The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has updated last week’s statement, described here, to confirm that in addition to 2018 “Component 2” pay data, it will now also be seeking data for calendar year 2017 by the September 30 deadline.

While EEO-1 compliance for 2019 appears to be a moving target, employers should plan to heed the EEOC’s statement and prepare to comply with the September 30 deadline for Component 2 data for both 2017 and 2018.
Continue Reading

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a statement notifying covered entities to prepare to submit EEO-1 “Component 2” pay data for calendar year 2018 by the end of September. According to the Notice of Immediate Reinstatement of Revised EEO-1: Pay Data Collection, the EEOC expects to start collecting this data in mid-July, and in the meantime, filers must still submit their EEO-1 “Component 1” data for calendar year 2018 by the extended May 31, 2019 deadline. In light of these developments, covered employers should, at a minimum, prepare to file 2018 Component 2 pay and hours data by September 30, in addition to filing Component 1 data by May 31.
Continue Reading

For several years now, union and non-union employers have been stuck between a rock and a hard place because of dissonance between anti-discrimination laws and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Consider the following situation: An employer can discipline its employees based on discriminatory or harassing behavior and then face an unfair labor practice charge if the employees claim that their conduct was protected concerted activity under the NLRA. Alternatively, an employer can choose not to discipline its employees for such conduct and then get caught in the crosshairs of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency for violating a federal or state fair employment law.
Continue Reading

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Monday, on the eve of National Equal Pay Day, that it violates the Equal Pay Act to use pay history to justify wage gaps between male and female employees for the same or substantially similar work. The decision in Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2018) has immediate ramifications for employers in the Ninth Circuit in evaluating employee compensation.
Continue Reading

In a landmark decision reflecting a potential turning of the tide for the LGBT community, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has become the first federal appeals court in the nation to hold that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, No. 3:14-cv-1791 (7th Cir. April 4, 2017).
Continue Reading

Joining nearly all other federal circuit courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 2017 WL 943925 (11th Cir. March 10, 2017). While closing the door on Title VII sexual orientation discrimination claims, the court re-affirmed that other theories of sex discrimination, such as gender non-conformity and same-sex discrimination, remain actionable.
Continue Reading

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) this week issued a publication addressing the rights of employees and applicants with mental health conditions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The publication, entitled “Depression, PTSD, & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights,” can be found here.
Continue Reading

In the midst of a legal, political and cultural landscape expanding the rights of LGBT individuals, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held to prior precedent in reaffirming that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, __ S.Ct. __, No. 15-720 (July 28, 2016).  According to the court, though “the writing is on the wall” that sexual orientation discrimination should not be tolerated, because the writing is not in a Supreme Court opinion or Title VII, the court’s hands are tied.
Continue Reading

It is a rare employer that has not fielded employee requests for time off to address a health concern. The requests can come in many shapes and sizes: weeks or months of leave, a few days of leave, sporadic days off here and there, taking certain hours off each day, rest breaks throughout the day, or any combination thereof. Indeed, many larger employers receive these requests monthly or even weekly; some employ designated staff or even an entire department to help respond appropriately. With the ADA, FMLA, workers’ comp, employer policies, operational concerns, past practices, and other considerations all in play, the rules can be tricky, and solutions not always clear.
Continue Reading