RSS Feed!

Archives

Posts Tagged ‘compliance’

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.

Political Affiliation Discrimination by Seena Foster

Wednesday, September 5th, 2018

Political affiliation discrimination occurs when an adverse action is taken against a person based on the person’s political affiliation or beliefs. Political affiliation discrimination may arise in federally-assisted programs and activities as well as in the workplace. As the equal opportunity professional for your agency or organization, you must know the federal civil rights laws that apply to your agency or organization, and whether those laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of political affiliation.

We are going to explore two areas where political affiliation discrimination is prohibited by federal civil rights laws—one example involves federally-assisted programs and activities under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and the second example involves employment decisions of public employers.

Federally-assisted programs and activities

Starting with federally-assisted programs and activities, Section 188 of WIOA prohibits discrimination in certain workforce development programs on a variety of bases, including political affiliation or belief. Unemployment insurance benefits, employment referral services, on-the-job training, resume writing, and interview skill development are some examples of the aid, training, services, and benefits funded by the federal government through WIOA. American Job Network centers, Job Corps centers, and certain community colleges are prime examples of WIOA-Title I funded recipients and sub-recipients that are prohibited from engaging in political affiliation discrimination in delivering aid, benefits, services, and training to the public. And, any state, U.S. territory, or other recipient receiving WIOA-Title I funds also must comply with WIOA’s prohibition on political affiliation discrimination.

To provide an example of political affiliation discrimination prohibited by WIOA Section 188, let’s say that a new political party received the majority of votes in your state or U.S. territory. Members of the new party take office and they issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for organizations and companies to apply for WIOA grant monies to deliver training to unemployed persons. Reviewers of the 100 proposals select 25 organizations and companies for the WIOA grants. Of these 25 entities, a total of 24 entities are owned by persons whose known political affiliations are aligned with those of the new party in office. Only one entity has a known political affiliation with the former party in power. Of the 75 entities not selected for the grants, 55 have known political affiliations with the former party, 5 have unknown political affiliations, and 15 have known affiliations with the new party. If the new party has, in fact, considered an entity’s political affiliation in determining whether the entity would receive a WIOA-funded grant, then the new party has engaged in political affiliation-based discrimination in violation of the nondiscrimination mandates of WIOA Section 188. As a result, the RFP process would be null and void.

So, if you administer or operate WIOA-Title I programs or activities, you are prohibited from basing your decisions regarding delivery of aid, benefits, services, or training on an applicant’s, participant’s, or beneficiary’s political affiliation or belief. As the equal professional for an agency or organization operating these programs, you must train staff and decision-makers that aid, benefits, training, and services cannot be doled out based on political affiliation. Monitor your systems of delivery to ensure continued adherence to this nondiscrimination mandate.

Public employers

Turning to the workplace, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which applies to public employers and is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prohibits political affiliation discrimination. Public employers include state and local governments as well as other entities like publicly-funded colleges and universities, the police, and so on. This federal civil rights law requires that employment decisions, such as selection, promotion, and termination cannot be based on consideration of the employee’s or potential employee’s political affiliation or belief.

Take, for example, the case of Wagner v. Jones, 664 F.3d 259 (8th Cir. 2011), where the Dean of a publicly-funded college of law denied a legal writing teaching position to an applicant because of the applicant’s political affiliation. Notably, the applicant’s conservative political affiliations and beliefs were apparent from her resume, which reflected a background with certain conservative educational institutions and employers. Evidence of record demonstrated that one out of 50 law school faculty members at the college was a registered Republican. And, the court noted that two, less experienced applicants were later hired for the position at issue. In the end, the court concluded that the Dean presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant’s political affiliation was not a factor in the employment decision.

So, if you are the HR/EEO professional for a public employer, engage in training and outreach to managers and supervisors, including political appointees at the highest levels of your agency or organization, and inform them of them of their obligations and responsibilities of nondiscrimination based on political affiliation. Help them understand that political affiliation discrimination can take many forms from the more commonplace acts of non-selection, non-promotion, and termination to other acts such as engaging in hostile environment based on political affiliation, providing an adverse performance appraisal, relocating a worker to a less desirable office, and so on. Managers and supervisors should base employment-related decisions on the knowledge, skills, and abilities evident from an applicant’s educational background and experience, not the applicant’s political affiliation or belief.

However, for public employers, there is an exception to this rule that merits comment. Notably, employment decisions related to “confidential” employees and senior “policy-makers” may be based on the employee’s or potential employee’s political affiliation or belief without running afoul of federal civil rights laws. Keep in mind that this exception will apply to a very narrow category of folks working for, or seeking to work for, a public employer.

Here, we’ll take a look at another circuit court case that is illustrative. In Soderbeck v. Burnett County, Wisconsin, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1985), the circuit court was confronted with a newly-elected sheriff’s decision to terminate an office employee because the employee was the wife of the former sheriff who lost the election. The Seventh Circuit provides a helpful discussion on the issue of “confidential” employees and “policy-makers” in the context of political affiliation discrimination:

A public agency that fires an employee because of his political beliefs or political affiliations infringes his freedom of speech, see Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976), but there are exceptions to this principle, carved out to minimize its adverse impact on the effective functioning of government. For example, employees at the policy-making level of government can be fired on political grounds. Id. at 367-68 (plurality opinion); Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 722 F.2d 1307, 1309-10 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam). Mrs. Soderbeck was not a policy maker; but if, as the defendants argue, she was the sheriff’s confidential secretary, then Kellberg could fire her without violating the Constitution. See Stegmaier v. Trammell, 597 F.2d 1027, 1038 (5th Cir.1979) (dictum). You cannot run a government with officials who are forced to keep political enemies as their confidential secretaries, and Mrs. Soderbeck was the political enemy of her husband’s political enemy, Kellberg. Any implication of the plurality opinion in Elrod v. Burns that only a policy maker is unprotected by the principle announced in that case was superseded by the broader formulation in the majority opinion in Branti v. Finkel, which allows an employee to be fired if ‘the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.’ 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. at 1294. See also Livas v. Petka, 711 F.2d 798, 800-01 (7th Cir.1983). It need not be a policy-making office. If Rosalynn Carter had been President Carter’s secretary, President Reagan would not have had to keep her on as his secretary.

