work as important as ever.”

Specifically, the charge numbers show the following breakdowns by bases alleged, in descending order:

• Retaliation: 42,018 (45.9 percent of all charges filed)
• Race: 32,309 (35.3 percent)
• Disability: 28,073 (30.7 percent)
• Sex: 26,934 (29.4 percent)
• Age: 20,857 (22.8 percent)
• National Origin: 9,840 (10.8 percent)
• Religion: 3,825 (4.2 percent)
• Color: 3,102 (3.4 percent)
• Equal Pay Act: 1,075 (1.2 percent)
• Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act: 238 (.3 percent)

These percentages add up to more than 100 because some charges allege multiple bases.

EEOC legal staff resolved 139 lawsuits and filed 86 lawsuits alleging discrimination in fiscal year 2016. The lawsuits filed by EEOC included 55 individual suits and 31 suits involving multiple victims or discriminatory policies. At the end of the fiscal year, EEOC had 168 cases on its active docket, of which 48 (28.6 percent) involve challenges to systemic discrimination and an additional 32 (19 percent) are multiple-victim cases. EEOC achieved a successful outcome in 90.6 percent of all suit resolutions.

EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

OFCCP Compliance Form Now Available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and French

OFCCP investigates complaints of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, and protected veteran status. Job applicants and employees of federal contractors may use the complaint form to report discrimination in hiring, pay, promotion, and other employment practices. Individuals may use this form, as well as organizations or groups filing on behalf of victims of employment discrimination.

Just yesterday, OFCCP posted the complaint form on its Web site in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and French to ensure that employees and job applicants with limited English proficiency, or whose primary language is not English, have the ability to report possible discrimination.

The complaint form, as most recently revised in August 2014, is available on OFCCP’s Web site at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/pdf/pdfstart.htm.

Source: OFCCP

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

DOJ and EEOC Sign Memorandum Of Understanding to Further the Goals of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Prohibiting Employment Discrimination in State and Local Governments

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division yesterday signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to further the goals of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in prohibiting employment discrimination in the state and local government sector. The signing ceremony took place on Monday, March 2, at DOJ's headquarters in Washington, D.C., and included remarks from Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division and EEOC Chair Jenny Yang.

EEOC and DOJ share enforcement authority for public sector employers under Title VII. The EEOC receives, investigates and mediates charges of discrimination against public employers. Where the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice has occurred, the agency works with the employer to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution to the charge. If conciliation of a charge fails, the EEOC refers the charge and its investigative file to DOJ, which has sole authority within the federal government to file a lawsuit against public employers under Title VII.

The MOU includes provisions for the coordination of the investigation of charges of discrimination on the basis of any characteristic protected by Title VII, while respecting the distinct responsibilities and enforcement priorities of each agency. Further, the MOU includes provisions for sharing information, as appropriate and to the extent allowable under law.
 
This MOU codifies a pilot project launched in 2009 by DOJ and EEOC. The pilot, which began with four of EEOC's district offices, has been expanded over the years and now includes the Chicago, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco District Offices, as well as the Washington, D.C. Field Office, among others. Over the years, the pilot has served to enhance the effectiveness of the nation's equal employment opportunity enforcement program in the public sector, ensuring the efficient use of resources and a consistent enforcement strategy.

"The MOU brings to life our vision to approach our shared Title VII enforcement responsibilities as a partnership," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Gupta. "It institutionalizes that partnership and provides a concrete framework for expanding our collaborations and increasing our effectiveness in protecting the employment rights of public sector workers."

"Our state and local governments provide essential services that affect all of us every day in every part of our lives," said EEOC Chair Yang. "One of the greatest tools that our public institutions have for inspiring trust and credibility in our communities is to ensure that all public employees enjoy equal opportunity at work. That is the significance of the MOU we sign today."

There have been several successful examples of the existing partnership between EEOC and DOJ, including the settlement of Murphy-Taylor v. State of Maryland, et al., a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit involving the Queen Anne's County Sheriff, in which the United States intervened; the settlement with the Board of Education, Berkeley School District 87, Cook County, Illinois, over religious accommodation discrimination; and a settlement with Clark County, Nevada, for wage discrimination and retaliation against an African-American female manager resulting in $179,000 in monetary relief.

The MOU is just one example of the enforcement partnership between the EEOC and DOJ. The agencies collaborate on several interagency taskforces and working groups, including the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, the National Equal Pay Enforcement Taskforce, the Curb Cuts to the Middle Class Initiative, the Task Force to Monitor and Combat Human Trafficking, the Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws, and most recently an interagency working group on police force diversity.

