The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) have joined a growing number of governmental agencies and public health organizations in issuing specific COVID-19 related guidance. The EEOC and DCR guidance each includes a series of frequently asked questions directed at ensuring compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws in the treatment of individuals affected by the novel coronavirus, in connection with employment, housing, and places of public accommodation. The DCR guidance, “Civil Rights and COVID-19: Frequently Asked Questions,” reminds employers, housing providers, and places of public accommodation of their obligations under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Among the topics covered by the DCR, the guidance: Reminds employers that the prohibitions against discrimination and harassment because of an LAD-protected characteristic apply even when the conduct at issue “stems from concerns related to COVID-19.” The DCR explains that firing an employee who is perceived to have a disability related to COVID-19 is unlawful. In addition, behavior such as referring to COVID-19 as the “the Chinese virus” or harassing employees of East Asian heritage by claiming Asian people caused COVID-19 is expressly prohibited, and...
Tagged: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
The U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of Seventh Circuit Decision Rejecting Extended Leave as a Reasonable Accomodation for Disabled Employees under the ADA
On April 2, 2018, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that rejected a disabled employee’s claim that, as an accommodation for his disability, he was entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”) to leave beyond the maximum 12 weeks authorized by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“the FMLA”). The Seventh Circuit’s Decision Because of back pain, Raymond Severson took the maximum 12 weeks of leave permitted by the FMLA. On the last day of his leave he underwent back surgery, which required him to remain out of work for another two to three months. His employer rejected his request to extend his leave for an additional three months and terminated his employment, although did invite him to reapply when he was medically cleared to return to work. Instead of reapplying, Severson brought suit under the ADA, alleging that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability by denying his request for extended leave. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Circuit’s analysis of the issue...
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), retaliation has become the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination of all charges received by the EEOC. In light of this, and after allowing for public comment on the EEOC’s proposed enforcement guidance issued earlier this year, on August 29, 2016, the EEOC issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. This replaces the EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section 8: Retaliation, which was issued in 1998. The enforcement guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on retaliation and addresses retaliation under each of the statutes enforced by the EEOC by providing a number of illustrative examples. Helpful to employers, the enforcement guidance concludes by providing employers “promising practices” to reduce the risk of violations. A general outline of the enforcement guidance follows.
The EEOC Finalizes Wellness Program Guidance, Issuing Final Rules on Workplace Wellness Programs and a Sample Notice
After much anticipation (and confusion) regarding legally permissible parameters for certain employer-sponsored wellness programs, on May 16, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued two final rules concerning wellness programs that offer incentives in exchange for health information from employees and their spouses. Specifically, the rules describe how wellness programs can comply with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act (“GINA”). According to the EEOC’s press release, the rules provide guidance under the ADA and GINA consistent with the relevant provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The EEOC’s proposed regulations were discussed in a previous post following our presentation entitled “Wellness Programs for a Healthy Workplace” at the Fifth Annual Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Conference. Then, in June, the EEOC issued a sample notice for employer-sponsored wellness programs. Here, we parse the rules into bright-line takeaways for employers.
At the Fifth Annual Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Conference for clients of the firm, we presented a program entitled “Wellness Programs for a Healthy Workplace.” Cathy Kenworthy, President and CEO of Interactive Health, discussed the business case for implementing wellness programs in our workplaces, while I addressed the numerous laws impacting such programs.
EEOC to Collect Wage and Hour Data Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in Effort to Aid Enforcement of Laws Requiring Pay Equity
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has proposed a change to the EEO-1 Report, the standard form used to collect workforce profiles from certain private industry employers and federal contractors. In its current iteration, the form annually requires employers to categorize their workforces based on gender, race, ethnicity, and job category, using data collected from one pay period occurring in July, August, or September of the reporting year. The amended form would require further categorization of employees based on W-2 earnings and hours worked.
Jury Awards $2.2 Million to Employees Over DNA Tests in Violation of GINA in “Devious Defecator” Case
A federal court jury in Georgia recently awarded $2.22 million to two employees in what is believed to be the first jury verdict in a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) employment case since the law went into effect in 2008. Dubbed the “devious defecator” case by the court, Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC involved an employer’s testing of two employees’ facial cheek (or “buccal”) swabs to identify whether either was the individual who had been repeatedly defecating on the employer’s premises. All jokes aside, the decision is notable, not only because it is one of the few, if only, jury verdicts awarded under GINA, but because it serves as an important warning to employers that GINA may apply more broadly than some initially believed, while also possibly providing a blueprint for other courts on how to interpret the statute.
Supreme Court Rules an Employer’s Failure to Accommodate a Job Applicant’s Religious Practice Violates Title VII Without Proof the Applicant Requested An Accommodation
In its much anticipated decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a prospective employee who was turned down for a job because she wore a headscarf, which the employer suspected was worn for religious reasons, can proceed with her claim of religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although when she applied for the job the applicant never requested permission to wear the headscarf as an accommodation to her religious practices. Employers should be aware that the Court’s decision (1) imposes on an employer an affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of its employees and prospective employees and (2) exposes an employer to potential liability for intentional discrimination, and thus for compensatory and punitive damages, for failing to make such accommodations.
We previously reported on a decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Ford Motor Co., in which the panel held that the EEOC was entitled to a jury trial on its claim that Ford discharged an employee in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) after it denied her request to work from home 4 days per week as an accommodation for her irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”). In an en banc decision the Sixth Circuit has now reversed the original panel’s decision, concluding that the district court properly granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim. In so ruling, the Court credited Ford’s business judgment that the employee’s presence in the work place was an essential function of her job, and thus her request to telecommute four days per week was not a request for a reasonable accommodation to which Ford had to accede. The EEOC had heralded the original panel’s decision as a major victory. The Sixth Circuit’s en banc reversal of that decision should be cause for equal celebration by employers.
In Mach Mining LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether the EEOC must attempt to conciliate an employer’s alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before initiating a lawsuit against the employer and, if so, to what extent a court may review those conciliation efforts. The Court concluded that the EEOC must attempt to engage in conciliation, but that the scope of a court’s review of the EEOC’s efforts is narrow. Post-Mach Mining, an employer that attempts to challenge a lawsuit brought by the EEOC on the grounds that the agency’s conciliation efforts were insufficient will be fighting an uphill battle.