Mrs. Soderbeck, however, had been trained as a bookkeeper and her title was bookkeeper, not secretary or confidential secretary; and though she did do most of the typing in the sheriff’s office, there was evidence that if the sheriff needed something typed he would hand his handwritten draft to whoever in the office was handy. Burnett County has a population of only 12,000 and a tiny sheriff’s office whose six employees at the time of Mrs. Soderbeck’s termination did not have sharply differentiated tasks; it was only after she was fired that a position of “confidential secretary” was created with a different job description from that of the bookkeeper’s position that Mrs. Soderbeck had occupied. So while she did typing and handled legal papers, such as summonses and warrants, the other employees did these things too. She also did janitorial work, and performed domestic chores for the prisoners in the county jail (which is in the same building as the sheriff’s office and home) as jail matron and laundress–not the usual functions of a confidential secretary. And she did not take dictation–no one in the office did. If she could be fired as a confidential employee, so could anyone else employed in the office, on the theory that if an office is small enough the tasks usually performed by the boss’s personal secretary may be parceled out among all the employees.

This is not to say that Mrs. Soderbeck was, as a matter of law, an employee who could not be fired because of her political affiliation. It is to say merely that the question was sufficiently uncertain to be one for the jury to decide. The defendants argue that whether or not an employee exercises a policy-making role or is a repository of confidences that make loyalty an essential part of his job description should always be a question of law, but we cannot agree with this point, for which no authority is offered, and which has been rejected in previous cases in this and other circuits. See, e.g., Nekolny v. Painter, 653 F.2d 1164, 1169 (7th Cir.1981); Stegmaier v. Trammell, supra, 597 F.2d at 1034 n. 8, and cases cited there.

If you are the HR/EEO professional for a public employer seeking to terminate, or take some other adverse action, against an employee because of the employee’s political affiliation, make sure the employee falls in the category of a “policy-maker” or “confidential employee.” While job titles and job descriptions may assist in this determination but, standing alone, job titles do not determine the outcome. You’ll need to get into the weeds of the employee’s actual day-to-day job duties and functions. Concluding that an employee is, or is not, a “policy-maker” or a “confidential employee” involves very fact specific findings that must be made on a case-by-case basis.

About Seena Foster

Seena Foster, award-winning civil rights author and Principal of the discrimination consulting firm, Title VI Consulting 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 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 remains highly active in the field through her series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals as well as through her mediation services, 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,” “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.” In 2007, Ms. Foster was certified as a mediator by the Virginia Supreme Court, and later obtained “Federal Workplace Mediation” certification through the Northern Virginia Mediation Service.

She is a member of the Human Rights Institute and 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.

Harassment and Hostile Environment: Understanding the Basics by Seena Foster

Tuesday, May 15th, 2018

If you are the Equal Opportunity (EO) professional charged with ensuring nondiscrimination in the delivery of federally-funded programs and activities, or you serve as the Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action/Human Resources (EEO/AA/HR) professional charged with ensuring nondiscrimination in the workplace, you must have a working knowledge of “harassment” and “hostile environment.”

√ Two categories of harassment-related complaints.

Let’s start with an understanding that complaints of harassment-related discrimination fall into one of two categories: (1) quid pro quo harassment; or (2) hostile environment harassment.

Whether a complaint involves allegations of quid pro quo harassment or hostile environment, the conduct must be “unwelcome.” And, who defines whether conduct is “unwelcome”? Harassment is defined “through the eyes of the beholder”; namely, the person subjected to the harassing conduct defines whether the conduct is offensive and unwelcome.

√ Harassment is discrimination.

“Harassment” and “hostile environment” constitute forms of discrimination, regardless of whether the “harassment” or “hostile environment” occurs in federally-funded programs and activities, or in the workplace.

When we hear the word “harassment,” many of us first think of “sexual” harassment. To be sure, harassment on the basis of “sex” is a form of sex discrimination that is barred by federal law in the workplace, and in the delivery of federally-funded services, aid, training, and benefits.

That being said, it is equally important to keep in mind that harassment or hostile environment may occur on any prohibited basis of discrimination, including race, national origin, color, disability, age, and others. For example, you may see a complaint of race-based hostile environment, or a religion-based quid pro quo harassment complaint.

√ Quid pro quo harassment defined.

In the simplest of terms, quid pro quo harassment takes the form of bartering—“you give me this, and I’ll give you that.” A workplace example occurs where Jane, a supervisor, offers her assistant, Jason, a bonus in exchange for sexual favors. Jane has engaged in prohibited quid pro quo sexual harassment. Notably, Jane’s decision-making regarding whether to give Jason a bonus should be based on bona fide work-related criteria, not through bartering to get Jason to have sex with her.

Similarly, an example in the arena of federally-funded programs and activities is where Scott, the employment-referral counselor at a job bank, refuses to refer Khalid to available security guard positions unless Khalid renounces his Islamic faith. Here, Scott has engaged in quid pro quo religious-based harassment—Khalid must give up his Islamic faith in exchange for referral to the security guard positions. This discrimination is illegal because Scott is obligated to base his decision to refer Khalid to security guard positions on whether Khalid meets the essential eligibility requirements for the referral, not Khalid’s religious beliefs or practices.

√ “Hostile environment” defined.

Turning to “hostile environment,” this type of discrimination does not involve the bartering of “you give me this and I’ll give you that.” Rather, a hostile environment is created where one person, or a group of people, engages in offensive conduct that is “so severe and pervasive” that it adversely alters another person’s workplace environment, or the person’s enjoyment of, and participation in, federally-funded programs and activities.

In determining whether conduct is “severe and pervasive,” the following factors should be considered: (1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s job performance, or with a person’s participation in, or enjoyment of, a federally-funded program or activity.