The MOU and information about Title VII and other federal employment laws is available on the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division's website or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's website.

Source: Department of Justice and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Applebee's franchiser sued for blocking discrimination charges

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued Doherty Enterprises Inc. for blocking new hires from filing discrimination charges. The New Jersey-based restaurant franchiser owns and operates 12 Applebee's in Palm Beach County.

A complaint from the federal agency said the company has made workers sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of employment since May 2013. The agreement, which the EEOC said could not have been enforced by the business, meant discrimination charges would have to be settled outside of court.

"When an employer forces all complaints about employment discrimination into confidential arbitration, it shields itself from federal oversight of its employment practices. This practice violates the law …" EEOC Regional Attorney Robert E. Weisberg said in a news release.

The arbitration agreement from Doherty Enterprises includes, according to the complaint:
I and Doherty Enterprises both agree that any claim, dispute and/or controversy (including but not limited to any claims of employment discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation) … shall be submitted and determined exclusively by binding arbitration … I understand that by agreeing to this binding arbitration provision, both I and Doherty Enterprises waive our rights to a trial by jury. I further understand that this binding arbitration agreement is a contract. However, it does not constitute a contract of employment as it does not cover any other terms and conditions of my employment.

The EEOC said the agreement was used for all hourly and managerial positions for its Applebee's locations in Florida.

In total, the company operates more than 140 franchise restaurants including Applebee's and Panera Bread throughout Florida, Georgia, New Jersey and New York.

The suit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court of Florida and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra.

Doherty Enterprises did not respond to our request for comment.

Source: South Florida Business Journal

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Judge Backs EEOC’s Right to Investigate Companywide Policy

Based on Applicant's Allegation That Company Required Unlawful Pre-Offer Health Questionnaire

 

A federal court has ordered KB Staffing, Inc., a staffing firm servicing central Florida, to comply with an administrative subpoena issued by the U.S. Equal Employ­ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. 

The subpoena, issued in December 2013, seeks informa­tion pertaining to a charge filed with the agency alleging that KB Staffing discriminated against current and prospective applicants for employment and/or employees because of improper health questionnaires.

The EEOC's litigation is based on the company's refusal to comply with a subpoena issued during the course of an investigation. The charge alleged that a job applicant was not hired for a position with KB Staffing because she refused to complete a pre-offer health questionnaire. Based on that, the EEOC charged the company with violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). KB Staffing argued that the EEOC's subpoena exceeded the scope of the charge and that the request for three years' worth of documents was too broad.

The court rejected KB Staffing's arguments, finding that the subpoena issued by the EEOC was within the agency's authority and was relevant to the charge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli wrote the recommendation, which was adopted in its entirety by U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on September 16, 2014.

"EEOC maintains the authority to investigate whether KB Staffing engaged in systemic discrimination when it used a pre-offer health questionnaire during its application process, despite the victim-specific relief it could pursue on the Charging Party's behalf and despite KB Staffing's assertion that it ceased use of the health questionnaire as of December 2012," the judge wrote (EEOC v. KB Staffing, LLC, No. 8:14-mc-41 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 28, 2014) (Report and Recommendation, A. Porcelli, M.J.).

The EEOC subpoena enforcement action was litigated by Supervisory Trial Attorney Kimberly A. Cruz and Trial Attorney Aarrin Golson, and the administrative investigation is being managed by Tampa Field Director Georgia Marchbanks.

"Systemic investigations are important to all charges handled by the EEOC, and the use of subpoenas is vital to carrying out those investigations" said Marchbanks. "We are pleased that the Magistrate and Judge gave us the go ahead to enforce our subpoena and continue our investigation."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Fort Myer Construction settles discrimination and harassment case

Fort Myer Construction Corp. has agreed to settle charges that it violated Executive Order 11246 by failing to provide equal employment opportunities to employees and job applicants at 413 construction sites in the D.C. metropolitan area.

An agreement reached by the federal contractor and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs resolves allegations that between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2010, the company discriminated against 27 qualified women and 136 qualified African Americans who applied for jobs as laborers, and unfairly terminated eight African American skilled laborers. It also resolves pay discrimination charges stemming from Fort Myer Construction's practice of assigning equally qualified workers performing the same jobs to projects paying different hourly rates, some with fewer work hours. This resulted in lower wages for 44 African American and 156 Hispanic laborers.

