The hottest issue in the EEO area is pay discrimination. In the news it is often written that women earn approximately 20 cents or more less than a male counterpart. When it is broken down by race, the disparity grows even larger. However, does disparity mean discrimination?
There have been a number of lawsuits filed testing the accessibility of websites and compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It is costly for organizations to defend these lawsuits, and especially will be as “tester” applicants muddy the waters.
For employers defending an equal pay act (EPA) discrimination claim, the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense generally prevails, except when it doesn’t. And lately, courts have been more reluctant to accept the affirmative defense.
The answer is no, according to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho). This decision brings it in line with other circuit courts of appeals.
Addressing whether or not a request for religious accommodation is reasonable can be a challenge. Employers often believe that the accommodation requested must be met exactly. But it is only the religious practice that requires accommodation. Any non-religious “losses” that occur as a result are not the employer's responsibility.
A question that has been pending for many years has been whether applicants, and not just employees, can avail themselves to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) disparate impact provisions.
While the recent EEOC case against Diverse Lynx, revealed that age discrimination still exists when they told an applicant born in 1945 that they were no longer interested and “age does matter,” many employers are now embracing an older work generation.
Following the leads of the U.S. 2nd Circuit and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Michigan) continues the expansion of the definition of “sex” under Title VII and recognizes that discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status or gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex.
Employers who use Facebook job ads to help with their recruiting practices need to be cautious in how they use this approach to reach applicants. A recent federal court lawsuit filed in San Francisco charges 13 companies including Amazon, T-Mobile, and Cox Communications, Inc. with using Facebook’s ad targeting tools to exclude older Americans from job opportunities.
Many pundits accuse human resources of enabling a sexual harassment environment. HR is “as bad as FEMA after Katrina,” said Gary Namie, a social psychologist and director of the Workplace Bullying Institute. “HR is a management support function,” Namie said. “They’re all about liability protection, and they’re worried about protecting the organization.”
Why should I run background checks on my applicants? What do other employers check on backgrounds? These are questions that I get quite often from our customers. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” ― Benjamin Franklin.
It has been proven that women are promoted less, underrepresented in the C-suite, and receive lower wages then men. A recent study set out to discover why and see if women’s behavior is responsible. The study, published by Harvard Business Review, revealed that biological differences between men and women do not affect the way they act at work and are not responsible for gender bias.
Most employers understand the importance of having a diverse workforce and take positive steps to implement diversity initiatives in their training and recruitment programs. Despite these efforts, unconscious bias can still come into play when it comes to both hiring and employment related decisions.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are opposing each other in a lawsuit over the meaning of the term “sex” in Title VII. The DOJ argues that the Title VII definition of sex does not include sexual orientation. The EEOC argues that it does.
Good news for employers! On August 29, 2017, the Office of Management Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that the pay reporting requirement of the EEO-1 will be delayed and not required in the March 31, 2018 EEO-1 reporting cycle. This news was greeted as a sign of relief by the employer community. The standard EEO-1 report, though, will still be required for filing on March 31, 2018.
Victor Park West
19575 Victor Parkway, Suite 100
Livonia, MI 48152