An example of “hostile environment” in the workplace is where Kristen works as a welder alongside eight co-workers, all of whom are men. Two of these co-workers are constantly telling sexist jokes, posting naked photos of women in the work area, and whistling at Kristen when she is working. Kristen is offended by the conduct, and she lets her co-workers know that it is unwelcome. When the conduct does not stop, Kristen files a complaint. Kristen’s complaint involves allegations of a “hostile sexual environment,” which adversely altered her working conditions.

In federally-funded programs and activities, an example of hostile environment occurs where a group of students at a public school posts derogatory remarks on Facebook about Josh, a student with a mobility disability. Moreover, they call him “crippled” and “stupid” in the hallways of the school, and deliberately place obstacles in front of his power chair. Josh files a disability-based hostile environment complaint. Here, the offending group of students created a “disability-based hostile environment” that, in turn, adversely altered Josh’s ability to enjoy, and participate in, the educational programs and activities offered at the school.

√ Retaliatory “hostile environment” is against the law.

Whether in the workplace, or in federally-funded programs and activities, creating a “hostile environment” against an individual in retaliation for filing an EEO complaint, or in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint in a federally-funded program, also is prohibited. Every circuit court addressing this issue recognizes these complaints of “retaliatory hostile environment.”

If a person files a discrimination complaint, regardless of whether the complaint is ultimately successful or not, and then the person experiences “severe and pervasive” harassment from any member of your organization’s staff, your organization and the responsible staff members will be held liable. See Clegg v. Ark. Dep’t. of Corr., 496 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2007); Jordan v. City of Cleveland, 464 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2006); Jensen v. Potter, 435 F.3d 444 (3rd Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006); Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Noviello v. City of Boston, 398 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2005); Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858 (4th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N., 548 U.S. 53; Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2000); Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep’t. of Corr. Serv., 180 F.3d 426 (2nd Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N., 548 U.S. 53; Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998); Knox v. Indiana, 93 F.3d 1327 (7th Cir. 1996).

For example, in Gowski v. James Peake, MD (Sec’y., Dept. of Veterans Affairs, et al), 682 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2012), the circuit court noted, after two hospital physician-employees filed EEO complaints of gender-based and religious-based discrimination, they were subjected to “severe and pervasive” retaliation at work, including the spread of demeaning rumors about the physicians by management that damaged their professional reputations, denial of hospital privileges to the physicians that could adversely affect their certifications, excluding the physicians from participating in work-related functions, and other similar acts. The court found, taken as a whole, this conduct created a retaliatory hostile environment, and damages were awarded against the hospital.

√ Obligations of EO and EEO professionals.

Thus, whether you work as an EO professional in federally-funded programs and activities, or as an EEO/AA/HR professional handling workplace discrimination, you must be familiar with the policies and procedures of your agency or organization pertaining to harassment and hostile environment. If no policies or procedures are in place, you must ensure that they are developed and published. Management and employees in your workplace, as well as beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of your federally-funded programs and activities must have notice of these policies and procedures.

If you receive a discrimination complaint based on harassment or hostile environment, you are required to take action. These complaints are fact-intensive and there may be more than one appropriate response to a particular complaint of harassment. Although only hindsight offers perfect clarity of what worked and what did not, doing nothing is never acceptable.

About the author.

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 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 remains highly active in the field through her series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals as well as through her mediation services, 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,” “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.” In 2007, Ms. Foster was certified as a mediator by the Virginia Supreme Court, and later obtained “Federal Workplace Mediation” certification 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.

Religious Discrimination and Accommodation in Federally-Funded Programs and Activities: An Overview by Seena Foster

Saturday, May 5th, 2018

As the Equal Opportunity (EO) professional for an agency or organization charged with administering federally-funded programs and activities where “religion” is a prohibited basis of discrimination, you should have written policies and procedures for handling requests for religious accommodation. In this paper, we explore some basic concepts related to religious accommodation using the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) as the context for guidance offered.

Some examples of WIOA-funded programs and activities are found at American Job Centers and their affiliates, partners, and service providers offering unemployment insurance benefits, employment referral services, and training. In addition, most Job Corps Centers offer WIOA-funded educational programs and activities designed to get young folks educated, skilled, and employed.

For WIOA-funded programs and activities, one prohibited basis of discrimination is “religion.” And, with this prohibition comes an obligation to provide reasonable religious-based accommodation when requested, if no “undue hardship” is present.

√ “Religious belief or practice” defined

Initially, it is helpful to have a common understanding of how the phrase, “religious belief or practice,” is defined. Because WIOA and its implementing regulations do not define “religious belief or practice,” we may look at how this phrase is defined under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits religion-based discrimination in the workplace. Here, we find that a “religious belief or practice” may represent mainstream religious views, or the belief or practice may be less common, less understood, and less well-known. And, the concept of “religious belief or practice” includes persons who ascribe to no religious belief or practice at all.

Some examples of “religious belief or practice” under Title VII include, but are not limited to, the following:

● Agnostic
● Atheist
● Buddhist
● Christian
● Hindu
● Jewish
● Kemetic
● Muslim
● Native American spiritual beliefs
● Sikh
● Wicca
● and countless others.

A common thread defining any “religious belief or practice” is that it reflects a person’s views of life, purpose, and death. On the other hand, social, political, and economic philosophies as well as personal preferences do not constitute “religious beliefs or practices” protected by federal civil rights laws.

√ The “religious belief or practice” must be bona fide

Religious-based accommodation is premised on the fact that the asserted “religious belief or practice” is bona fide. Said differently, it is “sincerely held” by the requester. Generally, this requirement is met without difficulty. However, if the requester behaves in a manner that is markedly inconsistent with the professed “religious belief or practice,” then you may determine that the belief or practice is not bona fide or “sincerely held” by the requester. This, in turn, means that there is no obligation to provide accommodation.

√ Essential eligibility requirements must be met

Before entertaining a request for religious accommodation, the requester must meet the “essential eligibility requirements” for the WIOA-funded aid, benefit, service, or training at issue. If a person does not meet the “essential eligibility requirements” for the program or activity, then there is no obligation to provide accommodation.