"Strong enforcement and vigilance are critical to opening doors of opportunity for more women and minorities in the construction industry, ensuring that all workers get an equal shot at getting to work on the highest-paying projects," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu.

OFCCP's investigation of Fort Myer Construction began in January 2011 during the agency's review of companies involved in constructing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's consolidated headquarters in southeastern D.C. Because that project is valued above $25 million and will last more than a year, this undertaking has been designated by the Labor Department as a Mega Construction Project, which is a priority area for OFCCP. More than 300 workers were interviewed over the course of the compliance evaluation, which focused on Fort Meyer Construction's employment practices in 2010.

"Getting those workers in the door and keeping them is going to take more than improved applicant tracking and better pay policies," said OFCCP Mid-Atlantic Regional Director Michele Hodge. "It's going to take a concerted effort by Fort Myer Construction's leadership to change a culture that devalues too many workers."

During their investigation, OFCCP compliance officers received more than 30 phone calls alerting them to charges of harassment, intimidation, threats and coercion at work. The agency discovered that supervisors at Fort Myer Construction used hostile and derogatory language toward African American and Hispanic employees, as well as a disabled veteran. The supervisors sexually harassed and tried to date female subordinates. African American women were locked out of restroom facilities and had feces left in their work trucks. A company vice president tried to interfere in OFCCP's investigation by discouraging Hispanic employees from talking to agency inspectors conducting an onsite review. Even a female investigator from OFCCP was subjected to inappropriate sexual jokes by a superintendent while at a Fort Myer Construction work site.

Under the terms of the settlement, Fort Myer Construction will pay $900,000 in back wages and interest to 371 class members and make job offers to seven women and 30 African Americans from that class as laborer positions become available. The company has also agreed to undertake extensive training and monitoring measures to ensure that all its employment practices – including hiring, termination and compensation – fully comply with the laws enforced by OFCCP.

D.C.-based Fort Myer Construction builds, repairs and maintains streets, roads, bridges and underground utilities. In 2010, the company received more than $400 million in federal funds for work on 155 construction projects in the D.C. area. Some of its largest contracts that year were with the U.S. Department of Transportation, General Services Administration, Navy Department, National Park Service and Smithsonian Institution.

Source: DOL

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Four Hawaii Farms Pays $2.4 Million To Settle National Origin and Retaliation Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

Additional Relief in the Form of Job Offers and Other Benefits Will Be Offered to Vulnerable Thai Laborers, Says Federal Agency

Three years after filing suit against farm labor contractor Global Horizons and six farms in Hawaii, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity announced the settlement of its pattern or practice national origin and race discrimination case with four farms - Mac Farms of Hawaii, LLC [nka MF Nut Co., LLC ("Mac Farms")], Kauai Coffee Company, Inc., [nka McBryde Resources, Inc. ("Kauai Coffee")], Kelena Farms, Inc. and Captain Cook Coffee Company, Ltd. The settlement encompasses monetary relief, options for jobs and benefits, housing, other reimbursements of expenses, and sweeping injunctive relief remedies benefitting about 500 Thai victims in the EEOC's case. This includes nearly 50 potential job offers.


In March 2014, U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi in Hawaii ruled that Beverly Hills-based Global Horizons is liable for the pattern or practice of harassing, discriminating, and retaliating against hundreds of Thai farm workers in the U.S. based on their national origin and race, in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC named the farms in Hawaii as defendants asserting that they were joint employers with the labor contractor, and liable due to the acts committed by Global Horizons. Global Horizons and Maui Pineapple Company remain as the only defendants left in the case.


Phirom Krinsoongnoen, one of the affected Thai farm workers, said, "We worked and lived under terrible conditions, treated like animals in a cage.  We were housed in an overcrowded place with a few rooms but many workers, and threatened almost daily.  I am grateful that the EEOC is here to help people like me."


The EEOC alleged that Thai farm workers were contracted through Global Horizons to work at the farms sometime between 2003 and 2007 under the H2-A temporary visa program which required the farm workers to be provided food and housing aside from pay for work performed. Exorbitant recruitment fees placed the Thai workers into a situation of debt bondage early on. Workers were then subjected to varying degrees of the denial or delay of pay, monitoring movements and confiscating passports, production quotas that non-Thai workers need not adhere to, denial of adequate food and water, and unsanitary, overcrowded living conditions. Those who complained of the pattern or practice of discrimination and harassment were retaliated against, with many forced to quit or flee as a result.


