 |
 |
|
| EEO Compliance Must Apply to Everyone |
|
The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) act ensures that businesses comply with the laws, regulations, and policies that prohibit discrimination in the federal workplace based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, or reprisal. Penalties for violating Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations are severe.
The EEO-1 report endorses employee self-identification of race and ethnicity, rather than asking employers to rely on visual identification. The EEO-1 report must be filed annually by employers with 100 or more workers, or employers with federal government contracts of $50,000 or more and 50 or more employees. The report gives the government workforce profiles by ethnicity, gender, and race split into job categories.
The job categories divide officials and managers into two levels: executive/senior-level, and first/mid-level.
The race and ethnic categories include:
- two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino
- Asians, not Hispanic or Latino
- Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, not Hispanic or Latino
Employers should let employees know that this request for identification is voluntary, and the information collected, whether by paper or in electronic format, must be kept confidential.
For more information about EEO compliance, click here to download a free HR compliance report. |
|
 - Recent News |
|
|
|
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the New York State Department of Correctional Services have settled a maternity benefits case for $972,000 in compensatory damages, liquidated damages, back pay, and interest to 23 female Corrections employees. The Corrections Department had been accused of providing inferior benefits to employees on maternity leave. The court-approved order also states that the court can issue monetary relief to other victims who are identified after the settlement. The suit was filed under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and charged that although the Corrections Department offered as much as six months of paid workers’ compensation leave for work-related injuries, pregnant employees on that type of leave were moved to maternity leave without their consent at or around the date they gave birth. According to the maternity leave policy, women were required to first use their accrued sick or vacation leave with pay; then, if allowed, they could then receive sick leave with half pay followed by sick leave without pay. The EEOC stated that the result of moving women to maternity leave was lesser benefits due to their sex and therefore violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York added claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that the practice was discriminatory on the basis of gender.
In June, the EEOC settled a case against Central Park’s Tavern on the Green restaurant over harassment and retaliation of women, African Americans, and Hispanics. A claim fund of $2.2 million will be created for victims of the harassment and/or retaliation and the restaurant will set up a telephone hot line that employees can use to voice discrimination complaints. The EEOC had charged Tavern on the Green with carrying out sexual, racial, and national origin harassment, including graphic comments, demands for sex acts, and ridiculing Hispanic employees because of their accents. The restaurant will now also hand out a revised anti-discrimination and retaliation policy and train employees on those issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that civilian government employees’ workplace discrimination claims generally cannot be characterized as valid constitutional claims. In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that raising the equal protection clause of the Constitution is not one of the protections afforded public employees. In the case of Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the justices “have often recognized that government has significantly greater leeway in its dealings with citizen employees.”
On Tuesday, May 27, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in two different cases stating that employees are protected from retaliation in the workplace when they complain about discrimination even though Congress did not explicitly say so. The Court considered precedent set in recent retaliation cases. Justice Alito, in discussing a federal age-discrimination case, said that the provision in question was “not materially different” from anti-discrimination interpretations in two previous cases. “The context in which the statutory language appears is the same in all three cases,” he said. “That is, all three cases involve remedial provisions aimed at prohibiting discrimination.”
|
|
|
 DOWNLOAD: Understanding the new requirements for workforce diversity reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, in public services, in public accommodations, and in telecommunications. |
|
|
Civil Rights Act of 1991: Parties involved in a discrimination case can request jury trials, and compensatory and punitive damages can be recovered. |
|
|
VETS-100: Requires any contractor or subcontractor with the federal government for $25,000 or more to hire and promote qualified Vietnam-era veterans, special disabled veterans, and any veteran who served on active duty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A worker can collect lost wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated/double damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. |
|
|
Fines for violating EEO compliance regulations can run, per person, from $50,000 to $300,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|