RSS Feed!


Archive for August, 2018

OFCCP to Recognize Innovative Contractors (Aug. 2018)

Friday, August 31st, 2018

To expand its compliance assistance tools and resources, OFCCP is developing an initiative that recognizes high-quality and high-performing contractors, as explained in Directive 2018-06, Contractor Recognition Program.

The new recognition program will honor contractors whose innovative practices have achieved measurable results, and who can mentor other contractors on how to elevate their own compliance practices.

OFCCP: New Resources for Contracting Officials (Aug. 2018)

Friday, August 31st, 2018

Federal agency contracting officials are integral partners with OFCCP in assisting and ensuring that federal contractors meet their equal employment opportunity obligations. As part of ongoing efforts to enhance compliance assistance, OFCCP has launched a new Contracting Officer Corner with a central repository of resources, including a new pre-award process guide and downloadable workplace posters, for both federal agency contracting officials and federal contractors.

U.S. Department of Justice Weekly Digest Bulletin: Employment Authorization Documents Extensions for Yemen and Haiti (Aug. 2018)

Sunday, August 26th, 2018

Information on EADs for TPS Yemen

USCIS has automatically extended the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) issued under the TPS designation of Yemen with an original expiration date of Sept. 3, 2018, for 180 days, through March 2, 2019.

Additionally, individuals who have EADs with an expiration date of March 3, 2017, and who applied for a new EAD during the last re-registration period but have not yet received their new EAD are also covered by this automatic extension.

If your EAD is covered by this automatic extension, you may continue to use your existing EAD through March 2, 2019, as evidence that you are authorized to work.

To prove that you are eligible to continue working legally, you may show the following documentation to your employer. Government agencies may also accept these documents if they need to determine your immigration status:

Your TPS-related EAD with a Sept. 3, 2018, expiration date; or
Your TPS-related EAD with a March 3, 2017 expiration date and your EAD application receipt (Form I-797C, Notice of Action) that notes the application was received on or after Jan. 4, 2017

For more information:

Federal Register Notice announcing the automatic extension:

USCIS’s webpage on TPS Yemen:

Call the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the U.S. Department of Justice at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515 TTY).

Information on EADs for TPS Haiti

USCIS is automatically extending the validity of certain employment authorization documents (EADs) issued under TPS Haiti through Jan. 17, 2019. If you are a TPS beneficiary under the Haiti designation with an EAD based on your TPS status, your EAD may now be valid through Jan. 17, 2019 if your EAD includes a category code of A12 or C19, you have not received your new EAD, and:

Your EAD expired on Jan.22, 2018, and you applied for a new EAD during the last re-registration period; or
Your EAD expired on July 22, 2017, and you applied for a new EAD on or after May 24, 2017.

You may continue to use your current EAD as evidence of your work authorization through Jan. 17, 2019. Because you have a pending EAD application, USCIS will mail you an individual Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization that provides additional evidence of this automatic extension of your EAD through Jan. 17, 2019 to show to your employer. If you have not received the Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization, please contact USCIS at 202-272-8377 or the USCIS Contact Center number. You may provide your employer with this notice until you receive your Notice of Continued Evidence of Work Authorization.

For more information:

Visit USCIS’s webpage on TPS Haiti:

Call the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) of the U.S. Department of Justice at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515 TTY).

OFCCP Issues New Contractor Compliance Directive (Aug. 2018)

Saturday, August 25th, 2018

The OFCCP directive Analysis of Contractor Compensation Practices During a Compliance Evaluation outlines OFCCP’s standard procedures for reviewing contractor compensation practices during a compliance evaluation. This directive replaces OFCCP Directive 2013-03 (known as Directive 307) and clarifies OFCCP’s approach to compensation evaluations including the use of statistical and other evidence, pay analysis groupings and statistical modeling. The directive reinforces OFCCP’s commitment to greater transparency, consistency and efficiency in compliance evaluations.


Sunday, August 19th, 2018

Dear Colleague,

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced today a formal complaint against Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act by allowing landlords and home sellers to use its advertising platform to engage in housing discrimination.

HUD claims Facebook enables advertisers to control which users receive housing-related ads based upon the recipient’s race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, and/or zip code. Facebook then invites advertisers to express unlawful preferences by offering discriminatory options, allowing them to effectively limit housing options for these protected classes under the guise of ‘targeted advertising.’ Read HUD’s complaint against Facebook.

