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).
Articles Discussing General Issues Under Title VII.
EEO-1 Pay Data Deadline Reinstated
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
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Standard for Identifying Comparators in Title VII and ADA Discrimination Cases
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.
Third Circuit Agrees with Other Appeals Courts – Federal Employees may Bring Retaliation Claims under Title VII
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).
Avoiding Workplace Discrimination in the Wake of Mass Violence
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?
When Workplace Gossip is Grounds for Title VII Claim
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.
Lack of Training Deemed Adverse Action
What is an “adverse action”? In the workplace some may think that it is only when someone is fired. However, much more falls under the “adverse action” umbrella. What about denying an employee a training opportunity
New York Court Rules on Adverse Action
A federal district court in New York analyzed what constitutes an adverse action in an employment context.
Help! I Just Received a Charge of Discrimination. Now What? – Part 3 of 3
In this three-part series, we are exploring best practices for handling a charge of discrimination. The first part of the series addressed important preliminary questions you should be asking upon initial receipt of the charge. The second part dealt with best practices for the investigation phase of the administrative process. This final part of the series will address what you should do once the EEOC issues its finding.
Help! I Just Received a Charge of Discrimination. Now What? – Part 1 of 3
So you’ve just received a charge of discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or a local agency. Now what? In this three-part series, we will explore best practices for handling a charge.
Fifth Circuit Finds Employer’s Peer Review Process Does Not Constitute an Adverse Employment Action
The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting decision finding that the actions of an employer’s peer review committee did not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision was driven by the specific facts presented to the court, so it does not necessarily signal a trend toward peer review actions being treated in this manner in Title VII cases. Visit our EPL Risk Mitigation blog to learn more about this decision.
Eleventh Circuit Raises Bar for Employers Seeking Summary Judgment in Discrimination Cases
Executive Summary: On June 1, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc., No. 17-11802, held that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to discrimination claims where the plaintiff offered direct evidence of discrimination, even though the plaintiff herself called her evidence circumstantial and analyzed her claims under that framework. Jefferson is part of the Eleventh Circuit’s recent trend of reducing the burden on employment discrimination plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage, making it easier for them to proceed to trial before a jury.
Tips for Employers Facing a Charge of Discrimination
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.
Employee Cannot Bypass Title VII, ADA Regulatory Schemes to Hold Public Employers Personally Liable, Third Circuit Rules
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.
Second Circuit: Notice of Termination is an Adverse Action Even if Rescinded
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified its standard relating to rescinding terminations, and more specifically, how they interpret “adverse consequences.” The issue came before the court in a matter where an employee returned from her honeymoon, visibly pregnant, and was told that her position was going to be eliminated within a few weeks. Shortly thereafter, the employee retained an attorney and notified her employer of the same. Several days later, the employer rescinded her termination and reinstated her position. When analyzing rescinding termination claims under Title VII, the standard is to determine if the reinstatement had any lasting “adverse consequences.” Various circuit courts and lower courts have historically considered whether the employee was restored to the same salary, benefits, and title when reinstated in order to determine if there were adverse consequences to the employee. If the same material conditions were reinstated, courts would not recognize adverse consequences. Here, the employee did not claim any difference in salary, title, or benefits and therefore, the lower court ruled that the employee incurred no adverse consequences.