RSS Feed!

Archives

Archive for November, 2018

FAIR HOUSING NEWS: HUD ISSUES ORDER SETTLING CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION BY NEW YORK LANDLORDS AGAINST TENANT WITH DISABILITIES

Monday, November 19th, 2018

Dear Colleague,

WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today announced that Nolo Contendere, LLC, and Nolo Contendere LLC Trust, the owners and agent of an apartment complex in Syracuse, New York, will pay $15,000 under a HUD Consent Order resolving allegations that the owners and their agents refused to allow a woman with mental disabilities keep an assistance animal. Read the settlement agreement.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from denying or limiting housing to persons with disabilities and from refusing to make reasonable accommodations in policies or practices, which includes denying service animal requests.

“People who rely on assistance animals to maintain their independence shouldn’t have their right to housing accommodations unlawfully denied,” said Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD will continue to ensure housing providers understand their rights and responsibilities under the law and take steps to meet those obligations.”

The case came to HUD’s attention when a woman with mental disabilities filed a complaint alleging that Nolo Contendere, LLC, and its owners refused to allow her to keep an assistance animal. HUD’s charge of discrimination alleged that after the tenant brought the animal home, an agent for Nolo Contendere confronted her about the animal. The landlords refused to make an exception to their “no-pets” policy, even after the woman provided documentation attesting to her disabilities. HUD’s charge further alleged that the landlords initiated a retaliatory eviction action against the tenant after she made the accommodation request, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Under the terms of the Consent Order, entered by a HUD administrative law judge, the apartment owners will pay $15,000 to the woman, undergo fair housing training, and create a reasonable accommodation policy that allows residents with disabilities to keep assistance animals, including emotional support animals.

“This agreement highlights the importance of landlords following the law and making reasonable accommodations to their pet policies for tenants with disabilities,” said J. Paul Compton Jr., HUD’s General Counsel.

April 2018 marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act. This year, HUD, local communities, housing advocates, and fair housing organizations across the country are conducting a variety of activities to enhance awareness of fair housing rights, highlight HUD’s fair housing enforcement efforts, and end housing discrimination in the nation. For a list of activities, visit HUD.gov/FairHousingis50.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. People 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). Housing discrimination complaints may also be filed by going to www.hud.gov/fairhousing.

11/28 Webinar: Changes in Demographics and Markets for Public Transportation (Nov. 2018)

Monday, November 19th, 2018

Learn more about how changes in demographics, traveler preferences, and markets for public transportation affect transit ridership now and in the future at a webinar hosted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2 p.m. Wednesday, November 28, 2018.

The 1 ½-hour free session will feature research from the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)’s Understanding Changes in Demographics, Preferences, and Markets for Public Transportation (Research Report 201). Presenters will discuss the role of both “hard” (travel times and costs) and “soft” (values, preferences and attitudes) attributes to interpret predicted changes in the markets for public transportation. They also will identify how an individual’s demographics affect long-term attitudes and values and how the communities they choose to live in affects their likelihood to ride transit.

Webinar Presenters

Matt Coogan, Consultant in Transportation
Nancy McGuckin, Travel Behavior Consultant
Moderated by: Karla Karash, Transit Consultant
FTA sponsors TCRP to develop and apply innovative solutions to help meet the demands placed on the nation’s public transit systems.

Links:
Register for the webinar
Understanding Changes in Demographics, Preferences, and Markets for Public Transportation

EEOC RAMPS UP OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT IN FY 2018 TO ADDRESS WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION (Nov. 2018)

Monday, November 19th, 2018

Agency Met Increased Public Demand for Information, Training and Online Services

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responded to a significant increase this past fiscal year in calls, emails and online inquiries concerning potential discrimination claims and high demand for its new Respectful Workplaces Training Program. The increased demand is reflected in over 554,000 calls and emails to the EEOC and more than 200,000 inquiries concerning potential discrimination claims. The launch of a nationwide online inquiry and appointment system as part of the EEOC’s Public Portal resulted in a 30 percent increase in inquiries and over 40,000 intake interviews.

“Many people in thousands of workplaces around the country depend every day on the work of the EEOC. I am proud to say that the EEOC met the increased demand for our expertise, for information and training, and for strong enforcement to combat all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment,” said Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair.

Other fiscal year 2018 highlights include:

The EEOC’s outreach programs reached 398,650 individuals, providing them with information about employment discrimination and their rights and responsibilities in the workplace. To address persistent workplace harassment, the EEOC conducted more than 300 Respectful Workplaces trainings that reached over 9,800 employees and supervisors in the private, public and federal sectors.

The EEOC secured approximately $505 million and other relief for over 67,860 victims of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC’s legal staff resolved 141 merit lawsuits, filed 199 more in FY18, and filed 29 amicus curiae briefs on significant legal issues in employment discrimination cases.

The EEOC also made significant progress in reducing its backlogs, reporting a 19.5 percent reduction in its private sector charge backlog, a 19.4 percent reduction in the backlog of federal employee appeals, an 8.5 percent reduction in the backlog of federal employee hearings, and a 7.6 percent reduction in the backlog of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The EEOC’s accomplishments will be detailed in the EEOC’s fiscal year 2018 Performance and Accountability Report that will be posted on the agency’s web site on November 15, 2018. Comprehensive enforcement and litigation statistics for fiscal year 2018 will be available on the agency’s website in early 2019.

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

Secretary DeVos: Proposed Title IX Rule Provides Clarity for Schools, Support for Survivors, and Due Process Rights for All (Nov. 2018)

Friday, November 16th, 2018

Department of Education Welcomes Public Comment on Draft Rule

WASHINGTON – Continuing its efforts to ensure equal access to education free from discrimination, today the U.S. Department of Education released its proposal on improving schools’ responses to sexual harassment and assault. The proposed regulation under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive federal funding, was developed after more than a year of research, deliberation, and gathering input from students, advocates, school administrators, Title IX coordinators, and other stakeholders.

“Throughout this process, my focus was, is, and always will be on ensuring that every student can learn in a safe and nurturing environment,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. “That starts with having clear policies and fair processes that every student can rely on. Every survivor of sexual violence must be taken seriously, and every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined. We can, and must, condemn sexual violence and punish those who perpetrate it, while ensuring a fair grievance process. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas. They are the very essence of how Americans understand justice to function.”

The Department’s proposed rule takes the important and historic step of defining sexual harassment under Title IX and what it means for a student to report it, requires schools to respond meaningfully to every report of sexual harassment, and ensures that due process protections are in place for all students.

The Department’s proposed rule seeks to ensure that all schools clearly understand their legal obligations under Title IX and that all students clearly understand their options and rights.

Key provisions

The proposed rule would require schools to respond meaningfully to every known report of sexual harassment and to investigate every formal complaint.

The proposed rule highlights the importance of supportive measures designed to preserve or restore a student’s access to the school’s education program or activity, with or without a formal complaint. Supportive measures may include the following:

Academic course adjustments
Counseling
No-contact orders
Dorm room reassignments
Leaves of absence
Class schedule changes

Where there has been a finding of responsibility, the proposed rule would require remedies for the survivor to restore or preserve access to the school’s education program or activity.

