OFCCP Updates Sex Discrimination Rule

On June 14, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced publication of a Final Rule in the Federal Register that sets forth the requirements that covered contractors must meet under the provisions of Executive Order 11246 prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. This Final Rule updates sex discrimination guidelines from 1970 with new regulations that align with current law and address the realities of today’s workplaces. The Final Rule deals with a variety of sex–based barriers to equal employment and fair pay, including compensation discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environments, failure to provide workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, and gender identity and family caregiving discrimination.

The Final Rule became effective on August 15, 2016.

Read the Fact Sheet

Comcast Corporation settles charges of sex and race discrimination

Company will pay nearly $190K in back wages and interest to 96 former and current female employees and 100 minority job applicants; reform hiring practices

Comcast Corporation has entered into a conciliation agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to resolve allegations of sex and race discrimination.

OFCCP investigators determined that between March 2006 and September 2007 in Everett, Washington, Comcast violated Executive Order 11246 by steering 96 women into lower-paying positions that assisted customers with cable services rather than higher-paid positions providing customer assistance for Internet services because these positions were considered "technical."

Investigators also established that Comcast disproportionately rejected 100 African American, Asian, and Hispanic applicants for call center jobs because its hiring tests were neither uniformly applied nor validated as related to the job. This resulted in systemic hiring discrimination on the basis of race. Comcast Corporation is a federal contractor.

"Sex-based compensation discrimination and race-based hiring discrimination are not only illegal, they also hurt our economy," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "We cannot build an economy that works for everyone by depriving women and minorities of opportunities to get ahead."

The notices of violation were issued March 22, 2011. After a lengthy conciliation process, an agreement was reached on April 30, 2015. The agreement requires Comcast to:

• Pay a total of $53,633.48 in back pay and interest to 96 current and former female employees;
• Pay $133,366.52 in back pay and interest to 100 African-American, Asian and Hispanic applicants; and
• Hire up to 31 members of the affected class as call center positions become available, to immediately correct any discriminatory practices, and to undertake self-monitoring measures to ensure that all compensation practices fully comply with the law.

The Comcast Corporation is a global media and technology company. It is also the largest provider of video, high-speed Internet, and phone services to residential customers in the United States. The company also provides these services to business customers and in federal facilities and installations.

Source: DOL

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

Company Refused to Hire Any Women, Federal Agency Charged

Unit Drilling Company, a nationwide oil drilling company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. The EEOC had alleged that Unit Drilling refused to hire any women nationwide on its oil rigs.

According to the EEOC's suit, when women applied for jobs at Unit Drilling, they were told that the company did not hire women. Rejected female applicants testified that they were told by Unit employees that the company did not hire women because it only had "man camps," that women were "too pretty" and that their presence would "distract the men," the EEOC said.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After unsuccessfully trying to settle the case through its pre-trial conciliation process, the EEOC sued Unit Drilling on Sept. 28, 2012 in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, and the case was transferred to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma at the request of Unit Drilling (EEOC v. Unit Drilling Company,13-cv-00147-TCK-PJC).

On the eve of trial, Unit Drilling and the EEOC signed a consent decree resolving the case, and Tulsa Federal Court Judge Terence C. Kern signed and entered the decree today. Under the decree, Unit Drilling will pay $400,000 to five women whom, the EEOC alleges, Unit Drilling refused to hire because they are women. In addition, Unit Drilling will change its policies, provide training against sex discrimination, post anti-discrimination notices, and provide detailed hiring information to the EEOC, which will monitor Unit Drilling's compliance with the decree.

"Hiring discrimination is a very high priority issue for the EEOC," said the district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, Rayford Irvin. "Our investigation showed that women have not been able to get in the door to be considered or hired at Unit Drilling. This complete refusal to consider or hire any women is a blatant violation of federal law. Employers need to consider all applicants for all jobs."

EEOC Regional Attorney Mary O'Neill said, "The women in this case were qualified and interested in working on oil rigs as floor hands in order to support themselves and their families. It is shocking that in these times - over 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became law - qualified women were not even considered for these high-paying jobs simply because of their gender. We expect that this settlement will make Unit Drilling change its practices and finally consider and hire qualified women on its rigs."

Source: EEOC

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

OFCCP and EEOC Press Forward on Key Public Policy Issues

SHRM participated in two key agency activities in the past week: submitting comments to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on their proposal to update 40-year old sex discrimination guidelines and testifying before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the importance of diversity and inclusion in the modern workplace.

On April 14, SHRM submitted comments to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) proposal to revise its sex discrimination guidelines under Executive Order 11246. SHRM supports updating the guidelines, which are more than 40 years old, to reflect statutory amendments to Title VII and binding judicial interpretations of the law. Unfortunately, the proposal exceeds this objective by including unsupported theories of discrimination and categorically labeling some conduct as per se unlawful without any legal basis or authority.

