The United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws. In recent weeks, the EEOC issued the final version of its long anticipated Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, (the “Guidance”) which provides loads of helpful information about the elements of proof for retaliation suits filed under EEO laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Employers take note.
With the recent election, the fate of the ACA is uncertain. However, we can be fairly certain that, whatever the changes may be, it is unlikely that we will return to life as it was prior to the enactment of the ACA on March 23, 2010. What the “new” ACA will look like, we can’t know, so it is important to continue to be compliant with the laws and regulations as they are currently, unless and until those laws and regulations change.
In recent years, legal protections for the civil rights of LGBT individuals have expanded at a rapid pace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in 2014 as unconstitutional, it has done the same with state-law equivalents. That same year, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, which prohibits federal government contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. As this blog noted in 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) quickly jumped on the bandwagon with regard to other employers, affirming its position that Title VII protections extended to LGBT individuals. Now, the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the issue in this new legal landscape has disagreed – albeit reluctantly.
On July 13, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a revised proposal to expand data collection through its Employer Information Report (“EEO-1”). Through EEO-1 reports, the EEOC and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) have been able to identify possible discriminatory practices and conduct pay discrimination investigations through the race, gender, ethnicity, sex, and job category pay data collected from employers across the country.
It wasn’t that long ago when it was fairly clear that sexual orientation was not considered a protected class under Title VII. However, as we first wrote about on this blog last year, sexual orientation discrimination is an expanding legal basis of protection for all employers to be concerned about. This includes educational institutions.
On May 13, 2016, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the Department of Education (“DOE”) issued a joint directive to school districts nationwide titled the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students.” The correspondence “summarizes a school’s Title IX obligations regarding transgender students and explains how the [DOE] and the [DOL] evaluate a school’s compliance with these obligations.” The letter makes clear that “[a]s a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities.” (Emphasis added). While the information applies directly, through Title IX, to school districts, private employers on a much broader scale must also be cognizant of the new interpretation of “sex” discrimination.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently reversed itself and adopted the “substantially younger” rule in cases of age discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”). Previously, in order to prove age discrimination, an employee in the protected class—40 years old or older—had to show that he or she was replaced by or treated differently than a similarly-situated employee outside of the protected class—under 40 years old. This was the “over 40/under 40” rule. Now, an employee may prove age discrimination by showing evidence of a comparator employee who is substantially younger than the plaintiff, even if that comparator employee is also over 40 years old.
Since 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has required its special agent recruits to pass a physical fitness test (“PFT”), both before admission to and graduation from its academy in Quantico, Virginia. The PFT consists of four-parts: (1) one-minute of sit-ups, (2) a 300-meter sprint, (3) push-ups to exhaustion, and (4) a 1.5-mile run. Each part is subject to a gender-based standard. Under the push-up portion of the PFT, for example, men must do thirty push-ups to pass, while women need only do fourteen.
Up until recently, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) protected from disclosure information collected during the course of an investigation while that investigation was still pending. As of January 1, 2016, that is no longer the case – at least for information submitted by an employer. For all employer position statements submitted to the EEOC on or after that date, the EEOC has implemented new procedures which will provide, upon request, the employer’s position statement to the employee (or former employee) bringing a claim of discrimination. Previously, the position statement was not available to the charging party until after the EEOC’s investigation was completed.