The proposed rule would require schools to apply basic due process protections for students, including a presumption of innocence throughout the grievance process; written notice of allegations and an equal opportunity to review all evidence collected; and the right to cross-examination, subject to “rape shield” protections.

Colleges and universities would be required to hold a live hearing where cross-examination would be conducted through the parties’ advisors. Personal confrontation between the complainant and respondent would not be permitted.

To promote impartial decisions, schools would not be allowed to use a “single investigator” or “investigator-only” model. Under the proposed rule, if a school chooses to offer an appeal, both parties can appeal.

Consistent with U.S. Supreme Court Title IX cases, the proposed rule defines sexual harassment as unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school’s education program or activity.
The proposed rule adopts the Clery Act definition of sexual assault and includes it in the definition of sexual harassment under Title IX.
“It is our goal with this proposed rule to ensure that Title IX grievance proceedings become more transparent, consistent, and reliable in their processes and outcomes,” said Secretary DeVos. “Far too many students have been forced to go to court to ensure their rights are protected because the Department has not set out legally binding rules that hold schools accountable for responding to allegations of sexual harassment in a supportive, fair manner. By following proper legal procedures and receiving input on our proposed rule, we will ultimately have a final regulation that ensures that Title IX protects all students.”

The Department’s proposed Title IX rule will be open for public comment for 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

To view the Department’s one page summary of the proposed Title IX rule, click here.

To take a deeper dive and review the proposed rule’s section-by-section summary, click here.

To view the proposed rule in its entirety, click here.

Criminal Background Checks and Employment: A Guide for Equal Opportunity Professionals

Thursday, November 15th, 2018

Over the past year, four major federal agencies issued significant guidance related to the use of criminal background checks in delivering employment-related services by state and local governments as well as in employment practices of private sector employers. The highlights are:

√ Don’t use arrest and/or conviction records in your decision-making.

√ If you feel you must conduct a criminal background check, then:

● Do it after you’ve determined the person meets either: (1) the essential eligibility requirements for selection and/or referral to a job or training program; or (2) the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) for the position at issue.
● Give notice to the individual that you need to conduct a criminal background check, and get the individual’s permission to do so.
● Give the individual the results of the criminal background check, and afford the individual an opportunity to explain or dispute the contents.
● Before taking an adverse action based on an individual’s arrest and/or conviction record, make sure your inquiry is “narrowly tailored to identify criminal conduct with a demonstrably tight nexus” to the position or training in question. And, you must demonstrate that you’ve considered the following factors: (1) the date of the criminal conviction (newer versus older); (2) what specific offenses demonstrate unfitness for performing a specific job or undergoing specific training; and (3) the essential requirements for the job or training, and the actual circumstances (at a home, outdoors, at a warehouse, at an office) under which the job or training will be performed.

√ Document everything you do. If your decision is challenged by a federal agency, you’ll need to demonstrate that you did not violate federal civil rights laws.

√ Keep the individual’s criminal background information confidential. Only use this information for the purpose for which it is intended.

I. Background

The federal guidance discussed in this paper stems from commonly-recited disparities in the arrest and conviction records of minorities as compared to non-minorities and how, as a result, these disparities result in disparate treatment of ex-offenders in the employment arena. The following is an example of the background cited in these documents:

In recent decades, the number of Americans who have had contact with the criminal justice system has increased exponentially. It is estimated that about one in three adults now has a criminal history record – which often consists of an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, a conviction for which the person was not sentenced to a term of incarceration, or a conviction for a non-violent crime. On any given day, about 2.3 million people are incarcerated and each year 700,000 people are released from prison and almost 13 million are admitted to – and released from – local jails.

Racial and ethnic disparities are reflected in incarceration rates. According to the Pew Center on the States, one in 106 white men, one in 36 Hispanic men, and one in 15 African American men are incarcerated. Additionally, on average, one in 31 adults is under correctional control (i.e. probation, parole, or incarceration), including one in 45 white adults, one in 27 Hispanic adults and one in 11 African American adults. Racial and ethnic disparities may also be reflected in other criminal history records. For example, although African Americans constitute approximately 13 percent of the overall population, they account for 28 percent of those arrested and almost 40 percent of the incarcerated population.

Title VI (addressing federally-assisted programs and activities) and Title VII (addressing employment practices) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. These titles prohibit both “disparate treatment” (treating members of protected groups differently based on their protected status), and “disparate impact” (the use of policies or practices that are neutral on their face, but have a disproportionate impact on members of protected groups, and are not job-related and consistent with business necessity).

The guidance documents issued by EEOC, ETA, OFCCP, and CRC make clear that individuals with criminal history records are not a protected group under the applicable civil rights laws, but these laws may be implicated with criminal records are being considered. For example, it constitutes illegal discrimination to treat whites with a criminal record more favorably than similarly-situated African Americans with the same or similar criminal record. This constitutes “disparate treatment.” And, as another examples, job announcements that categorically exclude people who have any kind of conviction or arrest, or which specify that only those individuals with “clean” criminal records need apply, will likely constitute illegal “disparate impact” because of the above-referenced racial and ethnic disparities reflected in the criminal justice system.

II. Citations and scope of applicability

As can be seen below, the guidance documents have wide-reaching implications in the area of employment services and employment practices:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

    Guidance reference:

EEOC Enforcement Guidance, Number 915.002 (Apr. 25, 2012)

    Applies to:

All private sector employers with 15 or more employees

U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)

    Guidance reference:

OFCCP Directive No. 306 (Jan. 29, 2013)

    Applies to:

Federal contractors and subcontractors and federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and Civil Rights Center (CRC)

    Guidance reference:

Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 31-11 (May 25, 2012)

    Applies to:

Public workforce system and other entities that receive federal financial assistance to operate Job Banks, to provide assistance to job seekers in locating and obtaining employment, and to assist employers by screening and referring qualified applicants for employment and/or training (includes programs and activities covered by the Workforce Investment Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act)

III. Policies of the agencies

    EEOC

The Commission, which has enforced Title VII since it became effective in 1965, has well-established guidance applying Title VII principles to employers’ use of criminal records to screen for employment. This Enforcement Guidance builds on longstanding court decisions and policy documents that were issued over twenty years ago. In light of employers’ increased access to criminal history information, case law analyzing Title VII requirements for criminal record exclusions, and other developments, the Commission has decided to update and consolidate in this document all of its prior policy statements about Title VII and the use of criminal records in employment decisions.

The Commission intends this document for use by employers considering the use of criminal records in their selection and retention processes; by individuals who suspect that they have been denied jobs or promotions, or have been discharged because of their criminal records; and by EEOC staff who are investigating discrimination charges involving the use of criminal records in employment decisions.

National data supports a finding that criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact on race and national origin. The national data provides a basis for the Commission to further investigate such Title VII disparate treatment charges. During an EEOC investigation, the employer also has an opportunity to show, with relevant evidence, that its employment policy or practice does not cause a disparate impact on the protected group(s).