In addition to pointing out that OFCCP does not have the authority to promulgate interpretive regulations that have the full force and effect of law, as they attempt to do with this proposal, the comment also makes several recommendations to the agency:

·   In light of the March 25 Supreme Court ruling in Young v. United Parcel Service, OFCCP should refrain from incorporating EEOC’s recently-released pregnancy guidance which was invalidated by the Court in Young;

 

·    Revise the NPRM to make clear that the examples used represent conduct that might be discriminatory under certain circumstances, rather than presenting them as per se unlawful;

·     Clarify that not all sex-referent job titles, such as “foreman,” constitute discrimination;

·     Remove the section on discriminatory compensation because compensation discrimination is already identified as a prohibited activity. As currently written, the NPRM implies that Executive Order 11246 and Title VII mandate across-the-board pay equity even when legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons justify pay differentials;

·    Issue separate guidance on gender identity and sexual orientation, which were included in Executive Order 11246 as separate bases for discrimination, rather than including them as a subset of sex discrimination.

At an April 15 meeting titled “EEOC at 50: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the 21st Century Workplace” held at Miami Dade College, SHRM member Iliana Castillo-Frick (who serves as Vice-Provost of HR at the college and is pictured above at left with EEOC chair Jenny Yang), testified on SHRM’s behalf. The meeting marked the first public meeting held by the Commission outside of Washington, D.C. in more than a decade. The meeting focused on identifying the obstacles that remain to combating racial and ethnic discrimination 50 years after the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. SHRM’s testimony focused on how modern concepts of diversity have evolved beyond affirmative action and how diversity and inclusion programs help organizations build a skill-based workforce.

- See more at: http://www.shrm.org/advocacy/governmentaffairsnews/hrissuesupdatee-newsletter/pages/042015_2.aspx?

Source: SHRM Government Issues Monthly Newsletter

 

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

DOJ Files Lawsuit Alleging Southeastern Oklahoma State University Discriminated Against Transgender Woman

The Justice Department announced today the filing of a lawsuit against Southeastern Oklahoma State University (Southeastern) and the Regional University System of Oklahoma (RUSO) for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against a transgender employee on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her when she complained about the discrimination. Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute's protection to claims based on an individual's gender identity, including transgender status.

According to the United States' complaint, filed in federal district court in Oklahoma City today, Rachel Tudor began working for Southeastern as an Assistant Professor in 2004. At the time of her hire, Tudor presented as a man. In 2007, Tudor, consistent with her gender identity, began to present as a woman at work. Throughout her employment, Tudor performed her job well, and in 2009, she applied for a promotion to the tenured position of Associate Professor. Southeastern's administration denied her application, overruling the recommendations of her department chair and other tenured faculty from her department. The United States' complaint alleges that Southeastern discriminated against Tudor when it denied her application because of her gender identity, gender transition and non-conformance with gender stereotypes.

"By standing beside Dr. Tudor, the Department of Justice sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We will not allow unfair biases and unjust prejudices to prevent transgender Americans from reaching their full potential as workers and as citizens. And we will continue to work tirelessly, using every legal tool available, to ensure that transgender individuals are guaranteed the rights and protections that all Americans deserve."

In 2010, Tudor filed complaints regarding the denial of her application for promotion and tenure. Shortly after it learned of her complaints, Southeastern refused to let Tudor re-apply for promotion and tenure despite Southeastern's own policies permitting re-application. At the end of the 2010-11 academic year, Southeastern and RUSO terminated Tudor's employment because she had not obtained tenure.

Tudor filed a charge of discrimination with the Oklahoma City Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Southeastern's decisions were unlawful. The EEOC investigated the charge and determined that there was reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. The EEOC's attempts at conciliation were unsuccessful, and it referred the matter to the Department of Justice.

This lawsuit was brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a joint effort to enhance collaboration between the EEOC and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division for vigorous enforcement of Title VII.

"This is a tremendous example of how collaboration between EEOC and the Department of Justice leads to strong and coordinated enforcement of Title VII," said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. "This case furthers the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan, which includes coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII's sex discrimination provisions as a national enforcement priority."

"The American workplace must be a level playing field free from discrimination - a place where employees compete based on their merit," said Director Holly Waldron Cole of the EEOC's Oklahoma City Area Office. "Here, the decisions about Dr. Tudor's employment should have been based on her qualifications, not on impermissible bias and stereotype."

"The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including transgender Americans," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "Discrimination against employees because of their gender identity, gender transition, or because they do not conform to stereotypical notions about how men and women should act or appear violates Title VII. Retaliating against an employee for complaining about unlawful discrimination, as happened in this case, is also unacceptable under Title VII." 
 
