EEOC – Page 2 – Workforce

April 21, 2020June 29, 2023

Can and should employers require antibody testing as a return-to-work condition?

We all want to get back to work as safely and as quickly as possible.

One thing that would allow us to do this with confidence is widespread antibody testing, a quick blood test to reveal if one carries the COVID-19 antibodies from which an employer can presume exposure, immunity and a reasonable degree of safety for an employee to return to work.

This testing, however, raises two critical questions.

1. Can employers legally require it?
2. Should employers rely on it as an indicia of safety?

Can an employer legally require antibody testing?

The “can” question is easy to answer. According to the EEOC, because coronavirus is a “direct threat,” employers have carte blanche to test employees, including antibody testing as a return-to-work condition.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from making disability-related inquiries or engaging in medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity, which includes when an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.

Also read: What a business operating in the time of coronavirus cannot look like

A “direct threat” is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” If an individual with a disability poses a direct threat despite reasonable accommodation, the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA do not protect him or her, and disability-related inquiries and medical examinations are legal and permissible.

Per the EEOC, “As of March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic meets the direct threat standard,” because “a significant risk of substantial harm would be posed by having someone with COVID-19, or symptoms of it, present in the workplace at the current time.”

Thus, because COVID-19 is a direct threat, employers absolutely can require antibody testing as a condition for an employee to return to work.

Should an employer rely on antibody testing as an indicia of safety?

The more difficult question is whether an employer “should” require it and rely on it.

On Sunday, The New York Times ran a cautionary article, taking major issue with the reliability of COVID-19 antibody tests, which yet do not even have FDA approval.

More than 90 companies have jumped into the market since the F.D.A. eased its rules and allowed antibody tests to be sold without formal federal review or approval.

Some of those companies are start-ups; others have established records. In a federal guidance document on March 16, the F.D.A. required them to validate their results on their own and notify the agency that they had done so.…

Most of the tests offered are rapid tests that can be assessed in a doctor’s office — or, eventually, even at home — and provide simple yes-or-no results. Makers of the tests have aggressively marketed them to businesses and doctors, and thousands of Americans have already taken them, costing a patient roughly $60 to $115.

Rapid tests are by far the easiest to administer. But they are also the most unreliable — so much so that the World Health Organization recommends against their use.

These tests have a false-positive rate of 5 percent (or higher), a significant margin of error when you consider that in a community with a five percent infection rate you’d have as many false positive as actual positives.

Even labs that are marketing these antibody tests to employers are cautioning against their reliability.

This test hasn’t been reviewed by the FDA. Negative results don’t rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in those who have been in contact with the virus. Follow-up testing with a molecular diagnostic lab should be considered to rule out infection in these individuals. Results from antibody testing shouldn’t be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection. Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.

In other words, these tests aren’t reliable because the FDA hasn’t reviewed them, and because of risk of a strand of coronavirus other than COVID-19 flagging a false-positive result.
What does all of this mean?

First, employers should not and cannot rely on currently available antibody tests as the magic bullet to get employees safely back to work. They are simply not sufficiently reliable.

Secondly, for the time being, employers will have to rely on measures other than testing to keep employees safe.

Third and finally, the government needs to ramp up the approval of reliable testing. Without readily available quick and reliable tests we are shooting in the dark by bringing employees back to work, and we will continue to spread infections no matter how many other steps businesses take to attempt safely to return employees to work.

April 8, 2020June 29, 2023

If you require employees to wait in line for a coronavirus fever check, pay them for waiting

Bloomberg Law asks whether employers are “responsible for paying workers for the time it takes to record their body temperatures before entering the workplace.”

To me, this question doesn’t require a legal analysis but a common-sense application of basic decency. If your employees are queuing before entering work because you are requiring them to pass a temperature check, pay them … period.

Since this is a legal blog, however, I might as well look beyond common sense and examine the laws impacted by this issue—the ADA and the FLSA.