The issue is whether the policy or practice deprives a disproportionate number of Title VII-protected individuals of employment opportunities. The Commission with closely consider whether an employer has a reputation in the community for excluding individuals with criminal records. In light of these racial and ethnic disparities, contractors should be mindful of federal antidiscrimination laws if they choose to rely on job applicants’ criminal history records for purposes of employment decisions. Hiring policies and practices that exclude workers with criminal records may run afoul of such laws, which prohibit intentional discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or other protected bases, and policies or practices that have a disparate treatment on these protected groups and cannot be justified as job related and consistent with business necessity. Policies that exclude people from employment based on the mere existence of a criminal history record and that do not take into account the age and nature of the offense, for example, are likely to unjustifiably restrict the employment opportunities of individuals with conviction histories. Due to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, such policies are likely to violate federal antidiscrimination law. Accordingly, contractors should carefully consider their legal obligations before adopting such policies.

This guidance consolidates and updates EEOC’s prior guidance regarding the use of criminal records in employment decisions. EEOC is the lead agency for interpreting Title VII, and OFFCP follows Title VII principles in interpreting Executive Order 11246, as amended. Therefore, EEOC’s guidance will assist contractors in implementing and reviewing their employment practices in compliance with the Executive Order. EEOC’s guidance applies to all employers that have 15 or more employees.

    OFCCP

In light of these racial and ethnic disparities, contractors should be mindful of federal antidiscrimination laws if they choose to rely on job applicants’ criminal history records for purposes of employment decisions. Hiring policies and practices that exclude workers with criminal records may run afoul of such laws, which prohibit intentional discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or other protected bases, and policies or practices that have a disparate treatment on these protected groups and cannot be justified as job related and consistent with business necessity. Policies that exclude people from employment based on the mere existence of a criminal history record and that do not take into account the age and nature of the offense, for example, are likely to unjustifiably restrict the employment opportunities of individuals with conviction histories. Due to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, such policies are likely to violate federal antidiscrimination law. Accordingly, contractors should carefully consider their legal obligations before adopting such policies.

This guidance consolidates and updates EEOC’s prior guidance regarding the use of criminal records in employment decisions. EEOC is the lead agency for interpreting Title VII, and OFFCP follows Title VII principles in interpreting Executive Order 11246, as amended. Therefore, EEOC’s guidance will assist contractors in implementing and reviewing their employment practices in compliance with the Executive Order. EEOC’s guidance applies to all employers that have 15 or more employees.

The guidance cites to the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance to assist in determining the proper consideration of criminal records.

    ETA and CRC

As recognized by the federally-assisted workforce system, which is already engaged in promoting job opportunities for people with criminal records through various reentry grants and programs, obtaining employment is critical in reducing recidivism and easing the reintegration of persons returning from incarceration. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis recently observed that the public workforce system’s mix of strategies, interventions and service partnerships must be designed and executed with the goal of helping people with criminal records obtain employment that can support them and their families. These efforts are consistent with the Federal Interagency Reentry Council’s mission to make communities safer by reducing recidivism, assist those returning from prison and jail in becoming productive citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and collateral costs of incarceration. As Secretary Solis stated recently: “When someone serves time in our penal system, they shouldn’t face a lifetime sentence of unemployment when they are released. Those who want to make amends must be given the opportunity to make an honest living.”

This TEGL is intended to help covered entities (and their employer customers) comply with their nondiscrimination obligations when serving the population of individuals with criminal records, and to ensure that exclusionary policies are not at cross-purposes with the public workforce system’s efforts to promote employment opportunities for such workers. This TEGL applies to all jobs available through a covered entity’s job bank without regard to whether the job is in the government or the private sector, including federal contractors and subcontractors.

This guidance cites to the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance to assist in determining the proper consideration of criminal records.

IV. “Illegal” practices

Each of the guidance papers sets forth practices that may constitute illegal discrimination in violation of applicable civil rights laws. These practices are set forth as follows:

    EEOC

● Evidence supporting discrimination. The EEOC cites to several kinds of evidence that may be used to demonstrate discrimination in violation of Title VII: (1) biased statements, such as derogatory statements by the employer or decision-maker towards a protected group, or that express group-related stereotypes about criminality; (2) inconsistent hiring practices, such as requesting criminal history information more often for individuals with certain racial or ethnic backgrounds, or giving white individuals but not racial minorities the opportunity to explain their criminal history; (3) different treatment of similarly-situated individuals, such as a racial or ethnic minority being subjected to more or different background checks or to different standards for evaluating criminal history; and (4) statistical evidence derived from the employer’s applicant data, workforce data, and/or third party criminal background history data.

● No job-relatedness, illegal. If criminal background records are utilized in employment decisions, the employer should be prepared to demonstrate that this policy or practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

● Arrest records. The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred. Arrests are not proof of criminal conduct. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges, or the charges are dismissed. An exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with business necessity. The Commission further notes arrest records also may include inaccuracies or may continue to be reported even if expunged or sealed. The Commission mandates that an arrest record cannot be grounds for exclusion, but an employer may, under certain circumstances, inquire into the conduct underlying the arrest.

● Conviction records. Unlike an arrest record, a conviction usually is sufficient evidence that a person engaged in certain conduct. However, it is important to keep in mind that (1) there may be error in the record, or (2) the record may be outdated. Thus, a policy or practice requiring an automatic, across-the-board exclusion from all employment opportunities because of any criminal conduct is not tailored to a particular job, or consistent with business necessity.

    OFCCP

● Blanket exclusions are illegal. OFCCP is aware of job announcements that categorically exclude people who have any kind of conviction or arrest and of contractors that screen out job seekers with criminal records by stating that they will only accept applicants with so-called “clean” criminal records. Due to racial and ethnic disparities reflected in the criminal justice system, these policies or practices will likely have a disparate impact on certain protected groups, in violation of federal law.

● Failure to consider circumstances. Policies that exclude people from employment based on the mere existence of a criminal history record and that do not take into account the age and nature of an offense, for example, are likely to unjustifiably restrict the employment opportunities of individuals with conviction histories. Due to racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, such policies are likely to violate federal antidiscrimination law. Accordingly, contractors should carefully consider their legal obligations before adopting such policies.

● Adopting EEOC guidance. OFCCP further cites to EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance and the ETA/CRC TEGL document for further examples of discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws.

    ETA and CRC

● Printing and publishing. Cannot “print or publish or cause to be printed” any job announcement that discriminates based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin unless there is a bona fide occupational qualification for a preference based on religion, sex, or national origin.

● Use of discriminatory criteria prohibited. Use of any “criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of race, color, or national origin” is illegal.

● Nondiscriminatory selection and referral. “Selection and referral of individuals for job openings or training opportunities and all other activities performed by or through employment service offices” must be done without regard to race, color, or national origin. Conduct to the contrary violates civil rights laws.

● Posting job announcements in Job Banks. Employers must be placed on notice that federal civil rights laws “generally prohibit categorical exclusions of individuals based solely on an arrest or conviction history.” To this end, the TEGL requires that “Notice #1 for Employers Regarding Job Bank Nondiscrimination and Criminal Record Exclusions” be given to employers that register to use a Job Bank. Failure to place the employer on notice constitutes noncompliance by the Job Bank.