As alleged in the complaint, Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination because of gender identity or because an employee has completed a gender transition or is undertaking a gender transition. Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because her behavior or appearance does not conform to traditional gender stereotypes. In addition, Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees, like Tudor, who lodge complaints about discriminatory treatment. Through its lawsuit, the United States seeks both monetary and injunctive relief.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in December 2014 that the Department of Justice takes the position that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination is best read to extend the statute's protection to claims based on an individual's gender identity, including transgender status.

Source: EEOC

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

That Was Then. This Is Now.

The Labor Department announced a plan on January 28, 2015 to modernize outdated guidelines on sex discrimination. The proposal addresses a myriad of issues from sexual harassment, pay discrimination and pregnancy accommodations to safeguards for transgender workers and combating hostile work environments. Donna Lenhoff, a civil rights specialist at the Department of Labor, discusses the need for these new rules.

In 1970, less than 0ne-third of married women with children under the age of six participated in the labor force. Today, that figure has more than doubled.

In 1970, some states had “protective laws” that explicitly barred women from certain jobs or, for example, prohibited women from continuing to work once they became pregnant. Employers would advertise jobs in sex-segregated newspaper columns – women’s work separate from men’s work. And it was not uncommon for employers to make their female employees retire at earlier ages than their male counterparts.

In 1970, the Supreme Court had not yet recognized that sex stereotyping and sexually hostile work environments could constitute unlawful sex discrimination. Congress had not yet enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, requiring employers to treat pregnancy the same as other conditions that similarly affect a person’s ability to work.

And in 1970, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs adopted its Sex Discrimination Guidelines under Executive Order 11246, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment by federal contractors and subcontractors.

Those guidelines have not been substantially updated since 1970.

Click to view the full-size timeline of laws about sex discrimination in the workplace.

 

OFCCP’s guidelines were designed to address laws and employment practices as they existed 45 years ago. They read almost like a history textbook, a relic of our past. They certainly do not address the changes to the law that have occurred since they were written, nor the barriers to equal opportunity and fair pay that women continue to face in the workplace today.

Today, women who work full-time earn only 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. Sex segregation remains widespread; women are underrepresented in higher-level and more senior jobs. Women still report that they have been discriminated against because of pregnancy. Assumptions that family caregiving responsibilities will interfere with work performance still limit opportunities. Sexual harassment remains pervasive, especially in jobs that are not considered traditional for women.

Progress has been happening on all these fronts – in courtrooms and city halls and state legislative chambers across the country. In the past year alone, Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and West Virginia have enacted legislation requiring employers to provide accommodations, such as stools to sit on or light-duty assignments, to pregnant workers.

Now, it’s time – past time, really – for us to do our part. We announced a proposal to finally revise OFCCP’s Sex Discrimination Guidelines so that they reflect changes in the law and in the workplace that have taken place since 1970. Our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be published in the Federal Register this Friday, and we invite you to share your feedback on it by going to www.dol.gov/ofccp/SDNPRM. The comment period closes on March 31.

Our revisions of these guidelines are about good government. They’re about ensuring that both women and men are treated fairly in the workplace. And they will provide employers with much needed clarity in understanding their obligations under the law.

Source: DOL Donna Lenhoff is the senior civil rights advisor in the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

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



Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory settles race and sex discrimination case with US Labor Department

Two former employees will receive nearly $360K in back wages and damages

The Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University will pay $359,253 to settle allegations of discrimination made by two African American women who were employed at its Laurel, Md. facility. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs determined that the lab violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of race or sex.

"All workers deserve to be treated fairly, and when they are not, they should be able to report it without fear of being harassed or retaliated against," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "I am pleased that we were able to achieve a fair and just remedy for these two women and to ensure that the laboratory removes barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace."

OFCCP's investigation began in June 2010, after an African American woman filed a complaint alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment at the APL. When she tried to pursue a complaint through the lab's own equal employment opportunity process, she was harassed, retaliated against and, ultimately, fired. During its investigation, OFCCP received a second complaint in November 2010 from another African American woman alleging that she had been subjected to pay discrimination and a hostile work environment at the APL. OFCCP compliance officers found that the lab had indeed discriminated against the two former employees because of their race and because they engaged in protected equal employment opportunity activities.

The investigators also confirmed that the second employee was paid less than her similarly-situated male colleagues, and that the APL had subjected both women to a hostile work environment by retaliating against them for filing EEO complaints and by allowing them to be harassed. This retaliation culminated in the firing of one employee and the resignation of the other.

