The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released the Annual Report on the Federal Work Force for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, showing small increases in discrimination complaint filings against federal agencies and average complaint processing time government-wide.
The annual report informs and advises the President and the Congress on the state of equal employment opportunity (EEO) throughout the federal government. Data in the report, available online at http://www.eeoc.gov, are presented both in individual agency profiles and in government-wide aggregate form.
According to the comprehensive report, 16,752 complaints alleging employment discrimination were filed against the federal government in FY 2008, up 2.4% from the prior year.
Complaints were filed against agencies on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability and reprisal. Pre-complaint counseling and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs addressed many employee concerns before they resulted in formal complaints. Of the 38,898 instances of counseling in FY 2008, more than half did not result in a formal complaint being filed.
Agencies completed a total of 11,157 EEO complaint investigations in FY 2008 with an average processing time of 180 days, an increase of four days from FY 2007. Of the 7,538 cases closed on the merits, 2.5% resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. In addition, the parties entered into settlements in 3,249 complaints, or 19.5% of the total complaint closures. Agencies paid out a total of over $50 million in monetary benefits to complainants (including appellate decisions). (workersxzcompxzkit)
“Federal agencies must step up their efforts to improve complaint processing time, while also focusing on quality results,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. “The Commission continues to assist agencies in creating model EEO programs and implementing best practices to promote an inclusive, discrimination-free federal workplace.”
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
We are accepting short articles* (300-800 words) on WC cost containment. Contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com. *Non-compensable.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker about workers’ comp issues.
©2009 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) revising its regulations to provide that an individual seeking protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) establish the disability consistent with the original, expansive intent of Congress when it enacted the ADA in 1990. The NPRM, approved by 2-1 vote, carries a 60-day period for public comment.
The NPRM made several significant changes to the definition of the term “disability” necessitated by enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The NPRM is posted on the Commission’s Web site, www.eeoc.gov, along with a question-and-answer guide about the proposal and instructions for submitting public comments.
“Today’s Commission action marks a key step in implementing the landmark Amendments Act, which will smooth the road for those trying to establish disability under the ADA,” said Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. “The Commission acted following careful and thorough deliberations, and we look forward to reviewing any and all public comments before issuing our final regulation.”
The ADA Amendments Act, effective January 1, 2009, states Congress expects the EEOC to revise its regulations to conform to changes made by the Act, and expressly authorizes the EEOC to do so. The new law rejected the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC’s ADA regulations that Congress believed construed the definition of “disability” too narrowly, preventing individuals with impairments such as cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder from bringing discrimination claims.
The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) and the proposed rule make it easier for an individual alleging employment discrimination based on disability to establish that he or she meets the ADA’s definition of “disability.” The ADA Amendments Act also modifies the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting employment discrimination in the federal workforce on the basis of disability. The EEOC voted June 17, 2008 to adopt the rules changes, which then went to the Office of Management and Budget for review, and to federal agencies.
Consistent with the ADAAA, the NPRM emphasizes:
1. the definition of disability — an impairment that poses a substantial limitation in a major life activity — must be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA, and should not require extensive analysis.
2. major life activities include “major bodily functions”
3. mitigating measures, such as medications and devices people use to reduce or eliminate the effects of an impairment, are not to be considered when determining whether someone has a disability
4. impairments, episodic or in remission, such as epilepsy, cancer, and many kinds of psychiatric impairments, are disabilities if they “substantially limit” major life activities when active.
The regulation also provides a more straightforward way of demonstrating a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, and implements the ADAAA’s new standard for determining whether someone is “regarded as” having a disability. (workersxzcompxzkit)
The 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule-making will officially commence upon publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, expected the week of September 21, 2009.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
We are accepting short articles* (200-600 words) on WC cost containment. Contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com. *Non-compensable.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker about workers’ comp issues.
©2009 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
Note: Workers’ Compenstion Insurance is a type of “property and casualty” business insurance required in all states, except Texas where an employer may opt out. It is referred to as a “line” of insurance coverage and is purchased from an insurance agent or broker.
Major Insurance Company Ordered to Pay $4.5 Million in Age Bias Suit
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a major settlement of an age discrimination class lawsuit against a major insurance company for $4,500,000 to be paid to approximately 90 older former employees, in addition to significant remedial relief.
