EEOC Publishes Guidance On Accommodations For Mental Health Conditions And Finalizes New EEO-1 Reporting Form

mcknightmichaelBy Michael D. McKnight

The EEOC published two items last week of interest to employment counsel:

First, in the September volume of its Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law, the EEOC provided some rare insight into the way it views discrimination on the basis of mental health conditions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act.  Although the publication is aimed at government agencies, the guidance details the types of accommodations the EEOC expects of employers for employees or applicants with mental health conditions.

Read more

EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions: Title VII Does Not Prohibit Race Discrimination Based On Mutable Characteristics

Murray,JoeJoseph S. Murray IV

In the 50 years since Congress enacted Title VII, scientists, contemporary thinkers, and society in general have reassessed the concept of race. No longer do we view race solely in terms of biology (immutable characteristics). We now understand that race includes social context, culture, and life experiences (mutable characteristics). While society’s understanding of race has changed, Title VII’s original definition — or lack thereof — remains stuck in 1964. Whether a racial characteristic is mutable or immutable matters, as the Court of Appeals for the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit recently reminded the EEOC: Title VII only protects against discrimination based on immutable characteristics. EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, No. 14-13482, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16918 (11th Cir. Sep. 15, 2016).

Read more

Knowing When a Bonus Must Be Included In Overtime Pay

murphyfletcher2By Murphy H. Fletcher

Everyone likes a bonus, right?  Employees enjoy receiving them, for obvious reasons, and employers use them as a means of rewarding employee achievements and increasing morale.  But while paying employees a bonus can seem like a relatively straightforward benefit, depending on how the employer structures the bonus, the bonus can have long-reaching affects by increasing a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for overtime purposes.

Read more

Fourth Circuit Approves Legislative Prayer

willjamisonEditor’s note:  On Oct. 31, 2016, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to re-hear the case en banc.  Oral arguments are tentatively scheduled for Jan. 24-26, 2017.

By Will Jamison

On March 4, 1789, the First United States Congress met in Federal Hall in New York City.  The air was (probably) thick with dust from the street and powder from their wigs.  With the ink still drying on the U.S. Constitution, the actions of that First Congress shed light on how the founders of our nation interpreted the supreme law of the land…that is, according to our U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more

Tully v. City of Wilmington: The Constitution Requires Public Employers To Play By Their Own Rules

parkerkaty-2By Katy Parker

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled that a police officer has a valid property and liberty interest in requiring his employer, the City of Wilmington, to comply with its own established promotional process.

When Corporal Kevin Tully of the Wilmington Police Department sat for the sergeant’s test in fall of 2011, he felt pretty good about his chances for promotion.  Aside from being named “Wilmington Police Officer of the Year” for 2011 and receiving several other commendations and awards, Corporal Tully is also an avid student of police policy and procedure, and the United States Constitution.  He is often the guy that other officers go to with questions about the finer points of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law.  After taking the test, Corporal Tully felt even better, feeling certain that he had answered most of the questions correctly.  And so it was quite a shock when Corporal Tully was informed that he had failed the test.  He asked for copies of the answers, as he is entitled to do under WPD policy.  Upon receipt of the answer key, Corporal Tully immediately realized that the answer key was wrong – and that the so-called “correct answers” on questions related to Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues were actually based on outdated law.

Read more

Arbitrability Of Arbitration: Judge Takes Backseat to Arbitrator in 9th Circuit Uber Case

kornbluthmichaelBy Michael A. Kornbluth

Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that whether or not a contract should be arbitrated was a question to be decided by an arbitrator, not a judge. In Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, 15-16178 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016), the circuit court used scathing language in reversing the district court, which had held that the issue of arbitrability was properly before  the district court and went on to determine that the arbitration clause at issue was unconscionable.

This case originated in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where a number of Uber drivers filed a class action against Uber and a few other companies, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Reporting Act, and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, for improperly using consumer credit information to effectively terminate the plaintiffs’ ability to work for Uber.

Read more

EEOC Issues Updated Retaliation Guidance

herrmannseanBy Sean F. Herrmann

Retaliation, which finds its way into nearly 45 percent of all charges filed nationwide, remains the most prevalent bias allegation to come across the desk at the EEOC. This has the EEOC’s attention. On Aug. 29, 2016, it issued its Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, laying out its most recent interpretation of the law on this topic. The guidance addresses retaliation under Title VII and all other federal anti-discrimination laws.

A link to this guide can be found here

The EEOC issued a more-user friendly Questions and Answers document to accompany the guidance. 

Finally, the agency also issued a small business fact sheet.

Fourth Circuit Takes On ‘Me Too’ Evidence and ‘Mini-Trials’ In Recent Decision

herrmannseanBy Sean F. Herrmann

Recently, in Calobrisi v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc, No. 15-1331 (4th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals specified certain types of evidence that district courts must, at a minimum, consider when ruling on summary judgment motions. It held that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment, in part, to the employer in an age and gender discrimination and retaliation case. This decision will impact practitioners and district court judges alike.

In partially reversing the district court’s decision, the 4th Circuit first noted that the lower court did not “individually analyze each piece of other employee evidence.” Specifically, the appellant-plaintiff, a then age 55-year-old female, submitted testimony from seven other “middle-aged women,” who stated that they experienced adverse actions at the workplace similar to those alleged by the plaintiff. The district court, in one sentence, determined that the plaintiff’s “me-too” evidence would not be admissible at trial and, accordingly, did not consider it when ruling on the summary judgment motion.

Read more

Fourth Circuit’s RLM Communications, LLC v. Tuschen Tackles Noncompetition and Trade Secret Misappropriation Issues

Wall,JonBy Jonathan Wall

Noncompetition agreements (“non-competes”) present thorny issues.  In most cases, you have a former employee who has signed a black-and-white contract prohibiting him or her from engaging in certain employment, and the employee goes and does the one thing that the contract specifically prohibits.  Not that long ago, most judges would view the matter purely as a contract issue, and once an employee’s attorney admitted that yes, that was the client’s signature on the agreement, they did not want to hear much else, with visible disinterest giving way to agitation the longer the argument proceeded.

On rare occasions, if the employee could present special circumstances, the trial courts would do more than pay lip service to the maxims like “noncompetes are strongly disfavored in North Carolina.”  Was the territory much more expansive than where the employee actually operated?  Was this really a lower-level employee, with the noncompete designed to keep the employee hostage rather than protecting legitimate employer interests?

Read more

Update From the EEOC: New Charge-Handling Procedures

Nicholson,Travis (2)By Travis Nicholson

EEOC has implemented new procedures to be followed in all of our offices for the submission and release of position statements. The procedures apply to EEOC requests for position statements to employers made after Jan. 1, 2016. The purpose of the new procedures is to advance investigations by facilitating more pertinent information from both parties, including a response from the charging party.

An effective position statement is clear, concise, complete and responsive. EEOC recommends these practices for employers:

  • Submit position statements that are fact-based and thorough;
  • Ensure that the position statement focuses on the allegations in the charge;
  • Provide relevant documentation, evidence, and/or information that supports the employer’s position;
  • Segregate confidential information in attachments, including personally identifiable information, sensitive medical information, confidential financial information, etc.

Read more