● WIA and Wagner-Peysner. The guidance notes the Workforce Investment Act at 29 U.S.C. § 2938 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d require nondiscrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance, including non-discrimination in employment practices and in selection and referral for employment or training. The Wagner-Peyser Act at 20 C.F.R. § 652.8 similarly requires nondiscrimination and states must assure that discriminatory job orders will not be accepted except where there is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Failure to consider the BFOQ of a position is illegal.

V. “Best practices”

Each guidance paper also sets forth certain “best” practices. These practices are similar among the agencies as follows:

    EEOC

● Don’t ask. The Commission recommends that employers not ask about convictions on the job applications and that, if and when they make such inquiries, the inquiries be limited to convictions for which exclusion is related to the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

● How to demonstrate business necessity. The Commission finds there are two ways in which criminal conduct exclusion will be job-related and consistent with business necessity: (1) the employer validates the criminal conduct screen for the position in question per the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Uniform Guidelines) standards (if data about criminal conduct as related to subsequent work performance is available and such validation is possible); or (2) the employer develops a targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for people excluded by the screen to determine whether the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity.

The Commission states that the “individualized assessment” component consists of the following: (1) notice to the individual screened out because of a criminal conviction; (2) an opportunity for the individual to demonstrate the exclusion should not be applied under the particular circumstances, and (3) consideration by the employer as to whether the additional information provided by the individual warrants an exception to the exclusion and shows that the policy as applied is not job related and consistent with business necessity.

● Narrowly tailored. If an employer employs a criminal record screen, it must be “narrowly tailored to identify criminal conduct with a demonstrably tight nexus to the position in question.” The employer must identify essential job requirements and the actual circumstances under which the jobs are performed. Moreover, the employer must determine the specific offenses that may demonstrate unfitness for performing such jobs. And, the employer must determine the duration of exclusions for criminal conduct (older versus newer convictions). Finally, the employer should keep a record of consultations, research, and justifications considered in developing the policies and procedures. Managers, hiring officials, and decision-makers should be trained regarding how to properly implement the policies.

● Factors for consideration. Absent validation meeting the Uniform Guidelines’ standards, the employer must consider the following factors: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; (2) the time that has passed since the offense, conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and (3) the nature of the job held or sought (identifying the job title, essential functions of the job, circumstances under which the job is performed, such as level of supervision and oversight, and the environment in which the job duties are performed, such as a warehouse, private home, outdoors.

● Training is important. Train managers, hiring officials, and decision-makers about Title VII and its prohibition on employment discrimination.

● Confidentiality is important. Keep information about applicants’ and employees’ criminal records confidential. Only use it for the purpose for which it was intended.

    OFCCP

● OFCCP cites to EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance, and the ETA/CRC TEGL for examples of “best practices.” This includes providing Notices 1-3 to job seekers and/or employers, as described in the ETA/CRC’s TEGL document.

    ETA and CRC

● Seeking a background check. If an employer seeks to conduct a criminal background check based on a bona fide requirement for the job, it must: (1) obtain the applicant’s permission before asking a background screening company for a criminal history report; (2) provide the applicant a copy of the report; and (3) provide the applicant a summary of his or her rights before taking any adverse action.

● Restrictive vacancy announce-ments. Covered entities should use a system (automated or otherwise) to identify vacancy announcements that include hiring restrictions based on arrest and/or conviction records. For each such vacancy announcement located, and to ensure the employer’s and covered entity’s compliance with federal civil rights laws, the employer must be given the opportunity to remove or otherwise edit the vacancy announcement. Here, the TEGL directs that “Notice #2 for Employers Regarding Job Postings Containing Criminal Record Exclusions” be provided to the employer.

If the employer continues to keep the hiring restriction in the announcement, the announcement must include a notice that the exclusions in the posting may have an adverse impact on protected groups, and individuals with criminal history records are not prohibited from applying for the posted position (referred to as “Notice #3 For Job Seekers to be Attached to Job Postings With Criminal Record Exclusions” in the TEGL document).

● Screening and referral based on criminal record restrictions. Criminal record histories may be taken into account for purposes of referring an individual to employment-related services or programs designed to aid individuals with arrest or conviction histories. However, covered entity staff should refrain from screening and refusing to refer applicants with criminal history records. Here, the guidance suggests, if an applicant’s arrest and conviction history is taken into account for purposes of excluding the individual from training programs or other employment-related services, then the EEOC’s arrest and conviction guidance should be followed.

● Confidentiality is important. Same as the EEOC.

About the author.

Seena Foster, award-winning civil rights author and Partner of the discrimination consulting firm, Title VI Consulting, LLP in Alexandria, Virginia, provides expertise and guidance in the areas of compliance and civil rights investigations to state and local governments, colleges and universities, private companies, and non-profit organizations. To that end, she offers one hour Webinars, full-day and half-day in-person training sessions, and mediation services addressing a variety of types of discrimination such as racial discrimination, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, age discrimination, and religious discrimination. Ms. Foster also offers highly-popular procedures-writing services, such as assisting you in developing discrimination complaint procedures, procedures for serving limited English proficient individuals, procedures for serving persons with disabilities, and procedures for gathering, handling, and storing medical information to name a few. The federal law on discrimination is complex and affects our workplaces as well as the delivery of our federally-assisted programs and activities. Her book, Civil Rights Investigations Under the Workforce Investment Act and Other Title VI Related Laws: From Intake to Final Determination, has been described as an “eye-opening” reading experience and a “stand-alone” training resource. Ms. Foster’s resources and materials are designed to support the work of civil rights and discrimination professionals in the public and private sectors. You may contact her through www.titleviconsulting.com.

Justice Department Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against New York Hotel (Nov. 2018)

Monday, November 12th, 2018

The Justice Department today announced that it has reached a settlement with MJFT Hotels of Flushing LLC (MJFT), the management company operating the Hyatt Place Hotel — Flushing/Laguardia Airport in Queens, New York. The settlement resolves a complaint that the company discriminated against a work-authorized immigrant in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Department’s investigation, initiated based on a worker’s complaint, concluded that MJFT engaged in citizenship status discrimination against an asylee by removing him from the hiring process for a job at the hotel because he was not a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen. Asylees have permanent work authorization, like U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, refugees, and lawful permanent residents, and employers may not discriminate against them in hiring unless they have a specific legal justification for doing so.

Under the settlement agreement, MJFT will pay a civil penalty, train its staff, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

“In general, employers may not restrict the employment opportunities of asylees because of their citizenship or immigration status,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Civil Rights Division. “The Department is committed to enforcing workplace laws that prohibit discrimination to ensure that individuals have an opportunity to be fully and fairly evaluated based on their merits when they apply for jobs.”

The Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Among other things, the statute prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; retaliation and intimidation.

For more information about protections against employment discrimination under immigration laws, call IER’s worker hotline at 1-800-255-7688 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); call IER’s employer hotline at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); sign up for a free webinar; email IER@usdoj.gov; or visit IER’s English and Spanish websites.