“Discrimination against older workers is counterproductive and wrong, and the EEOC has been taking a close look at ways to increase our law enforcement efforts in this area,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. “Corporate America must be more vigilant in guarding against job bias affecting older workers, or risk action by the EEOC. This settlement shows there is a high price to pay for discriminatory employment policies and practices that adversely impact older workers.”
In its lawsuit, filed in October 2004 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the EEOC charged in 2000 the company adopted a hiring moratorium for a period of one year, or while severance benefits were being received, that applied to all its employee-sales agents who were part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors.
The EEOC alleged the policy had a disproportionate impact on the company’s employees over the age of 40 because more than 90% of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older. The employer denies its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson that a facially neutral policy, such as the one used by the insurance company’s hiring moratorium, which disproportionately affected those age 40 and over violated the ADEA unless the policy was based on a reasonable factor other than age.
As provided in the Stipulated Order resolving the litigation, pending approval by U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Civil Action No. 4:04CV01359 ERW), the employer will pay former employees who sought employment — or would have sought employment with the company in the absence of its policy — a total of $4.5 million to be divided among the class via a settlement fund.
The order, effective for three years, also provides for discrimination prevention training, posting of notices, reporting and monitoring, and other relief designed to educate all company managers in order to prevent future violations of the ADEA. (workersxzcompxzkit)
In 2007, the parties settled claims of disparate treatment which were asserted for two individuals. Those claims were settled for $250,000 and are not covered by the 2005 settlement.
In July, the Commission held a public hearing on age discrimination and barriers to the employment of older workers. Additional information about the hearing can be found on the EEOC’s Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/7-15-09/index.html
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
We are accepting short articles* (300-600 words) on WC cost containment. Contact us at: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com. *Non-compensable.
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker about workers’ comp issues.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
Pays $275K Fine in Discrimination Lawsuit
A Baltimore-based supermarket chain, will pay $275,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a class sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC’s suit (JFM-08-2570), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division, said the chain refused to hire a part-time deli clerk as an apprentice meat cutter at Maryland store because she is a woman.
The supermarket, with 16 grocery stores in the Baltimore metropolitan area, allegedly had an ongoing pattern of failing to hire females as meat cutters and failing to preserve various personnel and employment records in violation of federal law.
”Eliminating an entire gender - half the population – from consideration for a particular type of job makes no sense and clearly violates decades-old federal law,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. “Let this settlement be a reminder and a warning: The EEOC will hold perpetrators of such anachronistic employment practices accountable for their flagrant flouting of anti-discrimination laws.”
The consent decree settling the case, pending court approval, mandates the individual will receive back pay, compensatory damages and attorney’s fees of $118,000. The decree also provides back pay to other identified female applicants for the position of meat cutter denied hire because of their gender.
Along with the relief paid to the class members, the three-year decree provides for significant remedial relief, including the employer agreeing to:
1. Extend job offers to women denied meat cutter jobs
2. Post a notice to all female applicants and employees denied the job advising them they may be entitled to job offers and to contact the EEOC
3. Submit written reports to EEOC regarding the employment status of eligible claimants
4. Refrain from discriminating on the basis of sex in any way
5. Maintain employment records in compliance with Title VII
6. Develop job descriptions for meat cutter positions
7. Post a non-discrimination notice to employees and applicants
8. Provide anti-discrimination training to all current and all future officers, managers and supervisors. (workersxzcompxzkit)
“We brought this lawsuit to advance everyone’s legal right to a workplace free of gender discrimination and to remind employers they must make employment decisions based on the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of the job rather than on stereotypes,” added EEOC Acting Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
We are accepting short articles* (300-600 words) on WC cost containment. Written from the employer’s viewpoint. To: Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com. Include contact information and short Bio.
WC Calculator: www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker about workers’ comp issues.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
EEOC Sues Shipper for Alleged Disability Discrimination
A national shipping company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by rejecting an extension of medical leave as a reasonable accommodation for its employees with disabilities according to a major class lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to investigators an administrative assistant at the shipping company took a 12-month leave of absence from work when she began experiencing symptoms of what was later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. She returned to work for a few weeks, but soon thereafter needed additional time off after experiencing what she believed to be negative side effects of her medication.