In addition to significant financial remedies it will pay to the affected women, the APL has agreed to revise its policies and procedures to eliminate harassment, intimidation, coercion or retaliation in its workplace. The lab will also ensure that its internal complaint process is free of undue influence and will post notices in English and Spanish to inform employees of their rights against employment discrimination. Finally, managers and employees with responsibilities for hiring, preparing performance plans, determining compensation or making transfer, promotion, or discharge decisions will be trained on all federal equal employment opportunity laws.

Johns Hopkins University and its associated hospital constitute the largest employer in Maryland. A division of the university, the APL supports national security, space science and other civilian research and development initiatives. From 2009 to 2014, the APL received more than $3.6 billion in taxpayer-funded federal contracts with agencies such as the U.S. Departments of Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security.

Source: DOL

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

Vamco Sheet Metals Settles Sex Discrimination Suit

Women Working on John Jay College Expansion Treated Unfairly by Construction Contractor, Federal Agency Charged

Construction contractor Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc., will pay $215,000 as part of the settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced. Legal Momentum, a women's rights nonprofit organization (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), joined the EEOC's suit on behalf of four discrimination victims.

The lawsuit challenged the treatment of female sheet metal workers on the massive John Jay College of Criminal Justice expansion in Manhattan from 2009 through 2011. According to the lawsuit, female sheet metal workers were fired for pretextual reasons, some after just a few days of work. The suit also alleged that the women were treated unfavorably compared to men, including being assigned menial tasks like fetching coffee and having their breaks monitored. One new mother was denied a clean private place to pump breast milk.

Sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Vamco Sheet Metal, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-CV-6088) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to the $215,000 in damages to be paid to the discrimination victims, the three-year consent decree resolving the case requires Vamco to implement policy revisions that provide for equal opportunities, distribute the policy to all employees, and post notice of this resolution. The decree also requires annual anti-discrimination training for all supervisory employees and monitoring of Vamco's employment practices by the EEOC.

"These women had decades of experience as skilled sheet metal workers," said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Robert D. Rose. "Employers, even in male-dominated industries like construction, must provide women an equal chance to prove their skills and practice their trade."

Thomas Lepak, the EEOC trial attorney assigned to the case, added, "Through this consent decree, Vamco has agreed to changes that will help ensure women get a fair shake on the worksite."

Carol Robles-Roman, Legal Momentum's president and CEO, said, "The company now has a policy that expressly entitles nursing employees to an accommodation. We intend to work with other employers who operate in non-traditional work settings to help them follow Vamco's lead."

Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) is a national women's rights organization that specifically focuses on economic justice and equality under the law for women and girls. Protecting women's workplace rights is one of Legal Momentum's priority areas. Legal Momentum has particularly worked on advancing the rights of pregnant workers, protecting women's access to non-traditional employment opportunities, and safeguarding the employment rights of women who work in traditionally male-dominated industries.

Source: EEOC

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

GE Lighting settles sex discrimination case

Agreement includes $537K for 102 female applicants

GE Lighting LLC has agreed to settle allegations of hiring discrimination following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Under the terms of the agreement, the federal contractor will pay $537,000 in back wages and interest to 102 women who were rejected for entry-level attendant positions at the company's Bucyrus facility. GE Lighting will also extend job offers to at least five of the original class members as positions become available.

"I am pleased that we were able to work out a fair and mutually agreeable resolution with GE Lighting," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "The time is always right to shine a light on any and all barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace, and I encourage women who were previously denied jobs at GE's Bucyrus location to reconsider, secure in the knowledge that they will get a fair shake going forward."

During a scheduled compliance review, OFCCP investigators found that GE Lighting used the WorkKeys test as part of its selection process, even though it was not properly supported by a validation study that satisfies the requirements of the "Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures." The agency concluded that GE Lighting's hiring process systematically discriminated against female applicants, a violation of Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment on the basis of sex. GE Lighting has already ceased using the WorkKeys test, revised its selection process to ensure equal opportunity for all applicants and invited women to reapply under the revised hiring procedures. It has also extended one of the five job offers.

GE Lighting is a subsidiary of the Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. In the past two years, GE Lighting held more than $1.8 billion in federal contracts to provide machines and equipment to the Air Force, Navy, Army and Defense Logistics Agency.

Source: DOL

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

Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling in Oklahoma City settles sex discrimination case with US Labor Department

Nearly 1,300 women to share $475K in back wages and interest

Following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co. has agreed to pay $475,000 in back wages and interest to settle allegations of sex discrimination affecting 1,293 female job seekers. OFCCP investigators determined that Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling unfairly rejected these qualified women for merchandiser, driver, driver trainee, production and warehouse positions at the company's bottling and distribution facility in Oklahoma City.

"We cannot build a 21st century workforce by leaving more than half our people behind," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "It is past time for employers to recognize that skills, not sex, should be the determining factor in who gets the job."