"This resolution reflects the Commission's redoubled effort to challenge discriminatory practices against the most vulnerable workers who often live and work in the shadows of the economy," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "This case strikes a blow at one of the root causes of human trafficking - discrimination based on prohibited bases."


The alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As part of the four consent decrees finalized today, Mac Farms will pay $1.6 million, Kauai Coffee will pay $425,000, Kelena Farms will pay $275,000 and Captain Cook Coffee will pay $100,000 directly to the victims. As such, the total direct monetary relief recovered is $2.4 million. In addition, Kelena Farms offered full-time jobs with generous benefits, profit-sharing & 401K plan options, while Captain Cook Coffee offered seasonal jobs, benefits, transportation and housing for workers during the term of their decrees. The offers extended by Kelena and Captain Cook, valued at nearly $4.9 million, add to the direct monetary settlements over the duration of the consent decrees. The EEOC will monitor the terms of the job offers.


Sweeping injunctive relief in all of these consent decrees will ensure that farms and farm labor contractors (FLCs) disseminate policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination to their local work force and to H2-A guest workers in a language they understand; conduct audits to ensure FLC compliance with the consent decree; designate a corporate compliance officer for oversight of FLCs and Title VII compliance; train managers, supervisors, and employees on their obligations under Title VII; and, report to the EEOC and maintain records.


"Today's announcement serves as a reminder to the agricultural industry to remain ever-vigilant in hiring and monitoring farm labor contractors," said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC's Los Angeles District. "We all have a responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable workers are not denied basic human dignity and life-sustaining water and food. Farms and farm labor contractors - and the supervisors that represent them - must ensure workers' civil rights remain intact, no matter their race or the country they come from."


The lawsuit in Hawaii was initially filed in April 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc. d/b/a Global Horizons Manpower, Inc., Captain Cook Coffee Co., Ltd., Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc., Kauai Coffee Company, Inc., Kelena Farms, Inc., Mac Farms of Hawaii, LLC, Maui Pineapple Co., et al, Case No. CV-11-00257-LEK-RLP). Del Monte Farm Fresh already settled for $1.2 million in November 2013.


The trial against Global Horizons in Hawaii is now set for November 18 to determine the amount of money the company will pay as well as the measures required to prevent future abuses. The case against Maui Pineapple Company - the only Hawaii farm left in the case - is ongoing.


Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Seeks Public Input on Regulations Requiring Federal Agencies to Be ‘Model Employers’ of Individuals with Disabilities

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it is inviting public input on potential revisions to the regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a law that governs employment of individuals with disabilities by the federal government.

Current Section 501 regulations prohibit employment discrimination based on disability and explain the standards for determining whether discrimination has occurred. The regulations also impose a separate obligation on federal agencies to be "model employers" of individuals with disabilities, but do not explain what federal agencies must do to comply with this obligation.

The Commission is proposing to revise its regulations to include a more detailed explanation of the model employer obligation. Before it publishes a proposed regulation, however, the Commission is issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that seeks comments from members of the public on what the amended regulations should say.

The EEOC welcomes input from federal agencies, individuals, employers, advocacy groups, agency stakeholders, and other interested parties. The Commission is specifically seeking answers to seven questions listed in the announcement, such as what barriers exist to the hiring, retention, and advancement of individuals with disabilities in the federal government, what regulatory requirements could eliminate these barriers, and whether numerical goals should be established for the employment of people with disabilities by the federal government. The ANPRM is now available on the Federal Register website at https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2014-11233. Responses to the ANPRM must be submitted by 5:00 pm EDT on Monday, July 14, 2014.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Social Media Is Part of Today’s Workplace but its Use May Raise Employment Discrimination Concerns

Experts Tell EEOC That Use of Social Media by Employers, Applicants and Employees May Implicate the Laws EEOC Enforces

The use of social media has become pervasive in today's workplace and, as a result, is having an impact on the enforcement of federal laws, a panel of experts told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a meeting held today at EEOC Headquarters in Washington. The meeting was convened to gather information about the growing use of social media and how it impacts the laws the EEOC enforces.

"The increasing use of social media in the 21st century workplace presents new opportunities as well as questions and concerns," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "This meeting has helped the EEOC understand how social media is being used in the employment context and what impact it may have on the laws we enforce and on our mission to stop and remedy discriminatory practices in the workplace."

Jonathan Segal, speaking on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), explained that employers use different types of social media for several different reasons: employee engagement and knowledge-sharing, such as having a corporate Facebook page or blog to keep employees in far-flung offices aware of new programs or policies; marketing to clients, potential customers and crisis management; and for recruitment and hiring of new employees. In fact, SHRM surveyed its members over several years and found that 77 percent of companies surveyed reported in 2013 that they used social networking sites to recruit candidates, up from 34 percent in 2008.

