The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released guidance in an FAQ to employers as to how they should report non-binary employees on Form EEO-1.
Articles Discussing Title VII Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964.
When facing a wrongful termination/retaliation claim, the organization and detail of an employer’s files will be put to the test. In a recent decision, an employer maintained well-documented, detailed files which helped to prove that a termination was not retaliatory. In Lacey v. Norac, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation claim under Title VII based on allegations that the employee was terminated for refusing to sign an affidavit on the employer’s behalf.
On August 6, 2019, in Texas v. EEOC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt the EEOC a significant setback, largely affirming the district court’s decision that the EEOC violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Guidance”).
As required, EEOC has filed its scheduled update with the Court regarding the progress of collection of the new EEO-1 Component 2 pay data report.
Private employers with more than 100 employees, and certain federal contractors, have long been required to submit workforce demographic information annually to the EEOC (i.e., information regarding sex, race, ethnicity, organized by job category).
On schedule, EEOC has opened the portal for filing 2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Component 2 reports.
As July 15th draws closer, EEOC and NORC are ramping up for opening of the EEO-1 Component 2 Pay Data reporting portal.
As we previously reported, on July 2, EEOC updated the its newly created website with long-awaited materials regarding the obligation of employers with 100 or more employees (or contractors with 50 or more employees) to submit pay data and hours worked data as part of the annual EEO-1 reporting obligations.
As we approach the July 15 date on which EEOC expects to open the portal to file EEO-1 Component 2 pay data reports, EEOC has at long last provided us with guidance materials: https://eeoccomp2.norc.org/faq.html.
Now that the 2018 EEO-1 Component 1 filing deadline has passed, employers have been anxiously awaiting additional information on the requirements for filing 2017 and 2018 Component 2 compensation data due September 30, 2019.1
In its most recent status update, filed with the court as ordered by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, EEOC is reporting it and NORC are on schedule to open the EEO-1 Component 2 pay data reporting tool on July 15, 2019.
The May 31, 2019, deadline for filing EEO-1 Component 1 race-and-gender data has come and gone. The portal for filing Component 1 data will remain open for several more months, however, and there are no fines or penalties for filing late.
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or equivalent state agency before going to court was procedural and not jurisdictional.
Executive Summary: In a much anticipated decision to settle a significant split between the federal appellate circuits, the Supreme Court held on Monday that Title VII’s requirement that a plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC prior to filing suit in federal district court is a procedural, not jurisdictional, requirement “that must be timely raised to come into play.” See Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (June 3, 2019). Siding with the majority of federal appellate circuit courts, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdictional” prescriptions are usually reserved to determine the classes of cases the court can entertain, and over whom the court may exercise authority, while procedural prescriptions fall more in line with “claim-processing rules and other preconditions to relief.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement, while mandatory, is merely procedural, and requires defendants to timely raise the defense or else waive it.
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a lawsuit’s claim under Title VII. Rather, it is a non-jurisdictional mandatory claim-processing rule that is a precondition for relief. The practical result of this decision is that employers must now timely raise any defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or face the risk that their defense will be waived.