Today's settlement stems from an OFCCP review of Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling's hiring practices over a two-year period beginning in June 2007. Investigators found that female applicants were much less likely to be hired than similarly-situated male applicants and determined that the company had violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sex when making employment decisions.

In addition to the financial remedies, the company will make job offers to 116 of the original class members as positions become available. The company has also already made necessary changes to the policies, practices and procedures it uses to recruit, track and hire applicants for these positions.

Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling has been an operating unit of Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Refreshments since 2012. At the time of OFCCP's review, the Oklahoma City establishment was one of eight bottling facilities that comprised the then privately held Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Source: DOL

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

EEOC Sues Costco for Sex Discrimination

Federal Agency Says Warehouse Giant Fostered a Sexually Hostile Work Environment When It Failed to Protect Female From Stalking Customer

 

Warehouse retail giant Costco violated federal law by fostering a sexually hostile work environment against one of its female employees, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed in federal court in Chicago.

According to the EEOC's complaint, Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees against sex discrimination, when the company failed to take steps to protect one of its female employees from unwelcome advances of one of its warehouse member-customers. John Rowe, the EEOC district director in Chicago, said that the agency's administrative investigation revealed that the employee repeatedly complained to her managers at the Glenview, Ill., Costco where she worked about being pursued, approached, and confronted in the Costco by the man. In addition, Rowe said, the employee eventually obtained an order of protection against the warehouse member for the unwelcome stalking.

"The employee's efforts weren't enough for Costco," Rowe said. "One of her managers apparently told the young woman that he agreed the man was 'not right' and that Costco would monitor the situation. But what actually happened was that when the situation persisted and the employee complained to the police, Costco management allegedly yelled at her and told her to be friendly to the customer."

John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "All employers have a duty to protect employees from sexual harassment whatever form that harassment may take - whether it's lewd remarks, groping, propositioning or stalking. No employer gets a pass because it is a customer targeting its employee, rather than a manager or fellow employee. That's particularly true when the harassment is especially egregious. If the employer permits the harassment to continue, it's compounding its liability and troubles."

Title VII protects employees from sex discrimination, including sexual harassment in the form of stalking on the job. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Costco Warehouse Corp., Civil Action No. 14-cv-6553, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago and assigned to Judge Ruben Castillo. Supervisory Trial Attorney Gregory Gochanour and Trial Attorney Richard Mrizek will lead the agency's litigation team.

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

Source: EEOC

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

OFCCP Posts New Directive on Gender Identity and Sex Discrimination

OFCCP has posted Directive 2014-02, Gender Identity and Sex Discrimination (DIR 2014-02).

On June 30, 2014, the Secretary announced that DOL is updating its enforcement protocols and nondiscrimination guidance to reflect that DOL provides the full protection of the federal nondiscrimination laws that it enforces to individuals with claims of gender identity and transgender status discrimination. In accordance with this announcement, as well as with the EEOC’s decision in Macy v. Holder and the Title VII case law on which it is based, DIR 2014-02 clarifies that under Executive Order 11246, as amended, discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the bases of gender identity and transgender status. 

The directive reaffirms that in compliance evaluations and complaint investigations, OFCCP fully investigates and seeks to remedy instances of sex discrimination that occur because of an individual’s gender identity or transgender status. The directive explains that, when investigating such instances of potential discrimination, OFCCP adheres to the existing Title VII framework for proving sex discrimination, as outlined in OFCCP’s Federal Contract Compliance Manual. 

DIR 2014-02 takes effect immediately.

The directive is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/directives/dir2014_02.html.  

Source: DOL

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

Goodwill to Pay $100,000 to Settle Retaliation Lawsuit

Lawton Store Fired Worker for Testifying on Behalf of Discrimination Victim, Federal Agency Charged

Goodwill Industries will pay $100,000 and furnish other relief to settle a long-standing lawsuit FOR retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Goodwill retaliated against a worker at its Lawton, Okla., store, Mary Goulet, by firing her after she testified on behalf of another Goodwill employee in a previous federal sex and age discrimination lawsuit.

Under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their participation as a witness in another person's employment discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Civil Case No.: 11-CV-1043-D) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The consent decree settling the suit, which was approved by Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, provides for injunctive relief designed to prevent future discrimination, including notification to employees, revision and dissemination of anti-discrimination policies, and live training on anti-retaliation law, in addition to the $100,000 monetary award.

One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to preserve individuals' access to the legal system, which includes prohibiting employer practices which might impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts.

"Our employment discrimination laws depend on the ability of witnesses to freely provide information to the courts and to the EEOC," said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Jeff Lee. "American jurisprudence is based on that principle. The EEOC will do whatever is necessary to ensure that witnesses can be confident that when they testify in employment discrimination proceedings, there will be no reprisals against them."

Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC's St. Louis District, which has jurisdiction in Oklahoma, added, "Employers should take note that employees have a protected right to report discrimination and to testify about what they have witnessed."

Source: EEOC

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

Bank of Albuquerque Settles Age and Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Bank Fired Two Women Because of Age and Sex, Federal Agency Charged

 

BOK Financial Corporation, doing business as the Bank of Albuquerque, will pay $230,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age and sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.  

 

According to the EEOC's suit, the bank fired two managers, Elizabeth Morantes and Yolanda Fernandez, who were long-time employees, because of their gender and because they were over 40 years of age.  The EEOC said the bank's purported reasons for firing the women were based on criteria that were not applied to younger male managers and employees.  

 

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act which bars discrimination on the basis of age, 40 and above.  

The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. BOK Financial Corporation dba Bank of Albuquerque, (CV 11-01132-ALB-RCB-LAM), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in Albuquerque, after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

Besides the monetary relief, BOK also agreed to refrain from any future discrimination; post an anti-discrimination notice; provide training; and to report to the EEOC on its compliance with these terms.

"Longtime employees should not be jettisoned because of their age or gender," said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill.  "Such practices violate federal law as well as basic fairness."

Rayford O. Irvin, district director of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office, added, "We will continue to vigorously pursue our mission of fighting employment discrimination on all fronts, including discrimination based on both age and sex."

Source: EEOC

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

Ventura Corporation to Pay $354,250 to Settle EEOC Lawsuit for Sex Discrimination Against Men

Federal Agency Charged Beauty Wholesaler With Refusing to Hire Men and Retaliating Against a Manager Who Opposed the Discrimination

 

Ventura Corporation, a Puerto Rico-based wholesaler of makeup, beauty products, jewelry and other personal care items to retail sellers, has agreed to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged in its suit that Ventura engaged in a pattern or practice of refusing to hire men as Zone Managers and Support Managers. The EEOC also alleged that Ventura promoted Erick Zayas into a Zone Manager position after he complained about its discriminatory practices, only to set him up for failure and termination in retaliation for his opposition to Ventura's sex-based hiring practices.

Sex discrimination and retaliation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 3:11-cv-01700-PG) in U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico after first investigating the case, and then attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

According to the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, which was approved by the court on March 27, 2014, Ventura will pay $354,250 to settle the lawsuit, including a payment to Zayas of $150,000. The remaining settlement funds will be paid into an account that will be distributed to a class of qualified male job applicants who applied for Zone or Support Manager jobs with Ventura from 2004 to the present, but whom Ventura did not consider for hire. The agreement also requires Ventura to implement a detailed applicant tracking system; actively promote supervisory accountability for discrimination prevention; provide anti-discrimination training to all company employees and anti-discrimination training specific to those Ventura managers and employees who play a role in the hiring process; and provide bi-annual hiring reports to the EEOC for three years.

The EEOC said that the company was responsible for the loss or destruction of a great deal of critical evidence supporting the case. The disappeared evidence included job applications from qualified male applicants for the positions at issue and e-mails from key decision makers. The EEOC asked the court to award sanctions against the company based on the apparent destruction of evidence. The judge, agreeing with the EEOC's position, made a ruling that if the case were to proceed to a jury trial, he would instruct the jurors that they may draw an adverse inference from the vanished evidence, and may assume that it would have supported the EEOC's case regarding the company's violations of discrimination law.

"This case is another reminder that federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination," said Robert E. Weisberg, regional attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office. "We are pleased that we have been able to secure relief not only for Mr. Zayas, but also for the many qualified applicants who were not considered by Ventura for employment simply because they were male."

Malcolm Medley, director of the EEOC's Miami District Office, added, "There is no protection in the law for reliance on outdated sex stereotypes. When they appear in the workplace, employees must be able to raise legitimate concerns of discrimination without fear of retaliation."

Source: EEOC

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

Boh Bros. Construction Co. to Pay for Same-Sex Harassment Lawsuit

Consent Judgment Ending Case Follows En Banc Appeals Court Determination That Actions in Question Were Sex Discrimination and Remand to Determine Damages; Significant Injunctive Relief Reinstated

Boh Bros. Construction Co. has agreed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to a consent judgment which requires the company to pay $125,000 in compensatory damages to a former employee in a sex discrimination/same sex harassment case. The consent judgment cannot be appealed and effectively brings the litigation to a close.