The use of sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook can provide a valuable tool for identifying good candidates by searching for specific qualifications, panelists told the Commission. But the improper use of information obtained from such sites may be discriminatory since most individuals' race, gender, general age and possibly ethnicity can be discerned from information on these sites.

Renee Jackson of Nixon Peabody LLP, who counsels corporations, said that social media should be one of many tools used in recruitment, in order to cast a wide net for potential candidates. To the extent that employers conduct a social media background check, it is better to have either a third party or a designated person within the company who does not make hiring decisions do the check, and only use publicly available information, not requesting passwords for social media accounts. In fact, as several panelists noted, there already exist four states with laws prohibiting employers from requesting passwords and user names from applicants/employees, a number of other states have such laws pending, and there are several proposals before Congress to do the same on a federal level.

The hiring process is not the only time that social media becomes relevant in the employment context. Lynne Bernabei, of Bernabei & Wachtel PLLC, who litigates on the plaintiffs' side, explained how use of personal social media accounts could figure into situations of workplace harassment. Even if employees post harassing or derogatory information about coworkers away from the workplace, for example, an employer may be liable for a hostile work environment if it was aware of the postings, or if the harassing employee was using employer-owned devices or accounts. "The issue is further complicated as more employers use a 'Bring Your Own Device' policy, in which they require or expect employees to use personal laptops, smartphones, or other technology while on the job," Bernabei observed.

The other major area addressed by witnesses was the increased use of social media as a source of discovery in employment discrimination litigation, even where housed on third-party sites. Rita Kittle, a Senior Trial Attorney in EEOC's Denver Field Office, warned, however, that the increased effort to access private social media communications may have a chilling effect on persons seeking to exercise their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws.

The EEOC has addressed some of the issues surrounding the use of social media, Acting Associate Legal Counsel Carol Miaskoff testified. In one reported decision arising from the federal sector, EEOC's Office of Federal Operations found that a claim of racial harassment due to a co-worker's Facebook postings could go forward. Additionally, in response to a letter from Senators Charles Schumer and Richard Blumenthal, the EEOC reiterated its long-standing position that personal information-such as that gleaned from social media postings-may not be used to make employment decisions on prohibited bases, such as race, gender, national origin, color, religion, age, disability or genetic information. Quoting from a 2010 informal discussion letter from the EEOC, Miaskoff noted that "the EEO laws do not expressly permit or prohibit use of specified technologies. . . . The key question . . . is how the selection tools are used."

Commissioner Victoria Lipnic, who helped organize the meeting, said: "As policymakers and regulators, it is our challenge, and I believe our responsibility, to do all that we can to ensure that our interpretation and administration of the laws within our charge are as current and fully-informed as possible."

The Commission will hold open the Social Media Commission meeting record for 15 days, and invites audience members, as well as other members of the public, to submit written comments on any issues or matters discussed at the meeting. Public comments may be mailed to Commission Meeting, EEOC Executive Officer, 131 M Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20507, or emailed to: Commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov.

The public comments submitted will be made available to members of the Commission and to Commission staff working on the matters discussed at the meeting. In addition, comments may be publicly disclosed on the EEOC's public website, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, or in the Commission's library. By providing public comments in response to this solicitation, commenters are consenting to their use and consideration by the Commission and to their public dissemination. Accordingly, commenters should not include any information in submitted comments that they would not want made public, e.g., home address, telephone number, etc. Also note that when comments are submitted by e-mail, the sender's e-mail address automatically appears on the message.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues Izza Bending Tube & Wire for Retaliation over Race Bias Complaint

Agency Says Buffalo, Minn., Company Manager Told to Get Rid of Worker Because of Race

A Buffalo, Minn., metal services company violated federal law by demoting and then firing a production manager for refusing to discriminate against an African-American employee because of his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed.

According to the EEOC's suit against Izza Bending Tube & Wire, Inc., in August 2011, Myrna Peltonen recommended to Scott Landgraf, Izza's manager, that the firm offer permanent employment to Randall Smith, a temporary employee who had worked for the company successfully for 500 hours. Landgraf allegedly instructed her not to hire Smith, using derogatory racist language, and directed her to get rid of him. When she refused to do so, she was demoted to an office position and her salary was cut. After she filed a discrimination charge with EEOC, she was laid off and then terminated.