Although the employee could have returned to work after an additional two-week leave of absence, she was fired for exceeding its 12-month leave policy. Following its investigation, the EEOC reached an administrative determination that the employer failed to accommodate the worker’s disability, in violation of the ADA.
“This case should send a wake up call to Corporate America that violating the Americans With Disabilities Act will result in vigorous enforcement by the EEOC,” said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. “The ADA has been the law of the land for nearly two decades now, and employers simply have no excuse for failing to abide by its provisions.”
The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement with company and seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the employee and a class of disabled employees whom the shipper similarly refused to accommodate, as well as an order barring future discrimination and other relief. (workersxzcompxzkit)
EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson added, “One of the main goals of the ADA is to provide gainful employment to qualified individuals with disabilities. However, when employers have policies setting arbitrary deadlines for returning to work after medical treatment, disabled employees are unfairly kept from working. Sometimes a simple conversation with the employee about what might be needed to return to work is all that is necessary to keep valued employees in their jobs.”
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
WC IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
WC Books: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/workers-comp-books-manuals.php
WC Calculator: www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php
Follow Us On Twitter: www.twitter.com/WorkersCompKit
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker about workers’ comp issues.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
To repeat our “siren song:” It’s the goal of every employer to reduce, reduce workers’ compensation cost. Laws suits, fines, non-compliance with federal and state laws COST MONEY.
Pre-employment screening is a tool employers use to determine whether applicants can safely perform the jobs they are hired for and locate workers who are otherwise qualifed for the jobs for which they are applying. It is not meant to be used to discriminate against classes of workers, as one employer discovered. Be careful your policies don’t unintentially discriminate against a protected class.
Manufacturer Pays Dearly for Engaging in Hiring Discrimination
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reports a large, well-known southern manufacturer agreed to settle findings of hiring discrimination against 1,912 rejected minority and female applicants for entry-level positions engaged in for a period of one year.
During a scheduled compliance evaluation of the employer, OFCCP investigators alleged hiring disparity in:
1. Inconsistent selection procedures for entry-level positions.
2. Use of pre-employment tests negatively impacting minority applicants and insufficient evidence of validity to support test use.
In addition to paying the 1,912 applicants $900,000 in back pay with interest, the company must:
1. Discontinue use of the test in question when hiring for entry-level positions.
2. Provide 61 entry-level positions, (11 already filled).
3. Undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure all hiring practices fully comply with the law and immediately correct any discriminatory practices. (workersxzcompxzkit)
4. Ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246 record-keeping requirements.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforces Executive Order 11246 and other laws prohibiting employment discrimination by federal contractors.
Author Robert Elliott, executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers’ Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
Free WC Management IQ Test: http://www.workerscompkit.com/intro/
WC Books: http://www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/workers-comp-books-manuals.php
WC Calculator: www.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/calculator.php
Follow Us On Twitter: www.twitter.com/WorkersCompKit
Do not use this information without independent verification.
All state laws vary.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
They Cost Money All lawsuits cost employers money. And, for some reason, workers' compensation claimants seem to also file EEOC claims. The goal of the employer is not to give employees a REASON to file lawsuits – of any kind – thus saving costs all around. It's been my observation it's easier and more cost effect to obey the law. Don't hire undocumented workers. Don't allow discrimination based on age, creed, color or life-style orientation. Don't allow harassment of any kind. And, put a discrimination-free work environment program into place and TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN. Let's Look at Two Case Studies Age Discrimination The largest telecommunication company has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging discrimination against workers over the age of 40. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan claims the Dallas-based corporation (with revenue of $124 billion last year) had "no legitimate business or reason" for its nationwide policy not to rehire employees who had retired under various retirement and severance programs. At issue in the lawsuit are the company's Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program and the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program. According to the EEOC, the company's denial of reemployment to older workers, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, has been going on since at least the fourth quarter of 2006. Hostile Work Environment The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a major settlement of a discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against a major home improvement corporation for $1.72 million and significant remedial relief on behalf of three employees in their twenties who were reportedly subjected to a pervasive sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against for complaining about