On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that the EEOC must continue to take all steps necessary to complete EEO-1 Component 2 data collection for calendar years 2017 and 2018. As we recently discussed here, the EEOC filed a motion on October 8, 2019 asking the court to … Continue Reading
As we most recently reported here and here, as of September 30, 2019, employers with 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) were required to report to the federal government pay data for 2017 and 2018 for their workforce (known as “Component 2” data), broken down by race/ethnicity, sex, and job … Continue Reading
To its critics positive discrimination is a set of benefits and privileges reserved for minorities. BAME inclusion events and initiatives designed to encourage BAME job applicants are frequently found in the firing line. It’s a pretty dynamite topic which evokes feelings of victimisation, unfairness and inequity and can stunt enthusiasm for diversity in the workforce.… Continue Reading
Good faith lying – an interesting concept ethically but, in practical terms, vital grease in the wheels of a civil society – “no, it was delicious, honestly, I’m just a bit full”, “I love your parents” and (especially in the legal world) “with great respect”.… Continue Reading
On October 1, 2019, a U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Harvard University in a closely watched case examining whether the college’s admissions process, which takes candidates’ race and economic circumstances into account, results in race-based animus against Asian-Americans. The suit, filed by an anti-affirmative action advocacy group, … Continue Reading
Our colleagues Colter Paulson and Justin DiCharia at the Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog (which covers, as you may have guessed, developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) authored the post below discussing the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in a case in which the Court was tasked with deciding whether an employer … Continue Reading
On April 30, 2019, we reported that the California State Senate had taken steps toward enacting the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of “traits historically associated with one’s race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles.” The bill passed the Assembly on June … Continue Reading
Both New York City and California have recently taken steps to ban hairstyle-based discrimination. On Monday, April 22, 2019, the California State Senate passed the CROWN Act (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair), which seeks to amend California’s anti-discrimination statute, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (“FEHA”). The CROWN Act, if … Continue Reading
Last week I was proud to speak at Business Forums International’s ‘Vetting and Screening’ Conference regarding the challenges faced by employers when completing right to work checks. I was delighted to share the platform with speakers from Reed Screening, The Forward Trust, Nick Mann Associates, Credence Background Screening, The Security Watchdog and NSL, who covered … Continue Reading
On November 15, 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously held in Netter v. Barnes that an employee did not engage in “opposition or participation” activity protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when she reviewed and duplicated confidential personnel files without authorization. … Continue Reading
In EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) ruled that AutoZone did not violate the anti-segregation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), when it transferred Kevin Stuckey, an African American employee, from a store with … Continue Reading
Statutory construction can be a bit like nuclear fusion – you take an atom of something relatively ordinary and then subject it to such pressure that it explodes into a million flaming pieces and lays waste to your entire afternoon. Employment Tribunals and Courts do the same to words, taking perfectly mundane sentences and phrases … Continue Reading
In the current political environment, employers and employees alike may be wondering – what, if any, political conversation in the workplace is acceptable or appropriate? Tones of “freedom of speech,” “freedom of association,” on one hand, intersect with tenors of “workplace harassment” or simple annoyance, on the other. Although like the political debates themselves, the … Continue Reading
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held last week that a single racial slur might provide sufficient basis for a hostile work environment claim. In the case, Daniel v. T&M Protection Resources, LLC, Plaintiff Daniel, a black, gay man from the Caribbean, alleged he was harassed at work on the basis … Continue Reading
In a boost to the cause of inept line management everywhere, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held last month that it is not permissible to extrapolate without more from conduct which is unreasonable, incompetent and lackadaisical to that which is discriminatory. The point is not wholly new. Back in 1998 the then House of Lords heard … Continue Reading
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided additional time for public comment on its recently-issued proposed guidelines on unlawful harassment. The 75-page draft, which issued on January 9, 2017, expands upon existing interpretations of many aspects of workplace harassment, including prohibited bases for harassment, conduct constituting illegal harassment, the role of social media, … Continue Reading
The Government announced in September its intention to undertake a full public consultation on the issue of caste and the Equality Act – a consideration which has been contemplated since the enactment of the Act in 2010. The aim of the consultation is to obtain views from the public on whether the Act requires additional … Continue Reading
On August 29, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final “Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues,” which replaced the Agency’s nearly-20-year-old 1998 Compliance Manual, Section 8: Retaliation. As the title clearly implies, the guidance primarily sets forth the Agency’s evolving interpretations of the law of retaliation. It also focuses on the … Continue Reading
A finding of race discrimination in the UK requires the employee to show both (a) that he was less favourably treated on grounds of race; and (b) that he suffered a detriment. The need to establish (b) separately is often overlooked, in that less favourable treatment is, by itself, pretty invariably a detriment. However, the … Continue Reading
Maybe surprisingly for a country which has traditionally overcome its limited second language capability by slowing its speech and raising its voice, it is not the UK which is in the news for challenging an EU jobs list advertisement requiring candidates to possess certain foreign language skills. Instead it is Italy and Spain which have … Continue Reading
On April 29, the US Supreme Court held unanimously that courts may review the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) efforts to informally resolve disputes between employers and employees. The EEOC, which is charged with policing compliance with employment discrimination laws, is required by statute to first try informal mediation methods to resolve disputes between employers … Continue Reading
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released its annual statistical report detailing charge filing activity in 2014. The EEOC, the federal administrative agency which investigates and prosecutes claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under a number of employment and civil rights statutes, reported 88,778 charges filed in 2014, down from 93,727 charges filed … Continue Reading
Reported this week on BBC Sport Online are the results of a study funded by Football Against Racism in Europe (“FARE”) into ethnic minority representation in professional football coaching hierarchies. It makes interesting, if faintly one-sided, reading. Taking the six most senior coaching staff at each of the 92 professional Clubs in the English Leagues … Continue Reading
In the first part of this piece I looked at the possible application of the US Rooney Rule (the compulsory interviewing of at least one ethnic minority candidate for any senior American Football coaching or management position) and concluded that such a requirement would be unlawful in the UK. I also discounted to some extent … Continue Reading