Applicants or employees who believe they were subjected to retaliation; different documentary requirements based on their citizenship, immigration status or national origin; or discrimination based on their citizenship, immigration status, or national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, should contact IER’s worker hotline for assistance.

Justice Department Settles Immigration-Related Discrimination Claim Against New York Hotel (Nov. 2018)

Thursday, November 8th, 2018

The Justice Department today announced that it has reached a settlement with MJFT Hotels of Flushing LLC (MJFT), the management company operating the Hyatt Place Hotel — Flushing/Laguardia Airport in Queens, New York. The settlement resolves a complaint that the company discriminated against a work-authorized immigrant in violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The Department’s investigation, initiated based on a worker’s complaint, concluded that MJFT engaged in citizenship status discrimination against an asylee by removing him from the hiring process for a job at the hotel because he was not a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen. Asylees have permanent work authorization, like U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, refugees, and lawful permanent residents, and employers may not discriminate against them in hiring unless they have a specific legal justification for doing so.

Under the settlement agreement, MJFT will pay a civil penalty, train its staff, and be subject to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements for three years.

“In general, employers may not restrict the employment opportunities of asylees because of their citizenship or immigration status,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Gore of the Civil Rights Division. “The Department is committed to enforcing workplace laws that prohibit discrimination to ensure that individuals have an opportunity to be fully and fairly evaluated based on their merits when they apply for jobs.”

The Division’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER), formerly known as the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Among other things, the statute prohibits citizenship status and national origin discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee; unfair documentary practices; retaliation and intimidation.

For more information about protections against employment discrimination under immigration laws, call IER’s worker hotline at 1-800-255-7688 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); call IER’s employer hotline at 1-800-255-8155 (1-800-237-2515, TTY for hearing impaired); sign up for a free webinar; email IER@usdoj.gov; or visit IER’s English and Spanish websites.

Applicants or employees who believe they were subjected to retaliation; different documentary requirements based on their citizenship, immigration status or national origin; or discrimination based on their citizenship, immigration status, or national origin in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, should contact IER’s worker hotline for assistance.

EEOC Weekly Digest Bulletin | Experts: Holistic Approach Needed to Change Workplace Culture to Prevent Harassment (Nov. 2018)

Monday, November 5th, 2018

WASHINGTON – Employers can take concrete steps to change their workplace cultures to prevent harassment, experts told the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at a public meeting today entitled “Revamping Workplace Culture to Prevent Harassment,” held at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. One year after the #MeToo movement went viral, the Commission heard leaders describe various approaches that aim to prevent harassment and give employers and employees skills needed to respond when they experience or observe harassing behavior.

The EEOC also released final fiscal year 2018 data highlighting its ramped-up efforts to combat and prevent workplace harassment. EEOC reported a 13.6 percent increase in sexual harassment charges and a 50 percent increase in lawsuits filed alleging sexual harassment. Hits on the EEOC’s sexual harassment webpage doubled since the start of the #MeToo movement one year ago. In addition, as an outgrowth of the Report of the Co-Chairs of the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, the EEOC’s Respectful Workplaces Training Program that teaches the skills to foster respectful interactions, reached more than 9,800 employees and employers across the country.

“Leadership and accountability set the tone and the expectation that harassment will not be tolerated in a workplace,” said Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair. “Over the past year, we have seen far too many examples of significant gaps in both areas. Our witnesses today stressed how both leadership and accountability must also be driven throughout an organization from the line employees, to the supervisors, to the CEO, and to the Board.”

“Today’s testimony underscores that to really tackle the problem of workplace harassment, we need to change workplace culture, hold people accountable, and have the right policies, procedures, and training,” said Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum, Co-Chair of the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. “No one element, alone, will suffice. Instead, it takes a holistic effort that must start at the top with strong and committed leadership.”

The witnesses at today’s Commission meeting focused on innovative training approaches, leadership, and accountability as components of holistic solutions to addressing harassment. Veronica Girón, a janitor and leader in the Ya Basta Campaign, and Alejandra Valles, the Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU United Service Workers West, told Commissioners about their training program that is designed and delivered by janitors to teach them how to respond in the moment to sexual harassment. Janitors who have experienced sexual harassment act out the most common situations they typically confront in the training videos. Over 100 janitors have been trained and they are partnering with employers and state agencies to implement the training program.

David G. Bowman, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius told the Commission that organizations must utilize a multi-faceted campaign that focuses on leaders setting the right tone, conducting a workplace culture assessment, and implementing different training formats that inspire employees to create a more positive setting that works for everyone. “It is important that organizations create a healthy top-down culture, where managers and leaders actively support the prospect of creating a healthier work environment,” Bowman said.

Anne Wallestad, president and CEO of BoardSource, provided recommendations for board leadership to ensure accountability, from the perspective of nonprofit boards. Wallestad noted that the composition of a board, its complicity in harassment and effective oversight of its CEO are critical factors in determining its role in preventing workplace harassment. “Boards can’t passively address allegations as they arise,” Wallestad said. “Boards needs to proactively examine how their organization’s own culture may be contributing to an environment where harassment and abuse goes unchecked.”

Rob Buelow, vice president of EVERFI, described how web-based training can be a complement to live training and how it fits into an overall harassment prevention program. “Rather than solely messaging to employees about what constitutes illegal behaviors, effective trainings will flip the narrative and focus on the organization’s values and culture, encouraging employees to make decisions that are aligned with those values and reinforcing how positive behavior supports positive culture.”

Business professor Christine Porath of Georgetown University touted the benefits of workplace civility training, which engages all employees by encouraging more positive gestures of respect, dignity or kindness. She added that when leaders are civil, it increases performance and helps employees feel safer and happier. “Incivility is associated with harassment as it creates a culture of disrespect in which harassment behaviors are tolerated,” Porath said.

Another approach promoted by Professor Mary C. Gentile of Giving Voice to Values (GVV) is to assume that most people already want to act on their values, and just need support when it comes to adopting appropriate behaviors. GVV’s curriculum provokes questions like, “WHAT IF” you were this person who wants to act in this values-driven manner (e.g., to respond to and stop harassing behaviors toward oneself or toward others) — “what would you say and do to be effective?” GVV’s goal is to “re-wire” the unconscious process that prevents people from intervening when they see bad behavior using peer coaching to convince employees to behave in ways that advance the success of the organization.

The Commission will hold open the Oct. 31, 2018 Commission meeting record for 15 days, and invites audience members, as well as other members of the public, to submit written comments on any issues or matters discussed at the meeting. Public comments may be mailed to Commission Meeting, EEOC Executive Officer, 131 M Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20507, or emailed to: Commissionmeetingcomments@eeoc.gov.

The comments provided will be made available to members of the Commission and to Commission staff working on the matters discussed at the meeting. In addition, comments may be published on EEOC’s public website, or disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and in the Commission’s library. Providing comments in response to this solicitation equals consent to their use and consideration by the Commission and to their public availability. Accordingly, do not include any information in submitted comments that you would not want made public, like home address, telephone number, etc. Also note that when comments are submitted by e-mail, the sender’s e-mail address automatically appears on the message.

