A growing chorus of cities, counties, and states have passed “ban-the-box” laws that restrict when and how employers can consider an applicant’s or employee’s criminal history. Currently, thirteen states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and eighteen cities and counties (Austin, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia (MO), District of Columbia, Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles, Montgomery County (MD), New York City, Philadelphia, Portland (OR), Prince George’s County (MD),  Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, Spokane, and Westchester County (NY)) have ban-the-box legislation for private employers.

However, employers often forget that use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions may also violate the federal prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. For instance, an employer’s neutral policy to exclude applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct may disproportionately impact individuals of a certain race or national origin.

Recently, Dollar General Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to resolve a discrimination suit brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the use of Dollar General’s broad criminal background check policy that purportedly discriminated against African-American applicants and employees. In addition to the monetary settlement, Dollar General must hire a criminology consultant to develop and implement a new criminal background check policy.  The consent decree also requires Dollar General to update its reconsideration process and make it clear to rejected applicants that they may provide information to support reconsideration of their exclusion. The consent decree further

On July 1, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its much anticipated guidance on the collection and submission of Component 2 data of the EEO-1 report.  As a reminder, covered employers are required to submit Component 2 data (which covers certain pay data and hours worked data) for report years 2017 and 2018 by September 30, 2019.  The EEOC intends to use Component 2 data to identify potentially unlawful pay disparities based on race/ethnicity and sex.

The guidance, which is published on the EEOC’s web-based portal, includes a variety of information, including a sample EEO-1 Component 2 report form, a Fact Sheet, and a Frequently Asked Questions section (“FAQ”).

Much of the new guidance aligns with that which the EEOC published in 2016, before the White House’s Office and Management and Budget stayed the collection of Component 2 data in August 2017.  Below are a few important highlights from the new guidance:

• Workforce Snapshot Period
  • Employers need only submit Component 2 data for employees employed during the “workforce snapshot period” for each of the relevant reporting years.
  • The “workforce snapshot period” is an employer-selected pay period between October 1 and December 31 of the reporting year.
  • The “workforce snapshot period” does not need to be the same for 2017 and 2018, nor does it need to align with the pay period used for submitting Component 1 data.
• Pay Data
  • Employers will submit Component 2’s pay data by
    

As a result of recent federal litigation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has announced that employers must submit pay data in their annual EEO-1 reports to the agency for calendar years 2017 and 2018 by September 30, 2019.  Although not currently active, the EEOC expects a web-based portal for the collection of the data to be open by mid-July 2019.  The portal will be available at https://eeoccomp2.norc.org.

In addition to the portal, the EEOC intends to issue guidance, including FAQs and other materials, to assist employers in mid-July 2019.  In the meantime, the Department of Justice has filed a Notice of Appeal to the federal litigation that lifted the EEOC’s stay on collecting such pay data.  Likewise, the EEOC’s helpdesk is set to become operational this week and can be contacted as follows:

Email: EEOCcompdata@norc.org

Toll Free Telephone: (877) 324-6214

Although an appeal has been filed, the EEOC is proceeding with enforcement of the regulation, so employers should not wait on the outcome of the appeal to begin compliance efforts. If they have not already done so, employers should immediately begin reviewing their collection processes to ensure that they are prepared to report the required pay data by September 30, 2019.

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers review and comply with EEO-1 reporting obligations.  If you or your organization would like more information or assistance in preparing EEO-1 reports, please contact an attorney in the Labor

Update to our April 11 article:

Earlier today, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered employers to submit worker pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) by September 30, 2019. In so ruling, the Court rejected arguments from worker advocate groups who had sought to require the collection of pay data by May 31, 2019.

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, employers must submit two years’ worth of pay data to the EEOC.  While data for 2018 must be included in an employer’s September 30th submission, the EEOC is free to choose whether the second year of data will come from 2017 or 2019.   If the EEOC elects to collect data from 2017, employers will be required to submit the 2017 pay data by September 30, 2019 as well.  If the agency elects to collect data from 2019, employers will be required to submit the 2019 pay data in the spring of 2020.  The EEOC has until May 3, 2019 to decide whether it will collect 2017 pay data or 2019 pay data.

If not already done, employers should immediately begin reviewing their collection processes to ensure that they are prepared to report the required pay data by September 30, 2019.

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers review and comply with EEO-1 reporting obligations.  If you or your organization would like more information or assistance in preparing EEO-1

In court documents filed on April 3, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that employers may be required to submit pay data to the agency by September 30, 2019.

The filing was made after Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EEOC to describe when and how it will comply with the Court’s March 4th Order lifting the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’s August 2017 stay on the EEOC’s collection of pay data.