“The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination including those who might limit or deny housing options with a click of a mouse,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “When Facebook uses the vast amount of personal data it collects to help advertisers to discriminate, it’s the same as slamming the door in someone’s face.”

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. HUD’s Secretary-initiated complaint follows the Department’s investigation into Facebook’s advertising platform which includes targeting tools that enable advertisers to filter prospective tenants or homebuyers based on these protected classes.

For example, HUD’s complaint alleges Facebook’s platform violates the Fair Housing Act. It enables advertisers to, among other things:

Ø display housing ads either only to men or women;

Ø not show ads to Facebook users interested in an “assistance dog,” “mobility scooter,” “accessibility” or “deaf culture”;

Ø not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in “child care” or “parenting,” or show ads only to users with children above a specified age;

Ø to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the “Christian Church,” “Sikhism,” “Hinduism,” or the “Bible.”

Ø not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in “Latin America,” “Canada,” “Southeast Asia,” “China,” “Honduras,” or “Somalia.”

Ø draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.

Additionally, Facebook promotes its advertising targeting platform for housing purposes with “success stories” for finding “the perfect homeowners,” “reaching home buyers,” “attracting renters” and “personalizing property ads.”

In addition, today the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) filed a statement of interest, joined in by HUD, in U.S. District Court on behalf of a number of private litigants challenging Facebook’s advertising platform.

HUD Secretary-Initiated Complaints

The Secretary of HUD may file a fair housing complaint directly against those whom the Department believes may be in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Secretary-Initiated Complaints are appropriate in cases, among others, involving significant issues that are national in scope or when the Department is made aware of potential violations of the Act and broad public interest relief is warranted or where HUD does not know of a specific aggrieved person or injured party that is willing or able to come forward. A Fair Housing Act complaint, including a Secretary initiated complaint, is not a determination of liability.

A Secretary-Initiated Complaint will result in a formal fact-finding investigation. The party against whom the complaint is filed will be provided notice and an opportunity to respond. If HUD’s investigation results in a determination that reasonable cause exists that there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act, a charge of discrimination may be filed. Throughout the process, HUD will seek conciliation and voluntary resolution. Charges may be resolved through settlement, through referral to the Department of Justice, or through an administrative determination.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. In commemoration, HUD, local communities, and fair housing organizations across the country have coordinated a variety of activities to enhance fair housing awareness, highlight HUD’s fair housing enforcement efforts, and end housing discrimination in the nation. For a list of activities, log onto

Persons who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY).

OFCCP Issues Two New Policies (Aug. 2018)

Sunday, August 19th, 2018

OFCCP recently published two policy directives. One directive launches an initiative that seeks broader compliance with regulations for each of OFCCP’s three enforcement authorities. As part of this initiative, the agency will select focused reviews from the same neutral selection system used to identify and create OFCCP’s supply and service scheduling list. The other directive instructs OFCCP staff, in all their activities, to take into account recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and White House Executive Orders that protect religious freedom.

To learn more about these initiatives, you can read the directives and the press release.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program: What Federal Contractors Can Expect (Aug. 2018)

Sunday, August 19th, 2018

OFCCP recently published “What Federal Contractors Can Expect” to formalize expectations for interactions between OFCCP and companies doing business with the federal government, federal contractors and subcontractors. Among other things, the agency recommitted to timely and efficient progress of compliance evaluations, reasonable opportunities to discuss compliance evaluation concerns, and opportunities to provide meaningful feedback on the quality of the agency’s compliance assistance offerings.

Learn more about all of the things contractors can expect here.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Weekly Digest Bulletin: Focus on Harassment and Retaliation (Aug. 2018)

Wednesday, August 15th, 2018

General Manager Harassed and Retaliated Against Women Who Refused Advances, Federal Agency Charges

SAN DIEGO – Fairbanks Ranch Country Club in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., one of 22 California private member clubs forming The Bay Club, violated federal law when it failed to prevent and redress ongoing sexual harassment of female workers, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, the general manager at Fairbanks Ranch sexually harassed a class of female employees daily, including soliciting naked pictures from them; grabbing their buttocks; attempting to kiss them; offering an employee to male customers for lap dances; and even choking one employee. This type of behavior was so prevalent that other employees felt free to engage in sexual harassment as well, the federal agency charged.