√ Common religious-based accommodation requests

In federally-funded programs and activities, some common religious-based accommodation requests include:

● Changes in scheduling of programs and activities;
● Modification of testing and selection procedures;
● Modification of dress and/or grooming requirements; and
● Permitting forms of religious expression.

In the workplace, religious-based accommodation requests may take similar forms of:

● Changes in scheduling of work shifts;
● Modification of testing and selection procedures;
● Modification of dress and/or grooming requirements; and
● Permitting forms of religious expression.

Generally, a religious-based accommodation request is made to address conflicts between a federally-funded program or activity and a person’s religious belief or practice. For example, your American Job Center receives a request that orientations for the Center’s programs and activities be scheduled any day of the week except Friday because Friday is considered a “holy day” by the requester. This is an example of a religious-based accommodation request.

In the workplace, the case of Sanchez-Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., issued by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on March 8, 2012, is illustrative of the types of religious-based accommodation requests an employer may receive. Here, an employee, who was a Seventh Day Adventist, requested Saturdays off from work. AT&T stated that providing the employee with every Saturday off as a matter of course would constitute an undue hardship; rather, as a “reasonable accommodation,” AT&T offered that the employee could: (1) take another position in the company that did not require working on Saturdays; or (2) arrange voluntary “swapping” of shifts with co-workers on his own. The court held that these offered accommodations (even though they differed from the accommodation requested by the employee) were sufficient such that the employee did not demonstrate religious-based discrimination.

√ Communication is a must

If a person seeks accommodation based on his/her religious belief or practice, then the accommodation request must be made known to the recipient delivering the federally-funded programs and activities (such as the American Job Center or Job Corps Center). Magic words are not required, but the requester must convey enough information for the recipient to understand that accommodation is sought pursuant to the requester’s religious beliefs or practices. A recipient cannot be held liable for failure to provide accommodation if it was unaware of the need in the first place.

Information-sharing between the requester and the EO Officer is critical as determinations of accommodation are made on a case-by-case basis after consideration of the particular facts.

√ Avoid discriminatory consideration of requests

If a person meets the essential eligibility requirements for a federally-funded program or activity, and the person requests accommodation based on a bona fide religious belief or practice, then the EO Officer is obliged to avoid consideration of discriminatory criteria when rendering a determination on the accommodation request. Examples of discriminatory criteria are as follows:

● “The person looks like a terrorist”;
● “The person’s beliefs are illogical, inconceivable, or incorrect”;
● “I disagree with the person’s beliefs”;
● “The person’s name is associated with a particular religion”;
● “The person’s name is associated with terrorism”;
● “The person’s religious belief or practice is offensive”;
● “The person’s religious belief or practice is immoral”;
● “I am uncomfortable with the religious belief or practice”; or
● “The person’s religious belief or practice is in the minority.”

It bears repeating that it is discriminatory to employ any of the foregoing criteria, or similar criteria, when considering an accommodation request. Sincerely held religious beliefs and practices are intensely personal, and they must be accepted “as is” for purposes of addressing a religious accommodation request under federal civil rights laws.

√ “Undue hardship”

● Defined

A recipient offering federally-funded programs and activities is obliged to provide reasonable religious-based accommodation unless it can demonstrate “undue hardship”. For example, the regulations implementing WIOA at 29 C.F.R. § 37.4 define “undue hardship” as follows:

For purposes of religious accommodation only, “undue hardship” means any additional, unusual costs, other than de minimis costs, that a particular accommodation would impose upon a recipient. See Trans World Airlines, Inc.v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 81, 84 (1977).

It is the recipient’s burden to demonstrate “undue hardship.”

● Not established, examples of

Asserting speculative, or showing only de minimus costs associated with providing accommodation does not give rise to a finding of “undue hardship.” And, “undue hardship” is not established by a recipient’s mere assertion that providing accommodation for one person will lead to an incoming tide of other requests.

● Factors to consider

As we noted earlier, “undue hardship” must be determined on a case-by-case basis after consideration of all the facts. The following factors may be relevant and are properly considered:

▪ Costs associated with providing the accommodation are identifiable and more than de minimus” in relation to the recipient’s size and operating costs;
▪ Providing the requested accommodation would diminish the efficiency of recipient’s federally-funded programs and activities;
▪ Safety would be impaired by allowing the accommodation;
▪ The requested accommodation would conflict with another civil rights law; or
▪ In the employment context, the requested accommodation violates of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or violates seniority rights of other employees.

In assessing whether a requested accommodation would conflict with another law, it is important to keep in mind that federally-funded programs and activities operate using taxpayer dollars, and there are taxpayers of all races, colors, national origins, genders, disabilities, and religions. These funds, in turn, are used to provide aid, benefits, services, and training to any member of the public meeting certain essential eligibility requirements. Attached to this federal funding are obligations imposed on the WIOA recipient to ensure nondiscrimination on a variety of bases, including religion, sex, race, national origin, color, disability, and age among others.

So, let’s assume that you are the EO Officer for a Job Corps Center, which provides educational programs and activities. Your Center is located in an area that is largely comprised of persons of a particular religion requiring separation of men and women in educational programs and activities. You receive a request for accommodation by persons of this religious belief asking that you provide separate classes for men and women at your Center. What should you do?

We start with the law. The regulations implementing WIOA bar discrimination on certain “prohibited grounds” as follows:

(a) For the purposes of this section, “prohibited ground” means race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in any WIOA Title I—financially assisted program or activity.

29 C.F.R. § 37.6(a).

And, the regulations further provide that offering segregated or separate programs and activities is a form of discrimination:

(b) A recipient must not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on a prohibited ground:

. . .

(3) Subject an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any matter related to his or her receipt of any aid, benefits, services, or training under a WIOA Title I—funded program or activity; . . ..

29 C.F.R. § 37.6(b)(3).

In our example, the requested accommodation (segregation of men and women in educational programs) would lead your Center to engage in gender-based discrimination in violation of federal law. As previously noted, the law prohibits “segregation or separate treatment” on any “prohibited ground”, which includes sex.

