Hiring not as strong as previously reported by about 500,000 jobs: Turns out hiring wasn’t nearly as strong in 2018 and early 2019 as the government initially reported — by about a half-million jobs. The economy had about 501,000 fewer jobs as of March 2019 than the Bureau of Labor Statistics initially calculated in its survey of business establishments. That’s the largest revision since the waning stages of the Great Recession in 2009. The newly revised figures indicate the economy didn’t get a huge boost last year from President Trump’s tax cuts and higher federal spending. They also signal the economy is a bit weaker than previously believed and could give the Federal Reserve even greater reason to cut interest rates in September. “This makes some sense, as the 223,000 average monthly increase in 2018 seemed too good to be true in light of how tight the labor market has become and how much trouble firms are said to be having finding qualified workers,” said chief economist Stephen Stanley of Amherst Pierpont Securities. Source: Market Watch 8/22/19
Using confidential information to file a charge is a no go: An employee who was terminated for stealing personnel documents was not able to prove her unequal pay and retaliation claims (O'Donnell v. Caine Weiner Company, LLC, No. 18-1826 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019)). The employee was being paid less than her male peers and believed the disparity was the result of sex discrimination. She shared a desk with her supervisor, where she found copies of some of her colleagues' performance evaluations. She took them, made copies, and prepared to submit them to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When the employer discovered that the employee took the documents without authorization, it suspended and eventually fired her. The employee filed suit in a U.S. District Court. At trial, a jury returned a verdict for the employer. The employee appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the district court. Source: HR Dive 8/22/19
Employees would accept significantly higher wages in lieu of vacation: Half (49%) of working Americans would accept a job with no vacation time if they were paid more, according to the 11th annual Vacation Confidence Index released by Allianz Global Assistance. Millennials (63%, compared to 47% of Gen X'ers and 32% of Baby Boomers) and men (57% versus 41% of women) are the most likely to sacrifice paid time off for higher salaries. The average American who would give up paid vacation time for a salary increase would require a 48% raise to do so, though a sizable one in five were willing to give up their paid time off for an increase of 24% or less. One-third (29%) would need 25 – 49% more, 35% would need 50 – 99% more and 16% would need double their salary to take this offer. On the flip side, the Vacation Confidence Index also explored the worth of unlimited vacation time, an increasingly popular workplace trend. One in three Americans (34%) would give up a portion of their paycheck for unlimited vacation, with Millennials (41%) even more likely to do so. Millennials are the most likely to both give up vacation time for salary and give up salary for vacation time, highlighting how important professional success and personal flexibility is to this generation. Another survey takeaway found that more than one in ten (12%) of Americans already have unlimited vacation. Source: CCH 8/20/19
Are CEOs paid too much? CEO pay at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million on average, according to new analysis by the Economic Policy Institute. Authored by EPI Distinguished Fellow Lawrence Mishel and Research Assistant Julia Wolfe, the analysis found that from 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1008%, while the compensation of a typical worker rose only 12%. The ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation was 278-to-1 in 2018—far greater than the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965 and 4.8 times greater than the 58-to-1 ratio in 1989. Source: Economic Policy Institute 8/14/19
EEO and DOJ at odds in LGBTQ case before Supreme Court: Transgender persons are not protected from discrimination at work on the basis of their transgender status under U.S. federal law, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in an amicus brief to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., v. EEOC, et al. No. 18-107 (S.C. Aug. 16, 2019)). Per the brief, penned by a group of DOJ staff, including U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual's gender identity or a disconnect between an individual's gender identity and the individual's sex." The case is one of three that sit before the high court that deals with the rights of LGBTQ workers under Title VII. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in Harris that the employer in the case violated Title VII by firing an employee because of her failure to conform to sex stereotypes, as well as her transgender status. The EEOC did not sign on to the brief. Oral arguments are scheduled for October 8th. Source: HR Dive 8/20/19
Is it discriminatory not to hire a candidate based on his accent? Yes, unless the candidate’s language skills would clearly interfere with their ability to do the job. Amidst all of the current controversy concerning immigration in the United States, the experience of immigrants in the workplace is also receiving heightened attention. The truth is, immigrants, including those who have become U.S. citizens, often have different workplace experiences than native-born Americans. One such difference has to do with accents and how they can affect perceptions of competence. The accent issue recently took center stage in a federal appeals court case which took up the issue of whether foreign accent discrimination is illegal under Title VII. The case is Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, No. 17-5252 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 2, 2019). The Court ruled that discrimination against an employee due to a foreign accent is one of several types of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VII and may, therefore, be the basis for a lawsuit. Therefore, for the most part, when evaluating candidates for hiring or promotion, foreign accent should be an absolute non-factor. Source: Cozen O'Connor 8/14/19
OFCCP proposes new religious exemption rule: On August 15, 2019, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) focused on clarifying the civil rights protections for religious organizations that have federal contracts. Keeping with the Trump administration’s policy to enforce the religious freedom found in federal law, the proposed rule is intended to provide the broadest protection of religious rights recognized under the U.S. Constitution and other laws, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It does not, however, exempt federal contractors from adhering to other required affirmative action obligations. Borrowing heavily from the 2011 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., OFCCP will consider the following factors to determine if a federal contractor is a religious entity: “The contractor must be organized for a religious purpose, meaning that it was conceived with a self-identified religious purpose. This need not be the contractor’s only purpose. The contractor must hold itself out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and the contractor must exercise religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose.” OFCCP believes that this test will provide clear guidance to contractors and that agency staff can easily and consistently apply these factors. What reality is and what OFCCP states may not be congruent. In addition, OFCCP is using the “but for” standard to prove discrimination under these proposed regulations. Source: Ogletree Deakins 8/19/19
OFCCP updates FAAP Directive The Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has updated its FAAP directive. To better serve federal contractors, the Functional Affirmative Action Program (FAAP) has a new directive, which includes the following updates: OFCCP will no longer consider compliance history when reviewing a request for a new FAAP agreement or termination. The extended agreement term is five years, up from three years. There will be a minimum of 36 months between compliance evaluations for a single functional unit. This is 12 months longer than an establishment review. Complete FAAP applications will be determined within 60 days. Historically, there was no deadline. OFCCP no longer requires that FAAP contractors undergo at least one compliance evaluation during the term of their FAAP agreement. Source: OFCCP 8/21/19