Littler Mendelson, P.C. • November 14, 2017
In a short published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the Third, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, and split with the D.C. Circuit, over whether a federal district court may award a “tax consequence adjustment” or “gross up” for receipt of a back pay award given in one lump sum.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • November 06, 2017
Cases turn on the evidence. In the case of an employment discrimination or retaliation claim, the key may lie in the employee file maintained by the employer. One common piece of documentation created and maintained by many employers is performance evaluations. In Walker v. Verizon, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled on a case illustrating how important documentation can be in defending these claims.
Nexsen Pruet • November 01, 2017
As we reported recently, the White House announced an immediate stay of new EEO-1 pay data collection requirements that would have required more transparency about compensation based on race and gender. Citing the unnecessary burden and other data interpretation concerns, the Office of Management and Budget called for further review of the proposed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission action. While this reporting and disclosure rule was widely (and inaccurately) panned as halting the “Equal Pay Rule,” a growing number of states and local jurisdictions are passing and/or pushing for greater salary transparency while also prohibiting salary-related questions.
XpertHR • September 20, 2017
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has told employers not to report employees' pay data when filing their 2017 EEO-1 report in a notice published in the September 15 Federal Register. However, employers still must comply with earlier EEO-1 form requirements and report data on race, ethnicity and gender by occupational category.
Nexsen Pruet • September 20, 2017
When an employer receives a charge of discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws, it is important that the charge be handled properly. That is because administrative charges are often followed by discrimination lawsuits.
Nexsen Pruet • September 08, 2017
Employers can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Last week, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced “a review and immediate stay” of the new EEO-1 pay data requirements that were to be included in employers’ March 2018 reports to the EEOC.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 08, 2017
Following the announcement placing the EEO-1 pay data requirement on indefinite hold, the EEO-1 Joint Reporting Committee has clarified open questions regarding the details for 2017 EEO-1 Reports. In an e-mail sent to report filers, the Committee clarified:
Ogletree Deakins • September 08, 2017
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII retaliation claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff premised her retaliation claim on her earlier filing of an internal complaint of harassment based on a single allegedly offensive text message. The plaintiff’s internal complaint did not constitute protected activity sufficient to give rise to a retaliation claim because she could not have reasonably believed that receipt of a singular text message violated any law. Taliaferro v. Lone Star Implementation and Electronic Corporation, No. 16-51152 (June 9, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • September 04, 2017
Plaintiff-employees cannot pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) for rights created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia has held in a case of first impression for the Third Circuit. Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, et al., No. 16-4383 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2017). The Court joins seven other circuits to have considered the issue and came to the same conclusion.
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • August 31, 2017
Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget announced that it was issuing an immediate stay of the revised EEO-1 form. In doing so, the Office explained, “Among other things, OMB is concerned that some aspects of the revised collection of information lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.” Thus, for now, employers are relieved of the obligation of complying with the pay data reporting requirements called for by last year’s revised EEO-1 report form. Covered employers are still required to file EEO-1 reports using the old forms, however.