Keep in mind that the same would hold true if you received a religious-based accommodation request seeking segregation based on race, color, national origin, age, or the like. It is not reasonable to discriminate against participants on one of these prohibited bases in order to accommodate a religious belief or practice.

√ Religious accommodation in the workplace; some considerations

If you do not have dress and grooming policies for your workplace, then it would constitute a form of religious-based discrimination to prohibit forms of religious garb or grooming on an ad hoc basis. And, if you do have dress and grooming policies in your workplace then, according to the EEOC, religious accommodation requires making exceptions to those codes to accommodate bona fide religious beliefs and practices. With or without grooming codes in place, it is incumbent on an employer to allow dress and grooming practices of sincerely-held religious beliefs, unless it would create “undue hardship.”

The standard for “undue hardship” is different for religious-based accommodation requests than for disability-based accommodation requests. Notably, in the case of a disability-related accommodation request, the employer must provide accommodation unless the accommodation will create significant difficulty or expense to the employer’s operations. On the other hand, undue hardship in the context of religious accommodation is a hardship that will create more than a de minimus cost on the employer’s operation.

Even in light of the lesser “undue hardship” standard, the EEOC has ramped-up its pursuit of religious-based discrimination in the workplace, and the EEOC rarely accepts arguments that a dress code constitutes “business necessity” for an employer (i.e. an employer’s argument that it needs to convey an uniform image of all of its workers). Most notably, lawsuits and charges have been filed where workers have been penalized for particular religious grooming, or donning religious garb. Some examples include Muslim head scarves, Sikh turbans, yarmulkes, and the presence of religious tattoos. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the EEOC’s position in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and concluded the employer engaged in religious-based discrimination against a Muslim employee. The employer raised unsubstantiated assertions that it need not accommodate the employee’s request to wear a headscarf on grounds that the employee’s use of a headscarf constituted an “undue hardship.” The employer maintained that use of the headscarf departed from the company’s “look policy” and “corporate brand.” As noted by the EEOC, the employee had the headscarf on when interviewed, and had worked with the headscarf on for four months before being terminated. The employer failed to present evidence to show its sales had dropped in that four month period of time.

However, for both disability and religious-based accommodation requests, “undue hardship” may be demonstrated if safety concerns are raised. As an example, an employer may ban a Muslim employee’s use of a head scarf in a job where the scarf could get caught in machinery.

Sometimes, the lack of understanding regarding a particular religion’s practices is at the root of discrimination. For example, in EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgt., LLC, Case No. 12-03169 (Tex. Aug. 22, 2012), religious-based discrimination occurred where the manager of a Burger King restaurant fired a Christian Pentecostal female cashier on grounds that she would not wear the standard uniform (including pants). Instead, because of her religious beliefs, she insisted on wearing a skirt.

√ Conclusion

In the end, religious-based accommodation requests are fact-intensive, and must be handled on a case-by-case basis. To the extent that “undue hardship” is not present, you are obliged under federal law to provide reasonable religious-based accommodation, if requested, to persons who meet the essential eligibility requirements for the program or activity. And, you must accept the requester’s bona fide religious belief or practice “as is.” For complicated accommodation requests, including any requests that may conflict with other federal civil rights laws, you should consult with the EO leadership of your state or territory for guidance, or consult the civil rights office of your federal funding agency.

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 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 remains highly active in the field through her series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals as well as through her mediation services, 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,” “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 has a “Federal Workplace Mediation” certification through the Northern Virginia Mediation Service.

She is a member of the Human Rights Institute and 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.

Your Discrimination Complaint Log by Seena Foster

Friday, January 5th, 2018

As the Equal Opportunity professional for an agency or entity administering federally funded programs and activities, you must develop and publish discrimination complaint policies and procedures. And, as part of those procedures, you must maintain a discrimination complaint log.

In this paper, we will discuss what is included in the log (including how to distinguish between discrimination complaints and program complaints), why the log is important, whether you include complaints that are settled, dismissed, or withdrawn, and how you properly classify (and investigate) pregnancy-related complaints as well as complaints involving harassment and hostile environment.

What do I include in the log?

The U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees compliance with, and enforcement of, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and related laws, states the following:

Each federal agency shall maintain a log of Title VI complaints filed with it, and with its recipients, identifying each complainant by race, color, or national origin; the recipient; the nature of the complaint; the dates the complaint was filed and the investigation completed; the disposition; the date of disposition; and other pertinent information.

. . .

Federal agencies shall report to the Assistant Attorney General on January 1, 1977, and each six months thereafter, the receipt, nature and disposition of all such Title VI complaints.

28 C.F.R. § 42.408(d). And, directly related to your work, these regulations further provide:

Each recipient processing Title VI complaints shall be required to maintain a similar log.

28 C.F.R. § 42.408(d).

In developing and maintaining a discrimination complaint log, one of the key things to keep in mind is that not all types of complaints are recorded in this log. In particular, only those complaints alleging discrimination on a prohibited “basis” are included in this log. These are known as “discrimination complaints.” Here, you must know the civil rights laws enforced by your federal funding agency and the bases of discrimination prohibited by those laws.

On the other hand, if you receive a complaint that does not allege discrimination on a prohibited basis, you will not have jurisdiction to investigate this complaint under federal civil rights laws and the complaint would not be noted in your log. These types of complaints are known as “program complaints.”

As an example, Jane Doe files a complaint with you alleging that she was denied federally funded rental housing assistance because her income level is too high. She states that the income level requirements for the program should be lowered. Here, Jane has not alleged denial of the assistance because of race, color, national origin, gender, age, disability, or the like. Rather, she seeks adjustment of the program’s income level requirements. This is a “program complaint” and would be processed under the federal funding agency’s regulations for operating the program.

If Jane Doe alleges, however, that the black housing counselor denied Jane’s application for federally funded rental housing assistance because Jane is white, then you have a “discrimination complaint” that would be included in your log. Namely, Jane alleges denial of rental housing assistance on the basis of race/color.

Why is the complaint log important?