The EEOC filed the suit against Boh Bros. (EEOC v. Boh Bros. Construction Co., Civil Action No. 09-6460) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in 2009 charging that a superintendent, Chuck Wolfe, harassed Kerry Woods with verbal abuse, taunting gestures of a sexual nature, and by exposing himself. The harassment took place on the I-10 Twin Span project over Lake Pontchartrain between Slidell and New Orleans, La. Woods's supervisor admitted at the trial that he harassed Woods because he thought Woods was feminine and did not conform to the supervisor's gender stereotypes of "rough iron workers."

Following a jury trial, Boh Bros was found to have permitted hostile work environment sexual harassment which is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The jury awarded Woods a total of $ $451,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, which the district court reduced to $301,000 because of statutory limits. The district court entered injunctive relief to prevent future occurrences of discrimination.

The injunction additionally required the chief executive officer of Boh Bros. to send a letter to all company employees "advising them of the verdict against Defendant in this case on the claim of sexual harassment, stating that Defendant will not tolerate sexual harassment or retaliation, and that Defendant will take appropriate disciplinary action against any manager, supervisor, or employee who engages in sexual harassment or retaliation." The court further ordered that Boh Bros. may not re-hire the harassing official during the life of the injunction.

The district court also denied Boh Bros.' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Boh Bros. subsequently appealed.

In April 2012, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (case number 11-30770) reversed the jury verdict, finding that the evidence did not establish that Boh Bros. had harassed Woods "because of sex." The EEOC asked all the judges of the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. In September 2013, a 10-6 majority of the Court of Appeals found that the law and evidence supported the jury's finding that Boh Bros. had illegally harassed Woods because of sex, in violation of Title VII.

The en banc Fifth Circuit also rejected the company's appeal of the district court's entry of a judgment of injunctive relief: "The injunction is reasonably tailored to address deficiencies in [the company's] sexual harassment policies, inform and train employees regarding the relevant law, and prevent similar conduct from recurring." 
 
Thus, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals restored a jury's finding from March 2011 that Boh Bros. illegally subjected Woods to severe or pervasive harassment based on gender stereotypes. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, including setting the proper amount of emotional damages in light of the appellate decision.

"I am ecstatic that the full Court of Appeals ruled in our favor with this outcome," said Woods. "It's been a roller coaster. I'm grateful that the EEOC fought so hard for me over all these years. It proves to me that the government is really there to help people."

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez said, "The EEOC's recent record in winning jury trials like this one is remarkable, and the full Fifth Circuit here reaffirmed the critical part juries play in deciding discrimination cases. This resolution remains faithful to the jury's verdict by providing meaningful relief to Mr. Woods and helping to prevent Boh Bros. from discriminating again."

Source: EEOC

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

JPMorgan Chase Will Pay $1,450,000 to Resolve Class Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Female Mortgage Bankers in Columbus, Ohio Were Subjected to Sex-Based Harassment And Denied Lucrative Sales Opportunities, Federal Agency Charged

 

Financial giant JPMorgan Chase will pay $1,450,000 and revamp its call data retention procedures to settle a sex-based harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC charged in its lawsuit that JPMorgan Chase maintained a sexually hostile work environment towards its female mortgage bankers assigned to its Polaris Park facility, located outside Columbus, Ohio. This situation consisted of sexually charged behavior and comments from the supervisory staff and participating mortgage bankers, which resulted in a sexist and uncivil atmosphere. The EEOC further alleged that the female mortgage bankers who did not embrace and participate in these circumstances became ostracized and suffered economic consequences by being deprived of lucrative sales calls, being deprived of training opportunities, and being denied other benefits of employment.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Civil Action 2:09-cv-00864, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

"This case demonstrates the EEOC's ongoing commitment to ensuring that women enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment as their male counterparts and that their success on the job cannot be conditioned on participating in a sexually hostile work environment," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. 
 
EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. said, "The EEOC is committed to combating unlawful sex discrimination in the workplace and will hold an employer responsible for fostering an inhospitable and uncomfortable atmosphere for women." 
 
The $1,450,000 in monetary relief will be allocated among 16 female mortgage bankers who worked at JPMorgan Chase's call center in its Polaris Park facility. The consent decree resolving the case also enjoins JPMorgan Chase from creating or maintaining a sexually hostile work environment there in the future. Moreover, JPMorgan Chase is developing a call data retention system so that assignments of sales calls can be accessed and analyzed to ensure that they are being equitably distributed among the mortgage bankers. 
 
Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "We are pleased that JPMorgan Chase worked with us to craft a comprehensive settlement that will benefit its mortgage sales staff. In addition to the monetary compensation for the class members, the extensive training and equitable measures are designed to ensure the equality of the terms and conditions of employment and ensure the elimination of the discriminatory situation that resulted in this lawsuit." 
 
According to company information, New York-based JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) is a leading global financial services firm with assets of $2.4 trillion, operating in more than 60 countries, with more than 260,000 employees.

