According to the annual Performance and Accountability Report released in November, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finished fiscal year 2011 with a 10 percent decrease in its pending-charge inventory, the first such reduction since 2002. At the same time, the agency achieved the highest-ever monetary amounts through administrative enforcement, and it received a record number of discrimination charges.

The fiscal year ended on September 30, 2011, with 78,136 pending charges, a decrease of 8,202 charges. The agency received 99,947 discrimination charges during the fiscal year — the most in the agency’s 46-year history. More than $364.6 million in monetary benefits was recovered in workplace discrimination cases — another highest-ever-in-agency-history figure. The report also estimates that the EEOC’s public outreach and education programs reached approximately 540,000 persons directly. read more…

Last month we covered the emerging issue of discrimination against the unemployed. This month, we follow that up with employment law attorney John T. Neighbors giving his insight on the legal and practical considerations of having a policy that the unemployed need not apply for vacant positions with your company.

Legal Implications

read more…

By David I. Weissman

Many employers are seeking to control escalating health care costs and improve worker productivity by implementing policies that promote employee wellness. As a result, policies that discourage employees from smoking have become increasingly popular. Some companies have gone a step further and decided they won’t hire smokers at all. This includes health insurance giant Humana, which recently announced that it will no longer hire workers in Arizona who smoke or use other tobacco products.

Issuing New Policy in Arizona

read more…

Gender identity disorder is a medically recognized condition in which a person’s gender identity doesn’t match his genetic sex. In some cases, the recommended standard of care is counseling and sex reassignment therapy, which includes representing yourself as the gender corresponding to your identity, hormone replacement therapy, and, eventually, gender reassignment surgery.

Although federal law still doesn’t explicitly prohibit transgender discrimination, don’t assume that a transgendered employee has no legal protection. Some federal courts have been allowing transgendered people to proceed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on certain legal theories. In addition, many state and local laws either expressly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or include gender identity within their definition of “sex.”

read more…

By Lauren M. Cooper

A much-debated issue is whether you may lawfully require employees to speak only English in the workplace. The simple answer is yes. This article will address the circumstances in which you may legally enforce an English-only policy and the potential legal risks that follow.

Status Quo Ante

Employers increasingly ask employees to refrain from speaking languages other than English in the workplace to promote productivity and efficiency and preserve workplace harmony. Certainly, a policy that targets only a particular language or national origin, such as a “non- Spanish” policy, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin. But what about rules requiring employees to speak English while on the job? read more…

By Mark I. Schickman

The HR world certainly has more than its share of acronyms, having to deal with the EEOC in order to comply with the ADA. And for an employee on leave, the interplay among the FMLA, PDA, and WC are crucial. But there’s a new acronym you need to learn because it describes a sensitive part of your workforce, the NQRs. No, not a “national quality reviewer” or “nuclear quadruple resonance,” but “not quite retired” ― people who retired and left the workforce but have been forced to change their plans and reenter the job market.

A recent report found 433,000 people over the age of 65 who were retired and are now back in the job hunt. They aren’t looking for new careers. They don’t want to manage employees or run departments. They aren’t vying for promotions, perks, or travel. They want to work as little as necessary to get medical insurance. Their food and mortgage are already budgeted, but their savings won’t cover their green fees or vacation plans, so they look for enough extra income to cover that. They probably have more education and a better house than you do, but they are cash-poor: excluding pension and retirement plans, their average bank account is about $30,000 ― not enough for the retirement lifestyle they thought they’d be enjoying.

read more…

By Troy D. Thompson

In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 11,134 charges involving claims of national origin discrimination ― an approximate 57 percent increase since 1999. Although the EEOC has not yet disclosed its statistics for FY 2010, all indications are that these claims continue to rise.

Given that trend, along with increased attention the EEOC has directed toward national origin discrimination claims, it’s important to consider measures you may take now to avoid and/or prepare to successfully defend against these claims in the future. This article briefly discusses the legal framework relating to national origin discrimination claims under federal law and provides a few suggestions on how you can minimize your risk of liability.

read more…

President Barack Obama recently issued a memo directing federal agencies to extend benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees to the extent permitted by current law. The memo begins:

For far too long, many of our Government’s hard-working, dedicated LGBT employees have been denied equal access to the basic rights and benefits their colleagues enjoy. This kind of systemic inequality undermines the health, well-being, and security not just of our Federal workforce, but also of their families and communities.

read more…

By Lorraine Yeomans

Recent actions by President Barack Obama’s administration and a flurry of new local laws are reviving discussion on the issue of gender identity (sometimes also referred to as gender expression) discrimination. Since 1993, when Minnesota adopted the first state law protecting against discrimination based on gender identity, employers have been doing their best to modify workplace practices to ensure compliance with gender identity and often-related sexual orientation protections. This has not always been an easy task, and employers are often confused by the distinctions these laws create.

As you’re probably already aware, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result, many state and local governments have specifically included provisions for sexual orientation and/or gender identity in their non-discrimination laws. Because these state and local laws often encompass one or the other (sexual orientation or gender identity), but not always both, it is important for employers to understand the distinction between the two terms.

read more…

By Jennifer Barrera

The Commission on the Status of Women is a state agency founded in 1965 to study issues affecting women and to advise the California Legislature and state agencies on inequities in laws, practices, and conditions that affect women. The commission asked the California attorney general to respond to two inquiries regarding the eligibility of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered veterans to obtain state-funded veteran benefits. The commission estimates there are over 137,000 such veterans residing in California. On December 31, 2009, the attorney general issued an opinion letter that addressed the commission’s concerns.

California Vets Entitled to Benefits Regardless of Sexual Orientation

read more…