Pay data has received much attention from employers and advocates alike since the Court’s March 4th Order, but the EEOC has largely remained silent until this recent filing.  For example, on March 18, 2019, when the EEOC opened its online portal for filing EEO-1 reports for 2018 (which are due by May 31, 2019), the portal did not include any request for pay data.  Instead, the agency issued a statement that same day noting that it was “working diligently on next steps” regarding the collection of pay data.

In addition to identifying a date by when employers may need to submit pay data, the EEOC’s April 3rd filing also proposes that employers only be required to submit pay data for 2018 (rather than 2017 and 2018) and describes the agency’s plan to use a data and analytics contractor to develop a new reporting program to collect the data.

The September 30, 2019 deadline, however, is not set in stone.  Worker advocates objected to the

Scrutiny of the gender pay gap in the U.S. and abroad has intensified in recent years and shows no sign of diminishing in the short term.

In the U.K., both private and public sector employers with at least 250 employees are now required to publish gender pay data. This is an annual obligation to publish details including the organization’s overall gender pay gap, the percentages of male and female employees across four quartiles and the gender pay gap in relation to bonuses. The deadline for the first reports was April 4, 2018, for private sector employers and March 30, 2018, for public sector employers.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continues to identify pay discrimination enforcement actions among its strategic priorities, and a number of states (e.g., California, Delaware, Oregon, etc.) have recently enacted more stringent laws aimed at achieving pay equality in the workplace.  Alongside these legislative and enforcement efforts to curb pay discrimination, activist shareholder firms have begun pressuring public companies in the U.S. to address the gender pay gap by making shareholder proposals that, if passed, would require targeted companies to disclose pay information describing their female employees’ pay as a percentile of male employees’ compensation.

Activist firms, such as Arjuna Capital and Trillium Asset Management, have targeted numerous companies with shareholder proposals that would require disclosure of gender pay data in annual 14-A proxy statements. Overwhelmingly, these proposals have either failed (by a significant margin) or, increasingly, have been withdrawn before a formal

On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court rejected an employee’s petition for review of a decision in Stevens v Rite Aid Corporation.[1]  Stevens sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for alleged discriminatory discharge claiming trypanophobia or “fear of needles” as a disability.  Rite Aid discharged Stevens, a pharmacist of 32 years (with Rite Aid and its predecessors), after he refused to comply with Rite Aid’s requirement that pharmacists administer immunization injections to its customers.  The Second Circuit held that administering injections was an essential function of the pharmacist position at the time of his termination, and therefore, concluded that Stevens was not a “qualified individual” with a disability.

At trial, Rite Aid personnel testified that the company made a business decision to start requiring pharmacists to perform immunizations.  While courts are required to consider a variety of factors under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations, many courts give substantial or “considerable” deference to an employer’s business judgment and written job descriptions.  Following this deferential standard, the Second Circuit reversed entry of judgment in Stevens’ favor and ordered the district court to vacate the jury’s $2.6 million award and enter judgment for Rite Aid as a matter of law on his claim of disability discrimination.

The Second Circuit is in line with other circuits, including the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, which have concluded that considerable or substantial deference to an employer’s business judgment about essential functions and its written job descriptions is required.   However, some circuit

The wave of sexual harassment allegations against high profile media moguls such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, and Mark Halperin has put sexual harassment issues in the public spotlight.  All employers, even those not in the “biz,” should take this opportunity to review their sexual harassment training and policies and consider ways to improve their workplace culture.

In a recent exclusive interview with Law360, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) acting Chair Victoria Lipnic reiterated the EEOC’s focus on sexual harassment and retaliation across a wide range of industries. See Law360, “We See This Everywhere, EEOC Chair Says of Weinstein,” Braden Campbell (Oct. 24, 2017), available at https://www.law360.com/employment/articles/977719/-we-see-this-everywhere-eeoc-chair-says-of-weinstein?nl_pk=2905a360-50ef-439a-8c8c-a294a6bf3896&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=employment. Lipnic’s interview highlights the importance for employers to review their policies and take affirmative steps to create a positive work environment.

According to Lipnic, “We see this everywhere. This happens to women in workplaces all over the place.  You look at the companies that, just last year where the EEOC brought suits. It’s food processing plants, a correctional facility, a car dealership, restaurants, agriculture. It’s across industries.”  She discussed an EEOC task force, which concluded in a June 2016 report that approximately 75% of women who experience sexual harassment do not complain internally.  Discussing deterrents to reporting, she stated, “Most people, particularly in terms of sex harassment, are not going to come to the EEOC and file a charge.  Only about 30 percent of women who experience harassment ever complain internally.”

In the interview, Lipnic discussed steps employers can take to