The EEOC further charges that the general manager was the sole decision maker and had the authority to hire and fire at will. He regularly abused his position by requiring sexual favors for job benefits, the federal agency contends. When the women would refuse, the manager threatened termination, or reduced their working hours. Because of this hostile work environment, some female employees felt they had no choice but to resign.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrim­ination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation for reporting a claim against discrimination. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Region of California (EEOC v. Bay Club Fairbanks Ranch, LLC, and Fairbanks Ranch Country Club, Inc., Case No.3:18-CV-01853-W-BLM), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC’s suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the complainants and class members as well as injunctive relief intended to prevent Fairbanks Ranch from engaging in future discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

“Every employer has an obligation to prevent sexual harassment at its workplaces,” said Anna Park, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, which has jurisdiction over San Diego County. “Main­taining an employee manual is not enough. Training and oversight for all staff members must become how employers ensure safety and compliance in this area of the law.”

Christopher Green, director of the EEOC’s San Diego Local Office added, “The allegations of this case are especially shocking, being that a general manager was involved. Having ultimate hiring authority does not permit leveraging that power to take from those who work for you.”

Fairbanks Ranch Country Club was acquired by Bay Club Fairbanks Ranch, LLC on July 18, 2016. Its parent corporation is BC Equity Ventures, LLC.

Preventing workplace harassment through systemic litigation and investigation is one of the six national priorities identified by the Commission’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Texas-Based Oil and Gas Company Subjected Employee to Racial Abuse, Federal Agency Charged

MINNEAPOLIS – A Texas-based oil and gas company, operating in Tioga, N.D., violated civil rights law by subjecting an African-American employee to a hostile work environment based on his race, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed in North Dakota yesterday.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Derrick Jenkins worked for Murex Petroleum Corp. from April to September 2014 as a roustabout at its Tioga facility. During Jenkins’s employment, he was subjected to racial harassment by his white coworkers. The abuse included the coworkers calling Jenkins racial slurs such as “spook,” “spade” and “Buckwheat.” They also made other racially derogatory comments, includ­ing the racially offensive term “n—-r-rigged,” the EEOC alleged. The harassment was witnessed by Jenkins’s supervisor, but no action was taken to stop it.

According to the lawsuit, another African-American employee complained to a high-level executive at the company, but no action was taken to stop or prevent the harassment in this case either.

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on race, including racial harassment. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Murex Petroleum Corp., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00169-CSM after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief.

“The EEOC is committed to stopping racial harassment,” said Julianne Bowman, district director of the EEOC’s Chicago District. “We encourage people to come forward when they believe they are experiencing discrimination.”

Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District, said, “The use of racial slurs has no place in the workplace. The EEOC will continue to vigorously litigate cases involving such unlawful misconduct.”

The EEOC’s legal team in its Minneapolis Area Office will conduct the litigation under the management of the agency’s Chicago District Office. That office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and litigation in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Agency Challenges Harassment and Retaliation Across the Country

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed seven lawsuits this week against various employers across the country, charging them with harassment, and also announced a major resolution of a harassment lawsuit. This multi-state action by the EEOC should reinforce to employers that the consequences of not preventing or stopping harassment – on all bases – are significant.

“Workplace harassment causes serious harm to women and men in all kinds of jobs across the country,” said EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic. “These lawsuits allege harassment based on race, national origin and sex and involve workers at country clubs and cleaners, sports bars and airlines, in health care and grocery stores. When employers fail to protect their employees from harassment, the EEOC may bring legal action to stop the harassment and prevent future harm.”

Lipnic continued, “I commend our investigative and trial teams and our Office of General Counsel for their work on these important cases. I also commend the individuals who came forward and, in many cases, also suffered retaliation for reporting the harassment. Their employers should have rewarded them, not punished them for speaking up.”

Of the seven lawsuits filed this week, five alleged sexual harassment, two alleged racial harass­ment and one also alleged harassment based on national origin. Five of the seven also included claims that the employees were retaliated against for reporting the harassment, demon­strating that the fear of reporting is real and justified.