The ADA typically prohibits employers from taking employees’ temperatures as an unlawful medical examination. Because the WHO has classified coronavirus as a pandemic, however, just about all medical exam issues under the ADA are temporarily moot. According to the EEOC, among other coronavirus prevention measures, employers may measure employees’ temperatures. This issue, at least for now, is pretty cut and dry.

The FLSA issue is a little more nuanced. In Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, the Supreme Court held that the FLSA only requires employers to compensate employees for time spent performing “preliminary” (pre-shift) and “postliminary” (post-shift) activities that are “integral and indispensable” to an employee’s principal activities. What activities are “integral and indispensable?” Those that are (1) “necessary to the principal work performed” and (2) “done for the benefit of the employer.”

In Busk, for example, the Court held that post-shift security screenings were not “integral and indispensable” for an Amazon warehouse employee, because such screenings are not “an intrinsic element of retrieving products from warehouse shelves or packaging them for shipment,” and the employer “could have eliminated the screenings altogether without impairing the employees’ ability to complete their work.”

According to the Bloomberg Law article, employers could look to Busk to argue that pre-shift temperature checks, even if mandatory, are not “integral and indispensable” and therefore can be unpaid. (For what it’s worth, I think a just as good, or better, argument is that preliminary temperature checks to protect employees from a deadly virus are integral, indispensable, and compensable.)

Busk or no Busk, this isn’t a “what does the law allow” issue; this is a “what’s right is right” issue. If you’re requiring your employees to queue in a line to take their temperature before you’ll let them enter the workplace, pay them. Don’t be cheap and don’t count pennies.

Your employees are scared. They are risking their own personal health and safety, and that of everyone who lives in their homes, to keep your essential business up and running. They could just as easily stay home, limit their exposure, and collect unemployment.

What they need is your compassion, not your penny-pinching. Times are tough for everyone. I get it. But your business shouldn’t go belly up if you pay each employee for a few extra minutes of time each day, especially when the federal government is going to reimburse you through your Paycheck Protection Program loan. (You did apply for your loan, right?)

At the end of this pandemic, many businesses will no longer exist. If there’s such a thing as karma, one of the deciding factors in which ones survive will be how they treated their employees.

* * *

Don’t forget that I’ll live on Zoom tomorrow, April 9, from 11:30 am – 12:30, open paid sick leave and eFMLA issues, and taking your coronavirus questions. And Norah has said she will drop in and share another song. You can access the Zoominar here: https://zoom.us/j/983559955

January 22, 2020June 29, 2023

Dream on — lawsuit by Aerosmith drummer highlights the legal risk of ‘fitness for duty’ exams

Joey Kramer, Aerosmith’s founding and longtime drummer, is suing his band mates after they blocked him from joining them at upcoming high-profile events, including this weekend’s honor as the 2020 MusiCares Person of the Year and its Lifetime Achievement Award at this weekend’s Grammys.

Kramer claims that Steven Tyler, Joe Perry, Tom Hamilton and Brad Whitford are not allowing him back in the band following a temporary disability from minor injuries he suffered last year. According to TMZ, Kramer claims the band required the Aerosmith drummer to audition to prove he was “able to play at an appropriate level” before he could regain his drummer role. He further claims that this audition is unprecedented in the band’s 50-year history, during which each of other members had to step away for various reasons.

This story about the Aerosmith drummer got me thinking about an employer’s rights when an employee seeks to return to work after a medically related leave of absence. Two laws potentially apply — the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

According to the EEOC, under the ADA:

If an employer has a reasonable belief that an employee’s present ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition or that s/he will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition, the employer may make disability-related inquiries or require the employee to submit to a medical examination. Any inquiries or examination, however, must be limited in scope to what is needed to make an assessment of the employee’s ability to work. Usually, inquiries or examinations related to the specific medical condition for which the employee took leave will be all that is warranted. The employer may not use the employee’s leave as a justification for making far-ranging disability-related inquiries or requiring an unrelated medical examination.

