BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

EEOC

Main Content

Illinois Tightens Restrictions on Use Of Criminal Conviction Information

Restrictions on inquiring into, or using, criminal history information are not new to Illinois employers.  For years, Illinois employers been precluded from using an applicant’s arrest history when making hiring or other employment decisions.  And, in 2015, Illinois joined the list of “ban the box” states by precluding employers with 15+ employees from inquiring into or considering the criminal record or criminal history of an applicant until after the applicant was selected for an interview or had received a conditional offer of employment.

Effective March 23, 2021, the restrictions have tightened again, through amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), which borrow concepts from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Restricted Use of Conviction Records

The new IHRA provisions make it a civil rights violation for an employer to use a “conviction record” as the basis for any employment decision, including hiring, promotion, discipline and discharge, unless:

  1. There is a “substantial relationship” between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought or held; OR
  2. The granting or continuation of employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals

Coronavirus (US): Key vaccination issues for employers – Part 3

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 3 of the three-part article, we address more of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(Click here to see Part 1, questions 1-6 and Part 2, questions 7-12)

(13) Should employers have a written policy or program? What about training?

Yes and yes

Coronavirus (US): Key vaccination issues for employers – Part 2

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 2 of the three-part article, we address more of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(Click here to see Part 1, questions 1-6.)

(7) What must an employer do if an employee refuses vaccination for a reason that requires a reasonable accommodation analysis (e.g.

Coronavirus (US): Key vaccination issues for employers – Part 1

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 1 of the three-part article, we address six of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(1) May an employer require employees who will be present on company property to obtain a vaccine when it becomes readily available to the general public?

Generally, yes; provided that

New OFCCP Director Appointment Signals Renewed Focus on Pay Discrimination

President Biden’s appointment of Jenny Yang to Director of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) on his first day in office signals a new direction in federal equal employment opportunity enforcement.  Prior to this appointment, Director Yang had a career as a plaintiff’s attorney before being appointed to Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Obama administration.  Notably, during Director Yang’s time as Chair of the EEOC, the agency introduced a highly contested requirement for employers to disclose certain employee pay data when filing EEO-1 Reports.

We expect that many of the Biden administration’s equal employment initiatives, including a renewed emphasis on pay discrimination, will be vetted through the OFCCP by Director Yang.  The EEOC may not experience as much of an immediate sea change since the Republican EEOC commissioners will remain in place through 2022.

Importantly, the OFCCP has the authority to audit private employers’ hiring and pay practices if the employer falls within the agency’s jurisdiction, which is broadly defined and applies to approximately 25% of private employers.  For example, a private employer is a government contractor or a subcontractor under the OFCCP’s jurisdiction if it has 50 or more

US COVID-19: Risky Business – Navigating Workplace Issues Involving High Risk Employees

As states across the country see spikes in COVID-19 cases, employers continue to wrestle with how to handle “high risk” employees, i.e., employees who are at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.  Guidance from a variety of agencies on the topic, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), has been published in waves, leaving many to wonder how this guidance may or may not continue to be relevant.

Below are six important areas of the law to consider when navigating this evolving landscape.  As a reminder, each individual employee’s circumstances are unique, so while employers should have a consistent procedure in place for triaging high risk employees’ presence in the workplace, employers should also be prepared to develop individualized solutions based on an employee’s specific needs.

  1. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”): Employees with certain underlying health conditions may qualify as “high risk” and thus be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.  While accommodations may include a leave of absence or telework arrangement, other possible accommodations include permitting the employee more frequent hygiene breaks, excusing

US COVID-19: Remember the FMLA: DOL Issues New Q&A on COVID-related FMLA Issues

With all of the attention being given to COVID-19-related leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), we mustn’t forget the (traditional) Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  To remind us, the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued new FMLA Q&A on COVID-19-related subjects.

COVID-19 Testing:  The DOL clarified that the FMLA’s “reinstatement” requirement does not interfere with an employer’s ability to require all employees to take a COVID-19 test before coming to the office.  (See Q&A #13.)  This is because employees who have taken FMLA leave are still subject to the same actions that would have applied to the employee had the employee not taken FMLA leave.

For BCLP discussions about what the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has said about COVID-19 related testing, see this blog post on 4 Takeaways from the EEOC’s New Guidance on Antibody Testing, Older Workers, and Accommodations and this one on EEOC Updates COVID-19 Guidance, Permitting Employers To Administer COVID-19 Tests and Clarifying Accommodation Obligations.

Telemedicine:  The DOL clarified that, until December 31, 2020, and in light of the current pandemic-related demands on health care providers and PPE/supplies, “telemedicine” visits will count as “in-person visits” for FMLA

US COVID-19: 4 Takeaways from the EEOC’s New Guidance on Antibody Testing, Older Workers, and Accommodations

June 23, 2020

Categories

With more and more states reopening their economies, employers are facing a barrage of new requirements from state and local governments.  But compliance with local law isn’t the only thing employers must consider as they resume business operations.  Federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), continue to impact which workers may be required to return to work and what information employers may gather in the process.

Just as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, so, too does guidance on these topics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws.  In its most recent publication, the EEOC offers new insights on antibody testing, older workers, and accommodations.  Below are four key takeaways from the updated guidance for every employer to consider.

  1. Employers may not require employees to undergo antibody testing (i.e. serologic testing used to determine whether an employee was previously infected with COVID-19) prior to returning to the workplace. This is in contrast to diagnostic testing (i.e. viral testing used to determine whether an employee is currently infected with COVID-19), which an employer may require.
  2. Employees are not entitled to an accommodation

US COVID-19: EEO Reminders to Include in Return to Work Communications

As employers prepare their “Return To Work” plans, clear communications to employees about protocols and expectations will be critically important.  Recent updates to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) COVID-19 publication, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other EEOC Laws,” discuss “reminders” that employers should consider providing to employees on various EEO-related “Return To Work” topics.

Anti-Harassment Reminders

Near the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., as reports of harassing conduct towards Asian individuals increased, the EEOC was quick to remind employers that they could reduce the chance of harassment by explicitly communicating to the workforce that fear of the pandemic “should not be misdirected against individuals because of a protected characteristic, including their national origin, race, or other prohibited bases.”  (E.1.)

The EEOC reiterated that guidance in its recent updates, noting that workforce reminders should:

  • Note Title VII’s prohibitions on harassment;
  • Remind employees that harassment will not be tolerated;
  • Encourage anyone who experiences or witnesses workplace harassment to report it to management; and
  • Remind employee that harassment can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

 

(E.3.)  The EEOC further emphasized that managers in

U.S. COVID-19: Returning High Risk Employees To The Workplace: Best Intentions Could Be Bad News For Employers

Employers preparing to reopen their places of business have many logistical considerations, including compliance with state and local health orders relating to face coverings, temperature and wellness screenings, and other measures designed to help keep employees healthy and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its own “Return to Work” guidance by adding Q&A guidance on how employers should handle a “high risk” employee, i.e., an employee with an existing and known disability that may make the employee more susceptible to severe illness from COVID-19.  The guidance is a helpful reminder to employers that even actions taken with the best of intentions may not comply with legal obligations and restrictions.  Below are three important questions for employers to consider in light of the EEOC’s updated guidance.

How does the Interactive Process Apply to COVID-Related Requests for Accommodation?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), employers are obligated to consider requests from a disabled employee for reasonable accommodations to the employee’s work environment that would permit him or her to perform the essential functions of the job. While the EEOC’s

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.