it. The former employees, two young men and one woman, were reportedly subjected to widespread and repeated sexual harassment by male and female managers and coworkers at store in Washington state according to the EEOC. The sexually hostile workplace, enduring for more than six months, included physical and verbal abuse culminating in one instance of sexual assault by the store manager. In addition, the manager was cited for implicitly propositioning the female employee for sex related to a recent promotion she received. The EEOC said the employer failed to take prompt remedial action to stop the sexual harassment and erroneously fired the three victims when they complained. "Corporate America should be on notice that sexual harassment and retaliation will not be tolerated by the EEOC," said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart Ishimaru. "In this case, severe sex-based harassment of young workers was permitted to run rampant at one of the nation's largest retailers. It is shocking that store managers actively engaged in, and even encouraged, such blatant unlawful conduct and then retaliated against the victims for objecting to it." In addition to the $1,720,000 in monetary relief for the three victims, the three-year consent decree resolving the case requires the company to provide comprehensive training to management, non-management, and human resources employees in all Washington and Oregon stores. Employees will be trained on what constitutes harassment and retaliation, and on their obligation not to harass or retaliate against any individual. Managers and supervisors will be trained on what constitutes harassment and retaliation, their obligation to provide a discrimination-free work environment, and their responsibilities if an employee complains about harassment or retaliation, or if they observe it. Human resources personnel will be trained on what constitutes harassment and retaliation, how to institute policies and practices to correct past discrimination and prevent future occurrences, informing complainants about the outcome of internal investigations, and the steps the employer will take to assure a discrimination-free workplace in the future. (workersxzcompxzkit) In addition to the comprehensive training and monetary relief, the consent decree requires the employer to revise its sexual harassment and anti-retaliation policies, issue an anti-harassment statement to all employees in Washington and Oregon, revise its method for tracking employee complaints of harassment, and report regularly to the EEOC on harassment and retaliation complaints which arise in Washington and Oregon stores during the term of the decree. The EEOC consent decree covers all 50 of the employer's stores in Washington and Oregon. WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? In addition to the above, when you settle workers' compensation claims, make sure to settle ALL potential and current claims. Make sure your TPA works with your legal department on settlement language. PUT THAT IN YOUR account instructions.
Author Robert Elliott,executive vice president, Amaxx Risks Solutions, Inc. has worked successfully for 20 years with many industries to reduce Workers' Compensation costs, including airlines, health care, manufacturing, printing/publishing, pharmaceuticals, retail, hospitality and manufacturing. He can be contacted at: Robert_Elliott@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com or 860-786-8286.
TD Calculator:www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php WC 101: www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/workers_comp.php Follow Us On Twitter: www.twitter.com/WorkersCompKit Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
A Gaithersburg, Maryland-based storage facility will pay $95,000 and furnish other substantial relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),
In its suit (Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-02498-PJM), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, the EEOC said that Extra Space Management Inc. unlawfully fired James L. Hill II, a maintenance worker, because of a disability.
Hill, who has a visible disfigurement as a result of sustaining severe burns to his body in a house fire, began working for the company nearly three years ago.
According to the EEOC, although Hill was physically capable and willing to perform all his job duties, he was fired after meeting the acting district manager, who reportedly said that he “noticed he was handicapped, deformed or something,” and “it’s clear he can’t get the job done.”
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a settlement out of court. Extra Space Management did not admit liability in the consent decree resolving the case, which is pending judicial approval. (workersxzcompxzkit)
In addition to the monetary relief to Hill, the consent decree provides that all employees and management staff at the Gaithersburg facility as well as 14 other locations in Maryland and northern Virginia will have at least two hours of training on the requirements and prohibitions of the ADA.
Additionally, all newly hired managers and supervisory personnel will receive ADA training within 30 days after their employment commences.
“Employers must make employment decisions based on the employee’s ability to perform the duties of the job, not because of the prejudices of others,” remarked Debra Lawrence, acting regional attorney of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District, whose jurisdiction includes Maryland.
Author: Dave Thomas is editor of Daily Insurer Blog and a contributor to this blog. Visit him at http://dailyinsurer.blogspot.com/.
Click on these links to try it for yourself.
WC Calculator: www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/calculator.php
TD Calculator: www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/transitional-duty-cost-calculator.php
WC 101: www.ReduceYourWorkersComp.com/workers_comp.php
Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws are different. Consult with your corporate legal counsel before implementing any cost containment programs.
©2008 Amaxx Risk Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law. If you would like permission to reprint this material, contact Info@ReduceYourWorkersComp.com
Posted in
