Articles Discussing General Issues Under Title VII.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued an opinion letter clarifying its authority to bring “pattern and practice” lawsuits under § 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission’s detailed guidance, issued September 3, 2020, announces a more restrained approach by the agency

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

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.

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).

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”).

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.

The requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that a complainant file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prior to filing suit in federal court is a prudential, claim-processing rule that does not determine whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a unanimous ruling. Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (June 3, 2019).

All private employers with a workforce of 100 or more who are subject to Title VII must now submit 2017 and 2018 pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by September 30. The reinstatement results from a March 4 ruling by Washington, D.C., District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget, Civ A. No. 17-cv-2458 (D.D.C.). Importantly, the “Component 2” pay data report is not limited to employers who are federal contractors. With the reinstatement of the revised EEO-1 report, subject employers now have two 2019 compliance deadlines: May 31 for the traditional EEO-1 report, including race/ethnicity and gender reporting in each of the 10 occupational categories, and September 30 for the wage and hour/pay data report. In addition to the information required by the traditional EEO-1 Report, the Component 2 report adds a reporting requirement of total annual hours worked for those same employees in each pay band and snapshot pay data within those 12 defined pay bands. The EEOC is prohibited by statute from publishing the employment data derived from the EEO-1 reports prior to the institution of any Title VII proceeding, other than as non-employer-specific aggregate data. As for the timing and logistics of the Component 2 report, the Commission released the following statement

Executive Summary: On March 21, 2019, in Lewis v. Union City, No. 15-11362, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1) clarified the proper standard for the comparator analysis in intentional discrimination cases under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and (2) held that a qualitative comparator analysis remains part of the initial prima facie stage of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Executive Summary: On March 12, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified in a published opinion that federal employees may bring retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though the federal-sector provision does not explicitly reference retaliation. Komus v. Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (3d Cir. 2019).

The morning after any kind of mass violence playing on loop on every media outlet poses unique challenges to employers and managers. Not only can workplace conversations turn uncomfortable and potentially inappropriate, but trauma that is not adequately addressed can have a direct impact on workplace productivity. How can an employer respond to emotional discussions while being sensitive to employees whose racial, religious, sexual, or ethnic identity was a focus of the underlying attacks and is a subject of media attention?

In less than 18 months of employment, Evangeline Parker received six promotions. Then rumors circulated that Parker’s precipitous rise through the ranks “must” have been because she was sleeping with her boss. When Parker complained about the rumors and confronted the employee who allegedly started the rumors, she was terminated. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, held that such rumors could form the basis of a sexual harassment claim in violation of Title VII.