EEOC has posted biographies and statements of all panelists, and will post a video of the meeting within a few days, and a full transcript within a few weeks. These can all be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/index.cfm.

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

Investigating Pregnancy-Related Discrimination Complaints by Seena Foster

Friday, November 2nd, 2018

This is an informational paper to assist equal opportunity professionals, and human resource professionals, better understand the differences in disability-based and gender-based discrimination complaints. Given the length of the paper, you may find it useful to download and save in your resource library.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

An overview

I. Federal laws and pregnancy

A. Disability-related laws

1. In federally-assisted programs and in the workplace

2. Additional considerations in the workplace: The FMLA and an employer’s leave policies

B. Gender-related laws

1. In federally-assisted programs

2. In the workplace

II. When to apply disability laws

A. In federally-assisted programs

B. In the workplace

III. When to apply gender laws

A. In federally-assisted programs

B. In the workplace

IV. About Seena Foster

________________________________________________________________

An overview

As the HR/EEO professional for your organization, you receive a complaint from an employee alleging that she was denied access to a workplace training program because she took sick leave, and requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for pregnancy-related complications. Or, she was denied access to the training program because her supervisor overheard her say she wanted to “start a family soon.”

Or, you serve as the EO professional for an organization operating federally-assisted programs and activities, and a woman files a discrimination complaint alleging that her application to enroll in an educational program was wrongfully denied because she has medical complications from her pregnancy. Or, she alleges her enrollment application was denied because she’s been pregnant twice over the past three years.

How do you investigate these complaints? Depending on the circumstances giving rise to the adverse action at issue, you’ll investigate the complaint as either a disability-based discrimination complaint, or as a gender-based complaint. How you decide this will, in turn, dictate the information you gather and the remedies (if any) you offer.

This paper is designed to help you understand how to identify the type of complaint you have, and what information you’ll need to gather during the investigation.

I. Federal laws and pregnancy

A. Disability-related rights laws

1. In federally-assisted programs and in the workplace

When we talk about disability-related civil rights laws, we are referring to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Importantly, these laws apply both to workplace discrimination complaints as well as to discrimination complaints arising in federally-assisted programs and activities.

Generally speaking, under these laws, “disability” is defined as a mental or physical condition that “substantially limits” one or more major life activities. Disabilities that are both (1) minor, and (2) transient or temporary (such as having a cold), do not meet the definition of “disability” for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and ADAAA.

2. Additional considerations in the workplace: The FMLA and an employer’s leave policies

In addition to the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA, the Family and Medical Leave Act applies to the workplace. Often, this law is mistakenly thought of as a civil rights law. The FMLA is not a civil rights law, but it was enacted in response to civil rights concerns in the workplace.

Generally speaking, the FMLA provides that, for certain family or medical reasons, an employee of at least one years’ duration may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12 month period. These reasons include birth and care of a newborn child, absence due to pregnancy complications, adopting a child or becoming a foster care parent, caring for an immediate family member with a serious health condition, or taking medical leave due to the employee’s inability to work because of a serious health condition.

As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland (Mar. 20, 2012):

In enacting the FMLA, Congress relied on evidence of a well-documented pattern of sex-based discrimination in family-leave policies that granted longer periods of leave to women than to men.

Therefore, the FMLA is designed to provide a consistent set of unpaid leave policies to be applied to employees across the board, regardless of gender.

And, the Equal Economic Opportunities Commission offers the following guidance:

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee’s ability to work. However, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor’s statement concerning their ability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy-related conditions to submit such statements.

Further, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, a new parent (including foster and adoptive parents) may be eligible for 12 weeks of leave (unpaid or paid if the employee has earned or accrued it) that may be used for care of the new child. To be eligible, the employee must have worked for the employer for 12 months prior to taking the leave and the employer must have a specified number of employees.

Turning to your organization’s leave policies and procedures, it is important to understand these policies are in place for a reason.

As we see from the history behind Congress’ enactments of the FMLA and the PDA, employers must establish leave policies and procedures (sick, annual, FMLA, and so on) that apply to employees across the board, and managers and supervisors must be consistent in their application of these policies and procedures. So, while these policies are not civil rights laws, deviation from established policies and procedures, or discriminatory policies and procedures established by the employer, renders an organization vulnerable to civil rights discrimination complaints on any covered basis (race, color, national origin, gender, religion, disability, age).

B. Gender-related laws

Sometimes, a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint does not involve disabling physical complications or medical restrictions related to the pregnancy. These complaints would be investigated as gender-based discrimination complaints. Why?

The answer is only women are capable of pregnancy and childbirth. So, let’s take a look at the gender-based civil rights laws that may apply to the complaint filed with you.

1. In federally-assisted programs and activities

There are a number of federal laws that prohibit gender-based discrimination in the delivery of federally-assisted aid, training, benefits, and services. As an example, Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in federally-assisted operations, such as job referral activities at our Nation’s job banks, delivery of unemployment insurance benefits, and selection of individuals for training, apprenticeship, and certification programs.

As another example, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act (Title IX) prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational programs and activities, regardless of which federal agency provides the funding. And, the U.S. Department of Education (Education) provides excellent guidance for handling pregnancy-related discrimination issues under Title IX. Notably, unless a complaint alleges discrimination based on disabling medical or physical complications, a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint is a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. Education’s guidance states the following:

[T]he Title IX regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 106.40(a) prohibits recipients from applying ‘any rule concerning a student’s actual or potential parental, family or marital status which treats students differently on the basis of sex.’ The regulation also states, in part, the following:

A recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student’s pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient. 34 C.F.R. § 106.40(b)(l).
In addition, the Title IX regulation states that, in providing financial assistance to any of its students, a recipient shall not ‘apply any rule or assist in application of any rule concerning eligibility for such assistance which treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status.’ (See 34 C.F.R. § 106.37(a)(3)).

This differs from Education’s disability-related guidance:

Although pregnant students may be required to obtain a physician’s certification of fitness to continue in the regular education program or activity, a recipient may do so only if it requires such a certification from all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician. (See 34 C.F.R. § 106.40(b)(2)). In fact, the Title IX regulation instructs recipients to treat pregnancy or childbirth in the same manner and under the same policies as any temporary disability. (See 34 C.F.R. § 106.40(b)(4)).

This is consistent with how pregnancy-related complaints should be approached in other federally-assisted programs and activities. So, unless the complaint alleges discrimination based on disabling medical complications or restrictions, the pregnancy-related complaint is investigated as alleged gender-based discrimination.

2. In the workplace

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits gender-based discrimination. However, confusion arose regarding how to process pregnancy-related complaints. As a result, Congress sought to clarify that pregnancy-related discrimination complaints in the workplace generally are investigated as alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. To that end, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include pregnancy-related complaints under the penumbra of gender-based discrimination.

As noted by the United States Supreme Court in California Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 107 S. Ct. 683, 692 (1987), leading up to enactment of the PDA, “Congress had before it extensive evidence of discrimination against pregnancy,” particularly in the administration of leave policies and procedures by employers. To see the text of the PDA, to go 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

II. When to apply disability laws

A. In federally-assisted programs and activities

Jane seeks to participate in an on-the-job training program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program begins in 30 days and requires that participants be able to bend, lift, and stand for most of an eight hour day, five days a week. Jane wants to participate in the program, but provides medical documentation from her physician stating, for the next three months, she will be unable to stand for more than ten minutes, and will be unable to bend or lift anything at all. Her application to participate in the program is denied because her pregnancy-related complications prevent her from being able to start the program in 30 days. She files a complaint with you.

You will process Jane’s complaint as a disability-based discrimination complaint. Here, Jane is unable to bend or lift anything for the next three months, and can stand for only ten minutes at a time, due to her pregnancy. She has a “disability” in that her condition “substantially limits” the major life activities of bending, lifting, and standing. To that end, you will determine whether Jane meets the essential eligibility requirements to participate in the program, and whether any accommodations may be offered to Jane to allow her to participate. With regard to accommodations, you would look at the accommodations available for similarly-situated program applicants with temporary disabilities (such as a broken foot, or temporary back condition). The questions you will ask during your investigation would include:

● What are the essential eligibility requirements for participation in the program?

● Assuming, for purposes of this exercise, you find that the essential eligibility requirements include starting the program in 30 days and being able to lift, bend, and stand, you’ll need to ask, “Was Jane treated differently than anyone else (man or woman) with similar temporary limitations, such as a broken leg or the flu, seeking to participate in the training program?”

For questions in a particular complaint involving allegations of pregnancy-related discrimination, you should check with your EO leadership, or with the civil rights office of your federal funding agency for guidance.

    Tell-tale signs.

So, when reviewing a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint under disability-based nondiscrimination laws, ask yourself: Does this complaint allege denial of a federally-assisted service, aid, benefit, or training because of actual or perceived physical limitations or restrictions leading to the view that the person is disabled because of a previous, current, or potential pregnancy?

    Some examples.

Under the disability-related civil rights laws, “disability” is defined as a condition that “substantially limits and major life activity,” and there is no requirement that an impairment last a particular length of time to be considered substantially limiting (i.e. temporary disabilities may be covered). Think twice if you seek to deny services, aid, training or benefits because the applicant/participant:

● develops a disabling condition as the result of pregnancy or childbirth (such as preeclampsia requiring bed rest)
● has a record of a pregnancy-related or childbirth-related disability (such as developing gestational diabetes during a prior pregnancy)
● is regarded as having a disabling condition (such as limiting an applicant’s training or apprenticeship opportunities because you believe these positions could result in a miscarriage)

Focus on the essential eligibility requirements for the program or activity at issue, and ensure that the applicant/participant is not denied access to these programs if she meets the essential eligibility requirements. Look for accommodations that may be provided to allow participation where the applicant/participant has a temporary disability.

B. In the workplace

In the workplace, figuring out the proper way to investigate discrimination complaints often is complicated by allegations that leave requests (such as sick leave or FMLA leave) were improperly denied, or that these requests adversely affected an employment decision related to the employee. So, let’s sort out these issues in the context of pregnancy-related complaints.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) provides the following guidance:

If a woman is temporarily unable to perform her job due to a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, the employer or other covered entity must treat her in the same way as it treats any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, the employer may have to provide light duty, alternative assignments, disability leave, or unpaid leave to pregnant employees if it does so for other temporarily disabled employees.

Additionally, impairments resulting from pregnancy (for example, gestational diabetes or preeclampsia, a condition characterized by pregnancy-induced hypertension and protein in the urine) may be disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An employer may have to provide a reasonable accommodation (such as leave or modifications that enable an employee to perform her job) for a disability related to pregnancy, absent undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 makes it much easier to show that a medical condition is a covered disability.

We’ll illustrate this point with Joan. Joan suffers from “morning sickness,” and has asked for permission to take sick leave or FMLA leave on days she feels particularly bad. Her supervisor denies both of her requests, and she files a complaint with you.

Joan has asked for sick leave or FMLA leave, and she has let you know she suffers from “morning sickness,” you will investigate this as a disabiity-based discrimination complaint. You will look at the policies and procedures pertaining to employees’ requests for the types of leave at issue here, sick and FMLA. You will ask how those policies and procedures have been applied to other employees with temporary disabilities, and whether Joan is being treated differently from any other employee in your organization, male or female, with similar temporary or transient limitations.

Let’s say that Joan directs your attention to one of her co-workers, Jane who requested, and received approval for, sick leave and FMLA leave when she broke her arm last year. Here, you are looking to see whether Joan and Jane, and any other similarly-situated co-workers with transient or temporary limitations, were treated differently with regard to consideration of their leave requests.

Determinations as to whether folks are “similarly-situated” are made on a case-by-case basis; there are no “bright line” rules. In making such determinations, you want to ensure that your leave policies and procedures are not discriminatory either in favor of, or against, pregnancy-related limitations, and that these policies and procedures are being applied consistently to all employees.

    Tell-tale signs.

So, when reviewing a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint under disability-based nondiscrimination laws, ask yourself: Does this complaint allege an adverse employment action because of actual or perceived physical limitations or restrictions leading to the view that the employee is disabled because of a previous, current, or potential pregnancy?

    Some examples.

Under the disability-related civil rights laws, “disability” is defined as a condition that “substantially limits and major life activity,” and there is no requirement that an impairment last a particular length of time to be considered substantially limiting (i.e. temporary disabilities may be covered). Think twice before you engage in an adverse employment action because the employee:

● develops a disabling condition as the result of pregnancy or childbirth (such as preeclampsia requiring bed rest)
● has a record of a pregnancy-related or childbirth-related disability (such as developing gestational diabetes during a prior pregnancy)
● is regarded as having a disabling condition (such as limiting an employee’s promotion opportunity because you believe the duties required in the position could result in a miscarriage)

Focus on the bona fide occupational requirements, and the essential job duties, and allow the employee to participate if she meets these requirements. Look for accommodations where the employee has a temporary disability due to childbirth or pregnancy, as you would for someone with a broken foot or the like.

III. When to apply gender-based laws

A. In federally-assisted programs and activities

Denial of a service, aid, benefit, or training on the basis of prior pregnancies is a violation of federal civil rights laws. For example, the case of Pegues et al. v. Mississippi State Employment Service et al., 699 F.2d 760 (5th Cir. 1983) involved denial of an employment referral in a federally-assisted workforce development program. The Mississippi State Employment Service (MSES) reviewed applications of individuals who sought employment referrals to available, higher paying jobs at a local factory. One of the female applicants (Plaintiff) alleged disparate treatment in MSES’ classification, and referral, of her and other women to lower paying positions at the local factory as compared to similarly qualified male applicants.

The court stated, to demonstrate disparate treatment in employment referral, the Plaintiff must prove: (1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she applied for an occupation for which MSES was making referrals; (3) she failed to secure a referral; and (4) MSES later referred a non-member of the protected group.

On examination of the evidence of record, the court found: (1) the Plaintiff was a member of a protected group (women), (2) she applied for a higher paying position with the local factory, (3) her application was denied, and, (4) based on her education and experience, she “was passed over in favor of other, similarly qualified (male) applicants.” Id. at 775. The court then noted:

By way of rebuttal, Defendants elicited testimony from (Plaintiff) as to her five full term pregnancies between 1970 and 1975, and various benefits in the form of training and referral that Defendants had conferred upon her between 1968 and 1970.
Id. at 775 (emphasis added). The court rejected Defendants’ proffer of rebuttal:
Given her factory experience and enhanced education, we do not believe the reasons articulated constitute a legitimate rationale for Defendants’ failure to reconsider her service classification and provide an opportunity for employment at Travenol. She is entitled to relief.

Id. at 775. The court concluded that Plaintiff successfully established gender-based discrimination.

    Tell-tale signs.

So, when reviewing a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint under gender-based nondiscrimination laws, ask yourself: Does this complaint allege denial of a federally-assisted service, aid, benefit, or training because of the views of the agency, organization, or company involved regarding prior, current, or potential pregnancies?

    Some examples.

The following list contains pregnancy-related examples of views that may lead to gender-based discrimination in the delivery of federally-assisted programs and activities. Think twice if you seek to deny services, aid, training or benefits because the applicant/participant:

● expresses an intention to become pregnant
● is undergoing fertility treatment
● is pregnant
● has been pregnant in the past
● may become pregnant in the future
● uses contraception
● is lactating or breastfeeding
● develops a non-disabling medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth
● has an abortion
● requests light duty work, modified tasks, or alternative assignments on a temporary basis (if available to other applicants/participants with similar temporary limitations)

B. In the workplace

An example of gender-based discrimination in the workplace is found in International Union, et al v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 111 S.Ct. 1196 (1991). Here, the employer had a policy that excluded women of “childbearing capacity” from holding certain “lead-exposed jobs.” Specifically at issue were certain jobs making batteries. Among the class action plaintiffs were (1) a woman “who had chosen to be sterilized in order to avoid losing her job,” and (2) a woman “who had suffered loss in compensation when she was transferred out of her job where she was exposed to lead.”

Concluding that the employer’s policy was “facially discriminatory” in violation of Title VII’s ban on gender-based discrimination, the Court noted the policy improperly “requires only a female employee to produce proof that she is not capable of reproducing.” As a result, the Court noted that the burden shifted to the employer to demonstrate that this discriminatory requirement constituted a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), which the Court found was not present in the case.

Citing to the PDA, the Court stated, “Unless pregnant employees differ from others in their ability to work, they must be treated the same as other employees for all employment-related purposes.” Said differently, women who are as capable of doing their jobs as their male counterparts may not be forced “to choose between having a child and having a job.” Based on the record before it, the Supreme Court in Johnson Controls found that “[f]ertile women . . . participate in the manufacture of batteries as efficiently as anyone else” such that the employer’s policy violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination.

The Court made a point of stating that sex discrimination in the workplace has been allowed only under very narrow circumstances, such as definitive danger to others. The Court stressed, under these circumstances, “the safety exception is limited to instances in which sex or pregnancy actually interferes with the employee’s ability to perform the job.”

    The “safety exception” explained.

The Johnson Controls Court cited its prior opinion in Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720 (1977) to illustrate the “safety exception” to gender-based discrimination. In Dothard, it was the employer’s policy to hire only male guards at a maximum-security male penitentiary. The Court held this was permissible as “employment of a female guard would create real risks of safety to others if violence broke out because the guard was a woman.” Under the facts of that case, the Court found that “sex was related to the guard’s ability to do the job-maintaining prison security.” In Johnson Controls, the Court emphasized, “in order to qualify as a BFOQ, a job qualification must relate to the ‘essence’ . . . or to the ‘central mission of the employer’s business.’”

    Tell-tale signs.

So, when reviewing a pregnancy-related discrimination complaint under gender-based nondiscrimination laws, ask yourself: Does this complaint allege an adverse employment action because of the views of the supervisor, agency, organization, or company regarding prior, current, or potential pregnancies, and the “safety exception” does not apply?

    Some examples.

The following list contains pregnancy-related examples of views that may lead to based discrimination in the workplace in violation of Title VII. Think twice if you seek to engage in an adverse employment action because the employee:

● expresses an intention to become pregnant
● is undergoing fertility treatment
● is pregnant
● has been pregnant in the past
● is taking pregnancy or parental leave
● may become pregnant in the future
● uses contraception
● is lactating or breastfeeding
● develops a non-disabling medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth
● has an abortion
● requests light duty work, modified tasks, or alternative assignments on a temporary basis (if available to other employees with similar temporary limitations)

IV. About Seena Foster

Seena Foster, award-winning civil rights author and Principal of the discrimination consulting firm, Title VI Consulting, LLP in Alexandria, Virginia, provides expertise and guidance in the areas of civil rights compliance and discrimination complaint investigations related to the delivery of federally-assisted workforce development and educational programs and activities. Her customers include state and local governments, colleges and universities, private companies, private counsel, and non-profit organizations. You may contact her at seena@titleviconsulting.com, or visit her Web site at www.titleviconsulting.com for additional information regarding the services and resources she offers.

By way of background, in 2003, Ms. Foster served as a Senior Policy Analyst to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center (CRC). In that capacity, she led a team of equal opportunity specialists to conduct disability-based technical assistance reviews of One-Stop centers, and she assisted the CRC’s leadership in preparing for limited English proficiency-based compliance reviews.

Ms. Foster also analyzed and weighed witness statements and documents to prepare numerous final determinations for signature by the CRC Director, which resolved discrimination complaints under a variety of federal civil rights laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act. In 2006, Ms. Foster received the Secretary of Labor’s Equal Employment Opportunity Award in recognition of “exceptional efforts to ensure that individuals with disabilities have full access to employment and related services and benefits at the Nation’s One-Stop Career Centers.”

And, at the request of the CRC, Ms. Foster served as a popular workshop speaker at national equal opportunity forums co-sponsored by the CRC and the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Her presentations covered topics such as the WIA Section 188 disability checklist, conducting discrimination complaint investigations and writing final determinations, and conducting investigations of allegations involving harassment and hostile environment.

With a passion for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in the delivery of federally-assisted programs and activities, Ms. Foster’s series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals has received rave reviews, and she offers training, and assistance developing policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with applicable federal civil rights laws.

Her training in the areas of compliance and complaint investigations has been described as “dynamic,” “hitting the nail on the head,” “very relevant,” “well-organized,” and “informative.” And, her award-winning book on conducting discrimination complaint investigations is viewed as “eye-opening” and “the best on the market.” Ms. Foster is certified in “Federal Workplace Mediation” through the Northern Virginia Mediation Service.

She is a member of the Discrimination Law and Human Rights Law Committees of the International Bar Association. Ms. Foster received her undergraduate degree from Michigan State University, and she has a Juris Doctorate from The George Washington University Law School.

NOTICE: This paper is for informational purposes only. We do not offer legal advice. Specific questions should be directed to your legal counsel, or to the civil rights experts within your organization, agency, or company.