Source: EEOC

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

Wal-Mart to Pay $87,500 to Settle EEOC Suit for Unlawful Retaliation

Federal Agency Charged Two Adult Children Were Unlawfully Rejected for Jobs Because of Mother's Prior Sex Discrimination Complaint

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., L.P., doing business as Walmart stores in Albuquerque, will pay $87,500 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.

The EEOC's lawsuit charged that Walmart Store #835 on Eubank in Northeast Albuquerque refused to hire Ramona Bradford's adult son and daughter for entry-level positions because Ms. Bradford had filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC.

Retaliation against an employee because of her opposition to discrimination and/or participation in protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC also alleged that Ramona Bradford was a victim of retaliation because her two adult children were being denied employment because of her complaints about discrimination and her charge filing.

The EEOC filed suit in March 2007, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., 07-cv-00300 JAP/WPL, in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

In addition to monetary relief for the Bradfords, the consent decree settling the suit provides for other important relief, including an injunction prohibiting retaliatory practices; training for managerial employees on retaliation; and the posting of a notice advising employees of their rights under Title VII.

"This case involved an interesting and instructive fact pattern -- retaliation against family members because their mother had filed a discrimination charge," said Regional Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. "The United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. North American Stainless held that employers cannot take adverse actions against employees or their relatives or others close to them because the applicant or employee did the right thing and complained of unlawful conduct in the workplace."

EEOC Albuquerque Area Director Derick Newton said, "Retaliation continues to be a high priority for the EEOC - it always was, and under our national Strategic Enforcement Plan, preserving access to the legal system is especially emphasized. We now receive more retaliation charges than any other kind of discrimination charges -- over 42 percent of our charges contain retaliation allegations. We are pleased that this case could be resolved for the Bradfords and mandates that Wal-Mart train its managers about retaliation."

Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts, is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Source:  EEOC

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

New Jersey dairy company to settle charges of sex and race discrimination

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today announced that federal contractor Cream-O-Land Dairy Inc. has resolved claims of sex and race discrimination affecting 227 workers who applied for jobs at the company's dairy plant in Florence, N.J. An OFCCP review of the facility determined that the dairy company used a hiring process that violated Executive Order 11246 because it discriminated against women, African Americans and Asian Americans who applied for warehouse positions in 2010.

"I am pleased that we were able to reach a fair settlement in this case," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "Today's agreement underscores the notion that federal contractors, like Cream-O-Land, should closely examine their employment policies and practices to identify and eliminate any unfair barriers to equal opportunity.

Under the terms of the conciliation agreement, Cream-O-Land will pay $324,288 in back wages, interest and benefits to the rejected applicants. The company will also make 24 job offers to the affected class members as positions become available. Additionally, the company has agreed to undertake extensive self-monitoring measures, including committing a minimum of $10,000 for training to ensure that all of its hiring processes comply with the law.

Cream-O-Land Dairy Inc. delivers dairy products to grocery stores, supermarkets and schools throughout New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. In Fiscal Year 2012, Cream-O-Land sold more than $1.5 million worth of products to federal agencies such as the Federal Prison System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Logistics Agency and Department of the Army.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These three laws require those who do business with the federal government, contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For more information, please call OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Source: DOL

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

EEOC Sues Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center for Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation

Federal Agency Charged Center Cut Hours of Pregnant Social Worker, Then Fired Her for Complaining

 

In a lawsuit filed today in federal court, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged that Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center LLC, based in Bridgeview, Ill., violated federal law by discriminating against a pregnant social worker, first by cutting her hours because of her pregnancy, and then by firing her in retaliation for her filing a charge with EEOC.

 

Prior to filing the lawsuit, the agency conducted an administrative investigation, managed by EEOC District Director John P. Rowe. According to Rowe, Midway Neurological, after learning that one of its social workers was pregnant, allegedly first cut her hours and then, while she was out on maternity leave and after she filed an EEOC charge, fired her from her job.

"Our investigation showed that this company saw this employee as one who could be singled out for unfavorable treatment because she was pregnant," said Rowe. "This clearly violates federal law." 
 
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC filed suit, EEOC v. Midway Neurological & Rehab Center (Civil Action No. 13 C 6542), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Michael T. Mason. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the former employee and an order barring future discrimination and other relief. 
 
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney for its Chicago District Office said, "Long gone are the days when employers could target pregnant women for pay cuts because they were 'going to be out on leave anyway.' That's sex discrimination, and it's prohibited. Further, employers who fire workers in retaliation for filing EEOC charges only compound their culpability - and their troubles -- ending up with an EEOC lawsuit alleging not only sex discrimination but retaliation as well."

Source: EEOC

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