Retaliation for opposing employment discrimination or for filing a charge with the EEOC violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Izza Bending Tube & Wire, Inc., Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-02570, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

John Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District, which includes Minnesota, said, "Federal law protects individuals who oppose on-the-job practices they reasonably believe are unlawful as well as those who file charges with EEOC. Challenging retaliatory discharges helps to make sure the system which the law provides for dealing with discrimination not only survives but actually works."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "Retaliation charges continue to be among the most common kind received by the EEOC. They pose a continuing challenge for us -- and one we are absolutely determined to meet." 
 
In this case, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief that will require Izza to adopt an effective anti-retaliation policy that complies with federal law and will seek back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for Peltonen.

The EEOC's legal team in Minneapolis Area Office will conduct the litigation under the management of the agency's Chicago District Office. That office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Izza specializes in metal manufacturing and fabrication services, including metal pipe bending and cutting.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against Texas Bus Company Alleging Employment Discrimination Against U.S. Citizens and Other Individuals

The Justice Department announced the filing of a lawsuit with the Executive Office of Immigration Review’s Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), against Autobuses Ejecutivos LLC, d/b/a Omnibus Express, a bus company based in Houston.

The complaint alleges Omnibus Express violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) anti-discrimination provision by preferring to hire temporary nonimmigrant visa holders over U.S. citizens, certain lawful permanent residents and other protected individuals for bus driver positions. Specifically, the complaint states that from at least September 2012 to February 2013, Omnibus Express failed to consider the applications of many qualified U.S. citizens and other protected individuals, or actively discouraged them from pursuing their applications, while at the same time petitioning the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for permission to hire up to 50 foreign workers on H-2B visas. The H-2B program allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs when there are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing or qualified to do the temporary work. The complaint further alleges that Omnibus Express hired 42 H-2B workers during this period, and in doing so, represented to the DOL and USCIS that there were not enough qualified workers in the United States to fill the 50 bus driver positions. The complaint seeks an order prohibiting future discrimination by Omnibus Express, civil penalties, back pay for injured parties and injunctive relief. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring against certain workers based on their citizenship status.

 

“The nation’s current immigration law protects individuals in the United States, such as U.S. citizens, certain lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, from unlawful discrimination in hiring based on their citizenship status,” said Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We are committed to enforcing the INA so that work-authorized individuals have equal access to employment in the United States.”

 

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against work-authorized individuals on the basis of citizenship status or national origin in hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee.

 

Source: DOJ

 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

 

Congress seeks job discrimination ban based on sexual orientation or gender identity

Legislation that would bar employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity was introduced in Congress today.

What? Isn't that kind of employment discrimination already illegal?

Not in much of the U.S. There's no federal law prohibiting it. In 29 states, it's legal for an employer to refuse to hire somebody -- or fire them -- because they are gay. In 34 states, transgender people can legally be discriminated against at the workplace.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., thinks that situation must end, so he and Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., have reintroduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers or job applicants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin and disability already is illegal under federal law.

"It is shocking that there is still anywhere in America where it is legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Merkley said.

ENDA has been kicking around for years, but supporters think the legislation finally has a shot at getting enacted this year. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee plans to mark up the bill in May or June, setting the bill up for action by the full Senate this summer -- just in time for the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on two gay marriage cases.

That timing should work in the bill's favor, said Tico Almeida, president of Freedom To Work. Gay marriage will gets lots of media coverage. Opponents will argue that they're just trying to protect the institution of marriage -- they don't believe in discriminating against gays and lesbians. This will give ENDA supporters a chance to "call their bluffs," Almeida said. If you don't believe in discrimination, then extend workplace protections to gays, lesbians and transgender people.

If ENDA passes the Senate, then the battle goes to the House, where Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have introduced the bill. Republicans leaders aren't likely to bring the bill up for a vote, given opposition to it by many of their members. But Almeida thinks a big win in the Senate could provide momentum for a campaign to persuade a majority of House members to sign a discharge petition for the bill, which would force a vote on the bill.

Most Fortune 500 companies already have policies in place prohibiting employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender people. Many of them, ranging from Alcoa to Yahoo!, have endorsed ENDA.

Washington's most powerful business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have declined to take a position on ENDA in the past, and likely will do so again this time around.
That's actually good news, Almeida said, because business groups usually oppose legislation that expands workplace rights.

"The chamber's neutrality is a victory," he said.

Lack of opposition by business groups should make more Republicans comfortable with voting for the legislation, Almeida said.