The EEOC’s Los Angeles Office and San Diego Field Office filed suit against Fairbanks Ranch Country Club for sexual harassment and retaliation against a class of female employees. According to the EEOC’s suit, the general manager solicited naked pictures from female employees; grabbed their buttocks; attempted to kiss them; offered one employee to male customers for lap dances; and even choked one employee. The EEOC further charged that the general manager abused his position by requiring sexual favors for job benefits. When the women would refuse, the manager threatened termination or reduced their working hours, which forced some female employees to resign.

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office and Albuquerque Area Office filed suit against Ojos Locos Sports Cantina for sexual harassment by managers and co-workers and for retaliation. The EEOC charges that a group of women were subjected to pervasive unwelcome conduct, including requests that they show more cleavage in their uniforms, comments about their breasts and buttocks, com­ments by male employees about their penises, text requests for sex, and unwelcome touching of their bodies, which created a hostile work environment for them. The EEOC also alleges that women who complained about the harassment suffered negative job consequences, such as fewer hours, unfavor­able shifts or changes to work assignments. The EEOC charges that one women was fired because she opposed the illegal harassment. Finally, the EEOC claims that the hostility of the environment and Ojos Locos’ failure to correct it forced other women to resign.

The EEOC’s Phoenix District Office and Denver Field Office sued Amada Senior Care for sexual harassment and retaliation of two female employees. The EEOC charges that the women were subjected to pervasive unwelcome conduct, including unwelcome touching of their breasts and buttocks and derogatory sexual remarks when they provided in-home care to a client. The client also allegedly exposed himself to the women and touched them with his genitals. When the women brought this behavior to the attention of Amada Senior Care, the company failed to investigate the allegations and continued to assign them to the client, creating a hostile work environment for them. After the women complained about the harassment, Amada retaliated by cutting their work hours, terminating one of them, and forcing the other to quit.

The EEOC’s Atlanta District Office filed suit against Piggly Wiggly for subjecting two female workers to a sexually hostile work environment and retaliating against them for opposing the sexual harassment. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that a male employee made lewd sexual comments and sexual advances to two female store clerks at a Piggly Wiggly store in Hogansville, Ga. The women reported the harassment to the store manager on multiple occasions, but the company failed to take any action to stop the harassment. Instead, the company cut one employee’s hours after she com­plained, and later terminated both employees after they filed a written complaint detailing the harassment.

In a suit filed against United Airlines, the EEOC’s Dallas District Office and San Antonio Field Office alleged that United allowed a hostile work environment of sexual harassment over a multi-year period. A United captain frequently posted sexually explicit images of a United flight attendant to various websites, making reference to the flight attendant’s name, home airport, and sometimes referencing the airline’s tagline “Fly the Friendly Skies.” The lawsuit alleges that the posts were seen by several male co-workers and adversely affected the flight attendant’s working environment. United failed to prevent and correct the pilot’s behavior, even after the flight attendant made numerous complaints and provided substantial evidence to support her complaints.

The Chicago District Office of the EEOC filed a race harassment lawsuit against Murex Petroleum Corp., a Texas-based oil and gas company operating in Tioga, N.D. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that white co-workers called an African-American casual laborer racial slurs such as “spook,” “spade” and “Buckwheat.” The coworkers also made racially derogatory comments including using the racially offensive term “n—-r-rigged,” the EEOC alleged. His supervisor witnessed the harass­ment, but no action was taken to stop it.

The EEOC’s Houston District Office and New Orleans field office sued Marion’s Cleaners for harassment based on race and national origin and retaliation for firing the victim who complained about it. The lawsuit alleges that one of the company’s employees spent months continually telling the victim that she “needed to go back to Mexico,” that she “was nothing,” that she was a “stupid Mexican,” a “dirty Mexican,” and to “shut up” when speaking Spanish. When the employee reported the comments to Marion’s Cleaners, it did nothing. The employee asked her co-worker to stop making the comments and he responded by grabbing her by the hair, repeatedly punching her in the face, and then pressing her against an exposed steam pipe. She suffered severe, second-degree burns and trauma as a result of the incident. The suit alleges that Marion’s Cleaners fired the victim for reporting the incident rather than taking action against the harasser.

