The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently announced a pair of major changes to the EEO-1 filing process. The most recent was on May 7, 2020, when the EEOC announced that due to the COVID-19 pandemic it was filing a notice in the Federal Register delaying collection of the 2019
Articles Discussing Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964.
On Thursday, May 7, 2020, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it will not collect EEO-1 data from private sector employers this year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
In a press release, EEOC acknowledged it
will delay the anticipated opening of the 2019 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection and the 2020 EEO-3 and EEO-5 data collections because of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency.
On May 7, 2020, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it will not collect Form EEO-1 workplace demographic data for calendar year 2019 this year. Rather, the agency will collect EEO-1 data for both calendar years 2019 and 2020 next year, with the announced expectation that
It seems the end has finally come for at least one part of the pay data reporting story. On Monday, February 10, Judge Chutkan ordered the EEO-1 Component 2 pay data reporting portal closed. The closing of the portal signals the end of the required collection of pay data for
As an update and a clarification to the below post we have learned from EEOC that there is not currently a deadline in place for submission of the 2019 EEO-1 reports. In fact, EEOC currently does not have authority to collect 2019 EEO-1 Component 1 data.
Since the advent of
Although we are about a week from the current March 31, 2020 deadline for filing 2019 EEO-1 reports, the EEO-1 Portal has yet to open.
That is due, at least in part, to the fact the fact EEOC does not yet have authority to continue to collect Component 1 race
The absence of an adverse employment action by an employer routinely is fatal to a claim of discrimination (absent proof of constructive discharge). This bedrock principle was reiterated recently in a case where an applicant alleged that she was forced to resign after failing a physical abilities test. Jane D.
On February 10, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s request to deem its retrospective collection of compensation data (the so-called “Component 2” information) for calendar years 2017 and 2018 completed, ending (at least for now) the federal government’s first-ever collection of pay data. Employers’ obligations with respect to filing calendar year 2019 demographic data remain unclear.
It seems the end has finally come for at least one part of the pay data reporting story. Today, Judge Chutkan ordered the EEO-1 Component 2 pay data reporting portal closed. The closing of the portal signals the end of the required collection of pay data for 2017 and 2018 from eligible employers.
Despite the heightened attention to avoiding and addressing sexual harassment claims in the wake of the #MeToo movement, retaliation remains the most-frequently filed employment law claim according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s FY 2019 Enforcement and Litigation Data. The agency received 39,110 retaliation charges in FY 2019 or 53.8% of all charges filed.
Dollar General is the latest employer to settle with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its use of criminal background information in the hiring process. The EEOC’s lawsuit argued that Dollar General’s hiring and screening procedures, even though facially neutral, had a disproportionately negative effect on African American applicants as compared to white applicants. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General, 1:13-CV-04307 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013).
Establishing the judicial estoppel defense against a bankrupt plaintiff will be harder in the Eleventh Circuit following Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C., 940 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2019).
I am an HR manager for a boutique beauty supply shop based in Atlanta, Georgia. We are planning to expand into new storefronts in both San Diego, California and Brooklyn, New York. We have a standard grooming policy because our company promotes personal care products and it is important to us that client-facing employees are clean and well-groomed. Our handbook restricts employees on the sales floor from wearing facial piercings, visible tattoos, long beards and dreadlocks. However, we’ve heard that new laws prohibit “hairstyle discrimination” and restrict dress codes. Can we still maintain our look?
Via Federal Register notice, OFCCP has officially stated the Agency
will not request, accept, or use Component 2 data, as it does not expect to find significant utility in the data given limited resources and its aggregated nature, but it will continue to receive EEO-1 Component 1 data.