The biggest downside for businesses is that ENDA could lead to more discrimination lawsuits. Nearly 100,000 charges were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last year, most citing racial or sexual discrimination.

Businesses with fewer than 15 employees, however, would be exempt from ENDA, as would religious institutions and the military.

But the religious exemption wouldn't cover a business owner who has moral objections to homosexuality and doesn't want gays working at his or her company. They'd have to swallow their prejudices and treat everybody the same.

Equality's something, ain't it?

Source: Washington Bureau 

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Owner of Detroit-Area Comfort Inn & Suites to Pay $27,500 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Bias Suit

Ramin Inc., the owner of a Comfort Inn & Suites in Taylor, Mich., will pay $27,500 to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit (EEOC v. Ramin, Inc., 2012-cv-15015) filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

According to the EEOC's suit, Ramin fired a housekeeper after she reported her pregnancy to them. Management stated it could not allow the employee to continue to work as a housekeeper because of the potential harm to the development of her baby, the EEOC said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), protects female employees against discrimination based on pregnancy. Under the statute, an employer may not exclude pregnant women from employment based on the employer's supposed concerns about the safety of the mother or unborn fetus. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In a consent decree filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the company agreed to pay $2,500 in back pay and $25,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, Ramin agreed to a permanent injunction enjoining it from discriminating against an employee due to her pregnancy or requiring a pregnant employee to provide medical documents that releases her to work. The decree requires that Ramin provide training to all of its managerial and non-managerial employees on sex and pregnancy discrimination; draft a new employee policy regarding sex and pregnancy discrimination; post a notice regarding the suit for all employees; and report to the EEOC for four years. The injunction, training, policy revisions, and EEOC monitoring constitute targeted, equitable relief that aims to prevent similar violations in the future.
 
As detailed in its Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016, the EEOC has made obtaining targeted, equitable relief one of its top priorities.

"This is a favorable resolution for everyone," explained EEOC Trial Attorney Lauren Gibbs Burstein. "We appreciate that Ramin worked with us to resolve this case before we had to engage in lengthy discovery and litigation proceedings."

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Sues QSI / Stellar Management Group for Sex Discrimination

Stellar Management Group, Inc., doing business as QSI, a contract sanitations services company that provides sanitation services to meat processing facilities in middle Georgia, violated federal law when it fired a female supervisor because of her sex, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC's suit, Civil Action No., 5:13-tc-05000, filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, the employee was promoted by QSI in or around December 2010 to a sanitation supervisor position. The employee was QSI's only female supervisor and her cleaning team was assigned to work at the Perdue chicken plant in Perry, Ga. According to the EEOC, QSI's area manager stated that he wanted to terminate the employee because, he said, women did not belong in supervisory positions. In late October 2011, the employee missed three days of work due to a personal legal matter. The EEOC said that her time off work was initially approved by company management. However, on Nov. 3, 2011, QSI fired her for allegedly failing to inform the company of her whereabouts during her absence. The EEOC also said that immediately after the female employee was fired, QSI placed a male supervisor in her position.

Employment discrimination based on sex is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. As part of the suit, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the company from engaging in any further employment practices that discriminate on the basis of gender.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Wins Second Victory Against RadioShack in Retaliation Case

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won another victory in federal court in Denver on Feb. 27 in its employment discrimination lawsuit against major communications equipment retailer RadioShack. Judge Lewis Babcock entered a judgment for a variety of relief, including back pay in accordance with a September jury verdict, liquidated damages, front pay, and an additional award to offset the increased taxes that will be incurred as a result of receiving the entire award in a lump sum of approximately $675,000.

According to the EEOC's suit, in the fall of 2007, David Nelson, then 55, had been employed for more than 25 years when RadioShack assigned a new, 43-year-old regional manager to supervise him. Within four months of the new supervisor's arrival at the regional office in Denver, Nelson, who had a spotless performance record, was placed on two "performance improvement plans." Nelson believed that he was being discriminated against by his new supervisor because of his age and he complained to the human resources department about the discrimination. Within five days of the first complaint, and before the period for assessing the improvement in his performance had expired, RadioShack fired Nelson in retaliation for his discrimination complaint.