Early this week, the EEOC announced that it had settled a lawsuit with Alorica, Inc., a third-party call center and technology services company for $3.5 million. The lawsuit alleged that Alorica subjected male and female customer services employees to a sexually hostile work environment. The three-year consent decree settling the suit requires sexual harassment training, including incorpor­ating civility and bystander intervention training, for its employees, plus monitoring, reporting, and revisions to strengthen the company’s policies and procedures.

Acting Chair Lipnic pointed out that roughly one-quarter of the EEOC’s litigation filed in recent years has included an allegation of workplace harassment. Almost fully one-third of the 80,000 to 90,000 discrimination charges the EEOC receives each year include an allegation of harassment.

That is the tip of the iceberg. Studies show that more than 80 percent of individuals who experience harassment never file a formal complaint. Nearly three out of four individuals who experience harassment never even raise the issue internally as documented in the 2016 final report by Commissioner and now-Acting Chair Lipnic and Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum of the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. The report includes recommenda­tions and resources regarding leadership, accountability, policies and procedures, training, and developing a sense of collective responsibility.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employ­ment discrimination. More information is available at Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.


Wednesday, August 15th, 2018


Kimberly Smith-Brown

Christine Nazer

James Ryan

Joseph Olivares

Kim Dulic



Aug. 7, 2018


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold its Executive Leadership Training Conference (ELTC) on Oct. 29-31 at the Boar’s Head Resort Educa­tional Campus in Charlottesville, Va., the federal agency announced today.

This year’s ELTC is designed to give participants skills to build high-performance teams that are innovative, adaptable and able to successfully cross-collaborate to produce targeted results. Agile leaders are able to create teams that are analytical, have strong values, and a sense of connectedness with team members and other stakeholders. To learn more about ELTC or for registration and exhibitor information visit us at

The ELTC meets the professional development needs of senior leaders in the field of equal employment opportunity (EEO), Human Resources (HR) and diversity and inclusion (D&I). Training will address key leadership competencies; personal development and critically important topics vital to the success of current and future executives – particularly senior EEO officials for federal, state and local governments; private sector EEO executives; HR executives with responsibility for managing and implementing an EEO program; as well as those striving to attain senior level positions.

“ELTC is a cost-effective and modest investment in the executive leadership skills necessary to run a successful EEO program,” said Carlton M. Hadden, director of EEOC’s Office of Federal Oper­ations. “This training will directly address core leadership competencies, ensuring that EEO profes­sionals have the executive training necessary to meet the challenges of our profession.”

ELTC offers many learning opportunities throughout the three days. Day One begins with a workshop on political savvy led by Vanessa Phipps of The Future Force Group, LLC, followed by a networking opportunity to engage in more interpersonal dialogue. Day Two includes remarks on managing up from leadership expert Mary Abbajay, president and founder of Careerstone Group, LLC, followed by Bridging the Gap Cooperative Group Challenges that sharpen performance by calling leaders to use their creativity and problem-solving skills. Day Three leadership trainings include University of Virginia presenter Pete Ronayne, discussing leadership and innovation; John Lord of Lord/Thompson Associates, discussing values-based leadership, and John Whitlow of JHW Consulting Services, discussing strategies to build teamwork. Registration is limited to GS-14 level and above, as well as GS-13 level employees who demonstrate exceptional potential for leadership, and private sector equivalents.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employ­ment discrimination. More information is available at Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Justice Department reaches Agreement with the City of Minneapolis to Resolve Disability and Genetic Information Discrimination (Aug. 2018)

Wednesday, August 15th, 2018

The Justice Department today announced that it reached an agreement with the City of Minneapolis to resolve its lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and genetic information.

The Justice Department’s complaint alleges that a veteran was not hired by the Minneapolis Police Department in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because of his disability of post-traumatic stress disorder. The complaint also alleges that Minneapolis engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) by routinely requesting and obtaining genetic information from applicants for police officer positions during the pre-employment examination process. This is the department’s first lawsuit challenging discrimination under Title II of GINA.

Under the agreement, Minneapolis will pay $189,338.89 in damages to the complainant, and will implement policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that it does not discriminate in its hiring practices on the basis of disability, and does not request, require, or unlawfully obtain information in violation of the ADA or GINA. Minneapolis will also train applicable Police Department employees.

To find out more about this complaint, agreement, or the ADA, call the Justice Department’s toll-free ADA information line at 1-800-514-0301 or 1-800-514-0383 (TDD), or access its ADA website at