The complaint log is a valuable asset to you in monitoring your programs and activities to ensure compliance with Title VI and related laws. Preferably, you want to identify and resolve discrimination-related problems at your level as opposed to allowing these problems to draw the interest of your federal funding agency.

Using your complaint log, you will be able to identify instances of alleged discrimination by (1) program or activity, and (2) basis. For example, let’s say you notice an increase in complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in a computer skills training program. Review of your complaint log leads you to notice that nearly all of the complaints involve denial of access to the training facility, which is located on the second floor of a building without an elevator. At this point, you have pinpointed the program or activity (computer skills training) and the basis (disability) of a trend of complaints. With this knowledge, you can approach your training folks to bring the operation of this program into compliance with federal civil rights laws, such as relocating the computer skills training program to the first floor of the building, or moving it to another building that has an elevator.

Properly maintaining your complaint log also will enable you to respond to requests for this data from your federal funding agency, Governor’s office, or the like. And, at times, federal agencies will conduct compliance reviews or desk audits to check compliance with Title VI and related laws and your organization may be selected. Inevitably, one of the key records you will be asked to produce during the review or audit is your discrimination complaint log.

Determine your federal funding agency’s requirements

Because you operate federally assisted programs and activities, you must ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity on the basis of race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI. The same holds true for the basis of disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. Finally, you also must ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

Beyond these statutes, however, many federal funding agencies will enforce additional civil rights laws. To properly develop a discrimination complaint log for your programs and activities, you must know the civil rights laws enforced by your federal funding agency.

With regard to the laws it enforces, a federal agency will have regulations located in the Code of Federal Regulations addressing requirements for developing and maintaining your discrimination complaint log. For example, if you receive Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Title I funding, regulations implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) require that you maintain a log of complaints alleging discrimination on any one or more of the following bases:

● race
● color
● national origin
● religion
● sex
● disability
● age
● political affiliation or belief
● citizenship
● participation in a WIOA-financially assisted program or activity

Moreover, the complaint log must include:

● name and address of the complainant
● the basis of the complaint
● the date the complaint was filed
● the disposition and date disposition was issued
● “other pertinent information”

Finally, DOL regulations require that all records regarding complaints and actions taken on complaints must be maintained for a period of not less than three years from the date of resolution of the complaint. Indeed, DOL’s Civil Rights Center has developed a standardized format that it requires you to use. This standardized complaint log is found at https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/Discrimination3.htm.

Check with the civil rights office of your federal funding agency for similar regulations and standardized complaint log information.

What if I settle the complaint informally?

You are required to enter information pertaining to any discrimination complaint filed, regardless of whether the complaint is decided on the merits, dismissed for lack of probable cause, settled (even settled “informally” or early in the process), or withdrawn.

What types of complaints must be included in the log?

All types of discrimination complaints must be included in your log. This will include individual, class action, and third party complaints. As you are aware, an individual complaint is where an individual comes to you and alleges that s/he has been discriminated against in one of your programs or activities. For example, Josh files a complaint alleging that his bid for a federally funded transportation contract was rejected because he is from Israel. This is an individual complaint alleging national origin-based discrimination.

A class action involves a group of individuals alleging similar acts of discrimination on the same basis (e.g., race, color, national origin, and so on). One example of a class action is where a group of individuals allege that they were denied entry into a federally funded apprenticeship program for welders because they are women.

Finally, there is the third party complaint. As an example, La RAZA complains that your agency only provides unemployment insurance forms in English. La RAZA states that its members cannot complete the application process because they are limited English proficient (LEP) and their native language is Spanish. So, La RAZA has not been injured directly, but is alleging that your unemployment insurance process has a discriminatory impact on an entire class of potential beneficiaries (LEP persons). While you may utilize this type of complaint to conduct monitoring or a compliance review of your the program as opposed to processing the complaint through your traditional discrimination complaint process, it is important to include it in your complaint log.

How do I classify harassment and hostile environment complaints?

When we talk about harassment or hostile environment, most of us think of sexual harassment or hostile sexual environment. However, harassment or hostile environment may occur on any prohibited basis (race, color, national origin, age, disability, and so on). As an example, one student uses Facebook to repeatedly post derogatory remarks about another student from Morocco repeatedly calling the student “terrorist” and the like. The Facebook posts have “gone viral”, and the targeted student subsequently was attacked at your school. You receive a complaint from him. This is a national origin-based hostile environment complaint and would be recorded as such in your complaint log.

And, keep in mind that hostile environment complaints usually involve a series of adverse actions alleged to have occurred because of a person’s race, color, national origin, disability, or the like. So long as a hostile environment complaint is filed within 180 days of the last adverse act, then it is timely and you may consider the entire series of adverse acts to determine whether prohibited hostile environment discrimination occurred.

How do I classify pregnancy-related complaints?

Pregnancy-related complaints often create confusion for the investigator. It is common for these types of complaints to be viewed as disability-related, but most of them are not. Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of past, present, or the possibility of future pregnancy should be logged (and investigated) as gender-based complaints. Only if the complainant alleges discrimination based on a medical condition or disability resulting from the pregnancy would you investigate this complaint as a disability-based complaint. Pregnancy, standing alone, is not disability.

About Seena Foster

Seena Foster, award-winning civil rights author and Principal of the discrimination consulting firm, Title VI Consulting 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 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 remains highly active in the field through her series of on-demand webcasts for equal opportunity professionals as well as through her mediation services, 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,” “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 has a “Federal Workplace Mediation” certification through the Northern Virginia Mediation Service. She is a member of the Human Rights Institute and 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.

WIA EO Officers and Equal Opportunity Professionals in Federally-Funded Programs: Assistance Developing Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures

Friday, March 7th, 2014

Often, you know the civil rights laws that apply to your federally-assisted programs and activities (such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Workforce Investment Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act, and so on), but you get stuck trying to figure out how to implement these laws on the ground. We can help.