The lawsuit, EEOC v. RadioShack, Civil Action #10-cv-02365, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, charged age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In September, 2012, a Denver jury awarded Nelson $187,706 in back pay on the retaliation claim and found that this conduct by RadioShack was willful. On February 27, 2013, Federal Court Judge Lewis T. Babcock held an evidentiary hearing on the EEOC's motion seeking front pay in lieu of reinstatement, as well as an award to offset the increased tax burden that Nelson will face as a result of receiving the entire judgment in a lump sum. Judge Babcock ruled that Nelson was entitled to liquidated damages of $187,706, front pay damages of $199,470, and an additional $101,657 to offset the increased tax burden. In total, the judgment is for $674,938.

"The Commission is dedicated to the enforcement of all the anti-discrimination laws and, if necessary, will try the cases," said EEOC General Counsel Patrick Lopez. "This is the latest in a series of Commission trial victories nationwide."

Rita Kittle, supervisory trial attorney for the EEOC's Denver Field Office, who tried the case for the EEOC, said, "It is particularly important for the EEOC to vigorously enforce the anti-retaliation provisions in the employment discrimination laws. If employees do not feel comfortable coming forward when they feel they are being discriminated against, the very purpose of the anti-discrimination statutes is eviscerated."

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney William (Bill) Moench, who tried the case with Kittle, added, "We are heartened that the jury saw RadioShack's retaliatory behavior for what it was, and that Judge Babcock was willing to award damages over and above the back pay loss so that Mr. Nelson can be made whole, and be able to look forward to some semblance of the retirement plans he had before he was fired." 
 
According to company information, Fort Worth-based RadioShack employs 32,000 people globally. RadioShack's retail network includes approximately 4,700 company-operated stores in the United States and Mexico, 1,500 wireless phone centers in the United States, and approximately 1,100 dealers and other outlets worldwide.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

Staffing Firm Must Answer EEOC Subpoena

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal appeals court ordered Aerotek, Inc., one of the nation's largest staffing firms, to comply with a subpoena EEOC issued more than three years ago in September 2009. The subpoena seeks information pertaining to charges filed with the agency alleging that Aerotek discriminated against employees in the workplace.

Noting that Aerotek has "continuously refused to comply" with several components of a subpoena EEOC issued in 2009, the Seventh Circuit ordered Aerotek to finally respond. The court found that Aerotek waived its right to object to the subpoena by failing to comply with EEOC regulations which impose a deadline for such objections. The court also reminded Aerotek that "the oversight role of federal courts in subpoena enforcement proceedings is 'sharply limited.'" The court also reiterated its stance that it was not the job of the appellate or the district court to assess the underlying merits of charges of discrimination - leaving that assessment to be made by EEOC. EEOC v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 11-1349 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013). At the time of the appeal, the Chicago District Office was investigating charges of discrimination filed against Aerotek.

"Aerotek has spent significant time and resources fighting the September 2009 subpoena," noted Jack Rowe, director of the EEOC's Chicago District Office. "It ignored the EEOC's determination that the subpoena was valid, as well as the district court's determination that EEOC acted within its authority to investigate allegations of discrimination. This is a reminder that no matter how many times EEOC investigations are challenged, we will remain committed to our congressional mandate to investigate and ferret out discrimination."

To read the full article, click here.

Source: EEOC

This information is intended to be educational and should not be considered legal advice on any specific matter.

EEOC Approves Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016

From the EEOC website:

WASHINGTON – In a public meeting on February 22, 2012, at agency headquarters, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. The Strategic Plan establishes a framework for achieving the EEOC’s mission to stop and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, so that the nation might soon realize the Commission’s vision of justice and equality in the workplace. Implementation of the new Strategic Plan will begin in March 2012.

“In approving the Strategic Plan, the EEOC today is taking a significant step toward realizing the Commission’s vision of ending employment discrimination and promoting equal opportunity in the American workplace,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “I am very pleased with the hard work of staff across the agency who provided assistance throughout the planning process, and I look forward to the successful implementation of the plan.”

As an example of the plan’s proposed outcomes, the Strategic Law Enforcement objective includes the development of a new strategic enforcement plan to better leverage the Commission’s resources to “stop and remedy unlawful employment discrimination” and to build on its existing systemic program to remedy discrimination against large numbers of individuals or where the discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.

The Commission will hold open the Feb. 22, 2012 Commission meeting record for 15 days, and invites audience members, as well as other members of the public, to submit written comments on any issues or matters discussed at the meeting. Public comments may be mailed to Commission Meeting, EEOC Executive Officer, 131 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507, or e-mailed to Commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov. All comments received will be made available to members of the Commission and to Commission staff working on the matters discussed at the meetings. Comments will also be placed in the EEOC library for public review.


Click here to read the full press release