The issue is more complicated if the FMLA covers the employee’s leave. According to the DOL’s FMLA regulations:

- As a precondition of restoring an employee out on FMLA leave for his or her own serious health condition, an employer can require the employee to obtain and present certification from the employee’s health care provider that the employee is able to resume work.

- The fitness-for-duty requirement must be made pursuant to a uniformly-applied policy or practice that requires it for all similarly-situated employees (i.e., same occupation, same serious health condition).

- An employer may only require a fitness-for-duty certification if it advised the employee of the requirement in the required FMLA designation notice at the outset of the leave.

- The requested fitness-for-duty certification is limited to the particular serious health condition that caused the need for the FMLA leave, must certify that the employee is able to return to work, and may also certify (if requested) that the employee is able to perform the essential functions of the job.

- Unlike medical certifications at the outset of an FMLA leave, fitness-for-duty certifications are a one-shot deal. No second or third certifications are permitted.

- Failure by an employee to submit a requested fitness-for-duty certification strips an employee of his or her job restoration rights (unless the employer failed to advise the employee of the requirement at the outset of the leave).
- The employer can require the employee to bear the cost of the fitness-for-duty certification.

Here’s where it can get really tricky. A failure by an employee’s medical provider to certify the employee as fit to return to work could trigger an employer’s obligation to engage in the ADA’s interactive process with the employee for a reasonable accommodation. If the employee’s medical provider, instead of returning the employee to work without restrictions, either asks for additional, finite unpaid time off or restrictions upon the return to work, the employer should engage with the employee to determine what accommodations are possible under the ADA. The failure to do so could result in an ADA violation.

These issues are tricky and fraught with legal risk. You should be contacting your employment counsel to help you navigate these issues when they arise.

November 19, 2019June 29, 2023

A Pox on Ban the Box

I am a podcast fanatic. It’s the best way to spend time on my daily commute and to fill the speakers of my car stereo, I have an unending list of podcasts to which I subscribe.

They run the gamut from music related (“Wheels Off With Rhett Miller”), human interest (“Terrible, Thanks for Asking”), travel (“Bittersweet Moment”), and technology (“Reply All”). But my favorite is “Ear Hustle.”

“Ear Hustle” is a podcast about “the daily realities of life inside prison shared by those living it, and stories from the outside, post-incarceration.” One of its recent episodes discussed the realities and difficulties the incarcerated face trying to find employment upon their release from prison.

Bottom line? Once an employer finds out you committed a felony and spent time in prison, your employment prospects drop dramatically. And most learn of this information by an applicant checking the “Yes, I’ve been convicted of a felony” box on their employment application.

Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction that blocked the EEOC’s guidance on criminal background checks as unlawful and banned its continued implementation or use.

That injunction is significant for many reasons, not the least of which is that the EEOC’s guidance opined that employment applications that ask whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a felony violate Title VII on their face. Why? Because blacks and Latinos are incarcerated at a rate that is statistically significantly higher than whites.

The movement against employers asking this question on job applications is called “ban the box” — cleverly titled after the box applicants are asked to check if they’ve been convicted of a felony. Nationwide, 35 states and over 150 cities have adopted ban the box laws.

So what’s wrong with laws that are intended to give those with felony convictions in their background a chance at getting past the application stage of their employment search? The laws don’t work.

As illustrated on “Ear Hustle,” ban the box merely moves the criminal background check from the application stage to the formal background check stage. Employers that are predisposed not to hire felons are not going to hire felons. They will just ding them later in the hiring process — after the expense of a formal criminal background check. These laws aren’t changing employers’ minds or attitudes. They are just giving felons false hope.

Moreover, according to two recent studies, ban the box laws are causing more racial discrimination by improving the hiring prospects for whites, while making them worse for blacks and Latinos. The conclusion drawn by these studies is that when employers can’t see who has a criminal record, they still avoid people they think are likely to have criminal records by resorting to guesswork.

As a result, racial discrimination against black and Latino job applicants (especially men) replaces discrimination based on criminal record. In other words, banning the box doesn’t just fail to help those its intended to help, but it also might hurt anyone who happens to be black or Latino.

Thus, if ban the box laws either create a more damaging reliance on unconscious racial biases (as these studies suggest) or push the consideration of criminal backgrounds to later in the hiring process, where employers will still use them to disqualify candidates (albeit with higher transaction costs in the hiring process), why do we have them?

If ban the box laws aren’t working toward their intended results of opening job opportunities for ex-cons, then what should we do to achieve this laudable goal? I suggest a three-pronged approach:

• Job training within the prison system to provide the incarcerated with transferable real-world job skills and a certification they can provide to a prospective employers upon their release.

• Tax credits to incentivize businesses to hire these felons.

• A privilege from negligent hiring and other liabilities for employers that hire certain felons for certain positions (i.e., We still don’t want sex offenders working in schools, but they might able to work in a manufacturing facility if they are otherwise qualified and sufficiently rehabilitated).

We need something to break the cycle of crime, and that something is jobs. Stable employment and steady income will help stem recidivism and keep people from returning to crime as a means of support.

If ban the box isn’t working toward this goal, then local, state and federal governments need to abandon ban the box and look for other solutions to this problem.

November 11, 2019

EEO-1 Reporting Update: How We Got Here and What You Need to Know

Nov. 11, 2019 is the last day for employers to submit reports detailing their employee compensation data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Under the new reporting requirement, employers with at least 100 employees must report information to the EEOC regarding employee wages and hours worked by job category, race, ethnicity and gender. The EEOC is continuing to collect this data for 2017 and 2018 in advance of the Nov. 11 deadline, but the new requirement appears to be short-lived. On Sept. 12, 2019, the EEOC announced that after this year’s deadline, employers will no longer be required to submit compensation data, also known as “Component 2” data.

The EEOC first proposed this additional collection of pay data in 2016, and the reports were slated to be due Mar. 31, 2018. In announcing the new requirement, EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang explained that the collection of pay data was meant to “assist employers in evaluating their pay practices to prevent pay discrimination and strengthen enforcement of our federal anti-discrimination laws.” The EEOC ultimately reversed course, explaining that the “unproven utility” of the pay data collection is “far outweighed by the burden imposed on employers that must comply with the reporting obligation.”

After Nov. 11, covered employers can return to the EEOC’s previous data collection practices, in which it has required employers to report demographic information (now called “Component 1” data) using the EEO-1 form. Since 1966, employers with more than 100 employees have been required to report the number of individuals employed by job category, race, ethnicity, and gender.

For federal agencies like the EEOC to collect information from the public, they need approval from the Office of Management and Budget, so the EEOC sought approval from the OMB to collect Component 2 data using a revised EEO-1 form.

In 2017, the OMB stayed the requirement to report Component 2 data. Thereafter, several advocacy organizations brought an action against the OMB to end the stay and reinstate the revised EEO-1 reporting requirements and collection of Component 2 data. On Mar. 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the OMB failed to demonstrate good cause to uphold the stay and permitted the collection of Component 2 data using the revised EEO-1 form. While the Department of Justice filed an appeal on May 3, this did not stay the reporting requirement.

The initial deadline to collect Component 2 data was Sept. 30, 2019, but it has taken a substantial amount of effort for employers to provide the requested pay data information. Before the collection of Component 2 data was officially underway, the EEOC estimated that adding Component 2 data would increase the burden of EEO-1 reporting by 90 percent. Given the difficulty of completing this reporting, it comes as no surprise that the data collection and submission of the revised EEO-1 reports have not been seamless. As of Oct. 8, 2019, only 75.9 percent of covered employers had submitted the requested data by the initial deadline. This is far lower than the response rates for prior EEO-1 Component 1 data collections, which exceeded 90 percent.

It remains unclear how the newly collected Component 2 data will be used, especially since it only includes pay information for 2017 and 2018. The EEOC has stated that, as a general matter, EEO-1 data is used “for a variety of purposes including enforcement, self-assessment by employers, and research.” The EEOC has also published aggregated EEO-1 Component 1 data, in addition to periodic industry specific reports.

While any potential uses for the data are uncertain, the EEOC has implemented procedures “to ensure the protection of identifiable information of our survey respondents and maintain EEOC’s commitment to protect the data confidentiality.” This should allay concerns that an individual employer’s EEO-1 data could be made public.

As for lessons learned in the aftermath of this extensive data collection, employers could use the information gathered to conduct internal pay analyses. While employers will no longer be subject to this particular reporting requirement, prudent employers will still gather pay data by job category, race, ethnicity and gender to take proactive measures to avoid pay equity lawsuits.

September 24, 2019June 29, 2023

Beware the ‘Religious Exemption’ Plan

Warning: This month’s column is not for everyone. If, however, you are offended by what I am about to say, then this is specifically for you.

In August, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the federal agency that regulates and governs federal contractors and subcontractors, proposed regulations to clarify the scope and application of the religious exemption contained in section 204(c) of Executive Order 11246.

By way of background, Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in September 1965, “prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” It’s been amended over the years, including its 2014 addition of LGBTQ protections to the list of prohibited discrimination.

Section 204(c) specifically exempts from coverage any “government contractor or subcontractor that is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society.”

The Trump administration seeks to expand section 204(c) to permit religious organizations with federal contracts to “make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”

It makes clear that religious organizations can discriminate because of religion, and that religious organizations can require employees’ behavior to meet the organization’s religious rules.

What has people, including me, up in arms about this rule is its proposed change to what qualifies as a “religious organization.” The EEOC has long taken the position that for-profit companies cannot qualify as “religious organizations.” This proposal deviates from that long-standing rule for purposes of the OFCCP. Indeed, according to two senior Labor Department officials, the exemption would apply to “closely held companies acting in accordance with an owner’s religious beliefs.”

In other words, if someone organizes a closely held business for a religious “purpose” and holds itself out to the public as such, it would be exempt from the OFCCP’s anti-discrimination provisions if it operates its business consistent with its religious purpose.

What would this change mean practically? As the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted, “The Department of Labor just proposed a rule that aims to let government contractors fire workers who are LGBTQ, or who are pregnant and unmarried, based on the employers’ religious views.”

This is not “religious freedom.” It’s government-sanctioned discrimination. And it’s just plain wrong.

Private businesses can’t hold religious beliefs. Extending to them these protections based on their owners’ religious beliefs is dangerous. And scary. And abhorrent. We should all be troubled by a rule that permits an employer to opt out of an employment law because of a religious belief.

Religious freedom as an opt-out from the law is a dangerous construct. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. We irreparably damage this important principle when we permit a private business, under the guise of religious freedom, to opt-out, without penalty, from an employment law with which it disagrees or finds offensive.

If you stand with me, and against government-sanctioned discrimination of any kind and in any form, write or call your senator and congressperson and tell them that this proposed rule cannot stand. That as a nation we are better than this. That all private businesses should be held to the same non-discriminatory obligations, regardless of the religious beliefs of their owners.

And, don’t forget about the comment period required by the rule-making process for any proposed regulations. The public gets to chime in, and everyone who opposes this rule should do so.

To conclude, I’ll make this as clear as possible.

Racism is wrong.

Sexism is wrong.

Homophobia is wrong.

If you disagree, you’re a bigot, period.

And, if you hide behind your religion to protect your views, then you’re a hypocritical bigot. There is nothing religious about bigotry, no matter what some might want you to believe.

September 23, 2019June 29, 2023

No-fault Attendance Policies Offer No Cover When the ADA or FMLA Are Involved

An employee suffering from epilepsy, migraines and heart condition asks (with a medical note) for two unpaid days off from work to treat symptoms related to her disabilities.

Instead of granting the leave, the employer assigns the employee points under its no-fault attendance policy and fires her for exceeding the allowable number of attendance points. The EEOC has sued the employer, alleging disability discrimination.

A no-fault attendance policy assigns points each time an employee is absent, with corresponding levels of progressive discipline automatically imposed at certain point levels. Employers like these policies because they simplify attendance issues.

These policies, however, carry, a certain degree of risk — namely in the handling of absences protected by the FMLA or ADA. If the FMLA or ADA protects an employee’s absence from work, an employer would violate the statute by counting the absence as part of a no-fault attendance policy. And, in this case (assuming the medical note is legit), and for this reason, it appears this employer has a big problem with the EEOC.

On a more basic level, where’s the humanity in denying two days off for an employee to deal with medical symptoms, especially when the request is accompanied by a doctor’s note?

The ADA requires reasonable accommodations. Unless the employee is a serial abuser of unpaid days off, it’s hard to imagine a situation in which two days is not a reasonable request.

September 3, 2019July 12, 2024

Why ‘Ban the Box’ Doesn’t Work for Employers or Employees

Listen this clip from Ear Hustle (a podcast about “the daily realities of life inside prison shared by those living it, and stories from the outside, post-incarceration”), and then let’s chat about “ban the box.”

Last month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction which blocked the EEOC’s guidance on criminal background checks is unlawful, and banned its continued implementation or use.

That injunction is significant for many reasons, not the least of which in that the EEOC’s guidance opined that employment applications that ask whether an applicant has ever been convicted of a felony violate Title VII on their face. Why? Because African-Americans and Hispanics are incarcerated at a rate significantly higher than whites.

The movement against employers asking this question on job applications is called “ban the box” — cleverly labeled after the “box” applicants are asked to check if they’ve been convicted of a felony. Nationwide, 35 states and over 150 cities have adopted these laws.

As illustrated in the Ear Hustle clip above, all that “ban the box” accomplishes is moving the criminal background check from the application stage to the formal background check stage. Employers that are pre-disposed not to hire felons are not going to hire felons. They will just ding them later in the hiring process — after the expense of a formal criminal background check. These laws aren’t changing employers’ minds or attitudes; they are just giving felons false hope.

Moreover, according to two recent studies, ban the box laws are causing more racial discrimination by improving the hiring prospects for Caucasians, while making them worse for African-Americans and Hispanics.

If ban the box laws aren’t working toward their intended results of opening job opportunities for ex-cons, then what should we do to achieve this laudable goal? I suggest a three-pronged approach:

1. Job training within the prison system to provide the incarcerated with transferable real-world job skills and a certification they can provide to a prospective employers upon their release.
2. Tax credits to incentivize businesses to hire these felons.
3. A privilege from negligent hiring and other liabilities for employers that hire certain felons for certain positions (i.e., we still don’t want sex offenders working in schools, but they might able to work in a manufacturing facility if they are otherwise qualified and sufficiently rehabilitated).

We need something to break the cycle of crime, and that something is jobs. Stable employment and steady income will help stem recidivism and keep people from returning to crime as a means of support. If ban the box isn’t working toward this goal, then local, state and federal governments need to abandon ban the box and look for other solutions to this problem.

August 28, 2019August 28, 2019

What Sex Discrimination Will Look Like if the DOJ Legalizes Sex Stereotyping

Last week the Department of Justice (on behalf of its client, the EEOC), filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to conclude that “sex stereotyping by itself is not a Title VII violation.”

What might this look like if the DOJ gets its wish?

Consider the following story (as told on Reddit).

I’m a 21 year old female. I feel like I should say these thing about myself because these are usually what people ask or say when they find out I rarely shave my legs. I’m straight, I’m very feminine, and I just don’t like to waste my time or money on shaving my legs. Also I’m not a hairy person at all! …

[T]oday I had to go into the office to grab some materials and my boss was there in his office so I stopped to say hi before I left out. …

My boss then proceeded to tell me that a few people complained I didn’t shave my legs and they said it went against company policy that I wasn’t being hygienic. I was even more shocked.

I cannot fathom a Title VII under which an employer can enforce a workplace rule prohibiting hairy legs against women but not men. Yet, that’s the world in which we might live if the Supreme Court legalizes “sex stereotyping.”

The DOJ argued in its brief that “sex stereotyping is actionable only to the extent it provides evidence of favoritism of one sex over the other,” and that it “does not excuse the plaintiff from the fundamental requirement of proving that the defendant treated members of one sex less favorably than similarly situated members of the opposite sex.” Otherwise, says the DOJ, “countless sex-specific policies would be per se unlawful as based on sex stereotypes, “ such as a “dress code that required men to wear neckties.”

But isn’t that the very point of prohibiting sex-based stereotypes at work. The stereotype itself is the “evidence of favoritism of one sex over the other.” It is the proof that the employer “treated members of one sex less favorably than similarly situated members of the opposite sex.”

Also read: #MeToo Hasn’t Killed the Office Romance, Just the Inappropriate Ones

An employer that prohibits women, but not men, from wearing neckties is acting on a sex-based stereotype that a necktie is men’s attire, and not women’s attire. Similarly, an employer who requires women to shave their legs, while letting men grow it au naturel, acts on a sex-based grooming stereotype for no reason other than gender. The application and enforcement of a sex-based stereotype to the detriment of one sex over another is the “evidence of favoritism of one sex over the other.” No other proof should be necessary.

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court does right by LGBTQ employees and holds that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination implicitly covers LGBTQ discrimination. If, however, these cases go the other way, I pray that the Court does not take the DOJ’s bait and rewind women’s rights by five or six decades.

August 20, 2019July 24, 2024

New Study Says Age Discrimination Remains a Persistent Issue for Employers

Insurance company Hiscox just released its 2019 Ageism in the Workplace Study [pdf], which revealed some sobering statistics about the growing problem of age discrimination for American employers.

The number of age-related discrimination charges filed with employers and the EEOC by workers aged 65-plus doubled from 1990 to 2017.
44 percent of employees report that they or someone they know experienced age discrimination in the workplace.
21 percent report they faced age discrimination themselves.
36 percent feel their age has prevented them from getting a job since turning 40.
26 percent feel there is some risk they could lose their current job because of age.
Only 40 percent who experienced age discrimination filed a charge or complaint.
Employers paid $810.4 million to settle age discrimination charges filed with the EEOC between 2010 and 2018 (excluding litigation).

These numbers are only going to get worse. By 2024, workers age 55 and older will represent 25 percent of the nation’s workforce, with the fastest annual growth rates among those aged 65 and older. Indeed, according to the Hiscox survey, 67 percent of surveyed workers age 40-65 plan to continue to work after they turn 66.

This trend is not without its cost to employers. Age discrimination hurts employers, and I’m not just talking about the $810 million paid in settlement costs.

It demotivates employees, which can hurt productivity, customer service, and product quality.
It causes a loss of talent and institutional knowledge, due to experienced workers leaving from a stalled career or hostile environment.
It causes employers to miss the opportunity of hiring and retaining workers who possess knowledge, experience, good judgment, and commitment to the job.

So, how can an employer help prevent age discrimination from permeating its workplace? The EEOC, in its State of Age Discrimination Report, published last year to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the ADEA, offers the following five suggestions.

1. Leadership needs to create and foster a workplace culture that is committed to a multi-generational workplace where all workers can grow and thrive, which extols ability and reject discriminatory stereotypes and words.

2. Employers and employees must recognize and reject stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about age and older workers, and treat them no differently than stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about sex, race, disability, national origin, religion, or other protected classes.

3. Companies should work to increase the age diversity of the workforce by hiring, retaining and engaging employees of all generations,

4. Businesses should implement recruitment and hiring strategies that avoid age bias by seeking workers of all ages and not limiting qualifications based on age or years of experience. These strategies should include training recruiters and interviewers to avoid ageist assumptions and common perceptions about older workers, assessing interviewing strategies to avoid age bias, and having an age-diverse interview panel for prospective employees.

5. Employers should develop retention strategies to keep older workers. I’ve written about this point before, which you’ll find here.