We will work with you to develop policies and procedures tailored to the structure of your organization, and the nature of the federally-assisted programs and activities you offer. There are a variety of procedures required to document your compliance with civil rights laws, including:

● Discrimination complaint procedures
● Procedures for assessing corrective actions and sanctions
● Procedures for serving limited English proficient (LEP) populations
● Procedures for serving persons with disabilities and handling accommodation requests
● Procedures for handling religious-based accommodation requests
● Procedures for gathering, handling, and storing medical information
● Procedures for including required assurances on all agreements as well as the use of taglines, posting the “Equal Opportunity Is the Law” posters, and data collection

We also offer a variety of consultation services, training, and off-site desk audits of your website and other written materials to help you ensure your organization’s compliance with federal civil rights requirements, and we work hard to provide the most cost-effective and practical recommendations for you. Failure to comply with federal civil rights laws in delivering aid, services, training, or benefits to the public may result in the loss of funding.

You’ll find more information about our services at www.titleviconsulting.com. Our customers appreciate the thoroughness and timeliness of our work. As an example, one senior county executive commented, “Your procedures document is very comprehensive and inclusive of all that I am aware that we need and beyond . . . it is a pleasure working with you.”

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 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 on-demand webcasts, 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. The federal law on discrimination is complex and affects our workplaces as well as the delivery of our federally funded 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.

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.

Ms. Foster is a graduate of the George Washington University Law School. You may contact her through www.titleviconsulting.com.

Office of Disability Employment Policy Newsletter (February 14, 2014)

Sunday, February 16th, 2014

For more information on any of these articles, go to www.dol.gov/odep.

Executive Order Raises the Minimum Wage for Federal Contract Workers

On February 12, the President signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers, including individuals with disabilities. Under current law, workers whose productivity is affected because of their disabilities may be paid less than the wage paid to others doing the same job under certain specialized certificate programs. Under this Executive Order, all individuals working under service or concessions contracts with the federal government are covered by the same $10.10 per hour minimum wage protections. The higher wage will apply to new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts put out for bid after January 1, 2015.

Assistant Secretary Martinez Heads to Sochi for the 2014 Paralympic Winter Games

Kathy Martinez, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Disability Employment Policy, will be traveling to Sochi, Russia as part of the Presidential Delegation to the 2014 Paralympic Winter Games, which start on March 7. The Honorable Tammy Duckworth, Member of the United States House of Representatives (IL-08) will lead the delegation. While in Sochi, delegation members will attend athletic events, meet with U.S. athletes, and attend the Opening Ceremony. “It is an honor to be selected to represent President Obama in cheering on the U.S. athletes as they compete in the Paralympics and showcase to the world the best of America—diversity, determination and teamwork,” said Martinez.

Making Online Application Systems Accessible – JAN Webcast – February 26, 2:00 – 3:30 PM EST

The new Section 503 regulations stop short of requiring federal contractors to make their on-line application systems accessible, but the regulations do codify the OFCCP’s position that federal contractors must make reasonable accommodations for any applicants with disabilities who cannot access on-line systems, and further state that making on-line application systems accessible is a recommended best practice. In light of this, many federal contractors are implementing changes to make their on-line application systems accessible. In this free webcast, JAN Consultants will share practical tips and tools to help these contractors succeed in their efforts. The presentation will be held on February 26, 2:00 – 3:30 PM EST.

Best Practices in Disability Recruiting – Think Beyond the Label Webinar – February 24, 2:00 – 3:00 PM EST

Think Beyond the Label will be presenting a free, HRCI-certified webinar on February 24, 2:00-3:00 PM EST, to help federal contractors comply with the new Section 503 regulations regarding hiring people with disabilities. The webinar will focus on what the legislation means, how to find and engage job seekers with disabilities, and how to showcase an organization’s diversity hiring initiatives. Think Beyond the Label is a public-private partnership that delivers information, outreach and resources to businesses, job seekers and the public workforce system to ensure greater recruiting and hiring opportunities for job candidates with disabilities.

The HSC Foundation’s Advocates in Disability Award Program is Seeking the Next Generation of Disability Advocates

The Advocates in Disability Award (ADA) program, funded by The HSC Foundation and the Sarah Beth Coyote Foundation, awards and encourages a young adult with a disability between the ages of 14 and 26 who is dedicated to positively affecting the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families. The program also supports an innovative project developed by the recipient to serve and empower individuals with disabilities. The selected recipient is awarded $3,000 in recognition of his or her disability advocacy and receives up to an additional $7,000 in funding support for a project to benefit the disability community. Applicants must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States at the time of application submission and recipient selection. Applications must be received by 5:00 PM EST on April 11, 2014.

Action Sports Star and Host of MTV’s The Challenge TJ Lavin Stars in New PSA on Disability

“We all should have the same opportunity to achieve the American dream,” TJ Lavin, BMX bike champion and host of MTV’s The Challenge says in a new public service announcement (PSA) created by RespectAbilityUSA, a non-profit organization devoted to reshaping attitudes so that people with disabilities can more fully participate in and contribute to society. Lavin knows how a disability can potentially change a person’s life. In October of 2010, he suffered serious bleeding on the brain, a broken wrist, and an orbital fracture after a bike crash left him in a coma for 9 days. After years of rehabilitation, Lavin is now 100 percent recovered, fully integrated back into society and back as a star MTV host. “People with disabilities deserve an equal chance at employment. While most people don’t do BMX, everyone is just an accident, disease or age related issue away from a disability, said Lavin. “It is time we respect people for their abilities rather than focusing on their disabilities.”

Pre-employment disability inquiries: New federally-approved form by OFCCP/OMB for federal contractors and subcontractors

Saturday, January 25th, 2014

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Contract Compliance Programs and the Office of Management and Budget have released a new form, which is titled “Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability,” for use by federal contractors and subcontractors when conducting pre-employment disability inquiries pursuant to the revised regulations at 41 C.F.R. 60-741. The purpose of these inquiries is to promote recruitment and hiring of persons with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities. For more information, go to www.dol.gov/ofccp.

The content of the form is as follows:

Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability
Form CC-305 OMB Control Number 1250-0005

Why are you being asked to complete this form?

Because we do business with the government, we must reach out to, hire, and provide equal opportunity to qualified people with disabilities.i To help us measure how well we are doing, we are asking you to tell us if you have a disability or if you ever had a disability. Completing this form is voluntary, but we hope that you will choose to fill it out. If you are applying for a job, any answer you give will be kept private and will not be used against you in any way.

If you already work for us, your answer will not be used against you in any way. Because a person may become disabled at any time, we are required to ask all of our employees to update their information every five years. You may voluntarily self-identify as having a disability on this form without fear of any punishment because you did not identify as having a disability earlier.

How do I know if I have a disability?

You are considered to have a disability if you have a physical or mental impairment or medical condition that substantially limits a major life activity, or if you have a history or record of such an impairment or medical condition.

Disabilities include, but are not limited to: • Blindness • Autism • Bipolar disorder • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) • Deafness • Cerebral palsy • Major depression • Obsessive compulsive disorder • Cancer • HIV/AIDS • Multiple sclerosis (MS) • Impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair • Diabetes • Epilepsy • Schizophrenia • Muscular • Missing limbs or partially missing limbs • Intellectual disability (previously called mental retardation) • dystrophy

Please check one of the boxes below:

Your Name ___________________________________________

Today’s Date _________________________________________

___ YES, I HAVE A DISABILITY (or previously had a disability)

___ NO, I DON’T HAVE A DISABILITY

___ I DON’T WISH TO ANSWER

Reasonable Accommodation Notice

Federal law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Please tell us if you require a reasonable accommodation to apply for a job or to perform your job. Examples of reasonable accommodation include making a change to the application process or work procedures, providing documents in an alternate format, using a sign language interpreter, or using specialized equipment.

Office of Disability Employment Policy Newsletter (January 24, 2014)

Saturday, January 25th, 2014

For more information on any of the following articles, go to www.dol.gov/odep.

Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council Welcomes Assistant Secretary Martinez

Federal employment initiatives for people with disabilities were the focus of assistant secretary of labor for disability employment policy Kathy Martinez’s remarks to the board members of the Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council and other representatives of the disability community at a gathering on January 16 in Harrisburg, PA. Martinez addressed topics including the Affordable Care Act, Executive Order 13548 (Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities), changes to the regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and resources available from the Office of Disability Employment Policy.

Helping the Federal Workforce Reflect the Citizenry It Serves — Assistant Secretary Martinez’s Blog

In a post on the U.S. Department of Labor’s blog, assistant secretary of labor for disability employment policy Kathy Martinez discussed employment of people with disabilities in the federal sector, focusing on the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) as a pipeline to bring talented college students and recent graduates with disabilities into public service.

Assistant Secretary Martinez Discusses Workforce Development and Economic Development in Fedcap Blog

Assistant secretary of labor for disability employment policy Kathy Martinez, in a Fedcap blog, answered questions about the workforce development system, youth transition, myths and stereotypes about people with disabilities, and a wide range of other topics related to disability employment. Fedcap is a nonprofit organization that develops solutions that help people surmount barriers, work toward economic independence, and effect change in their families and communities.

Fact Sheet on Section 503 and VEVRAA Tools Now Available from the Employer Assistance and Resource Network

The Employer Assistance and Resource Network (EARN) has released a fact sheet on the changes to the regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). The fact sheet helps federal contractors quickly and easily identify valuable resources for updating their recruitment, hiring, and employment practices to comply with the new regulations.

Employer Assistance and Resource Network Releases New Reports from the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development

The Employer Assistance and Resource Network (EARN) released two new reports on disability employment that were written by researchers from the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. The research was produced under the auspices of the National Technical Assistance, Policy, and Research Center for Employers on Employment of People with Disabilities and funded by a cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy to Cornell University. One of the reports looks at states as model employers of people with disabilities, while the other examines advancing economic opportunities for business owners and job seekers with disabilities.

First Executive Order Issued by New Virginia Governor Requires “Equal Opportunity” in State Government (January 14, 2014)

Tuesday, January 14th, 2014

Virginia’s Governor McAuliffe issues his first Executive Order, and it focuses on requiring nondiscrimination in employment practices of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religion, political affiliation, and disability. Moreover, Executive Order Number 1 prohibits discrimination against veterans, and permits “employment preferences for veterans” where appropriate. The Executive Order also promotes affirmative measures to “emphasize the recruitment of qualified minorities, women, disabled persons, and older Virginians to serve at all levels of state government.” Below is the text of the newly-issued Executive Order Number 1 (2014):

Importance of the Initiative

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor, I hereby declare that it is the firm and unwavering policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia to assure equal opportunity in all facets of state government. The foundational tenet of this Executive Order is premised upon a steadfast commitment to foster a culture of inclusion, diversity, and mutual respect for all Virginians.

This policy specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities. The policy permits appropriate employment preferences for veterans and specifically prohibits discrimination against veterans.

State appointing authorities and other management principals are hereby directed to take affirmative measures, as determined by the Director of the Department of Human Resource Management, to emphasize the recruitment of qualified minorities, women, disabled persons, and older Virginians to serve at all levels of state government. This directive does not permit or require the lowering of bona fide job requirements, performance standards, or qualifications to give preference to any state employee or applicant for state employment.

Allegations of violations of this policy shall be brought to the attention of the Office of Equal Employment Services of the Department of Human Resource Management. No state appointing authority, other management principal, or supervisor shall take retaliatory actions against persons making such allegations.

Any state employee found in violation of this policy shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

The Secretary of Administration is directed to review and update annually state procurement, employment, and other relevant policies to ensure compliance with the non-discrimination mandate contained herein, and shall report to the Governor his or her findings together with such recommendations as he or she deems appropriate. The Director of the Department of Human Resource Management shall assist in this review.

This Executive Order supersedes and rescinds Executive Order No. 6 (2010), Equal Opportunity, issued by Governor Robert F. McDonnell on February 5, 2010.

Effective Date of the Executive Order

This Executive Order shall become effective upon its signing and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or rescinded by further executive order.

Given under my hand and under the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia this 11th day of January 2014.

Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor