Author: The Organic Recruiter

by Amanda Shelby | March 20th, 2016

Equality needs to be understood in every way possible.  From getting a fair shake at a job you are highly qualified to getting paid fairly amongst your peers that share the same job classification.   Equal pay for equal job in my opinion.  The only outlier to this is when you are paid a commission.  My belief is when in sales, you give yourself your raise every time you sell something.  But to that extent, not everyone is a sales person, are they? ~The Organic Recruiter

The EEOC’s proposed amendment to the EEO-1 would require employers with 100 or more employees to report pay data in addition to their workforce demographics.

The proposed revision to the EEO-1 would require employers with 100 or more employees to also report aggregate data on employees’ pay range and hours worked beginning with the 2017 EEO-1 report.

The EEOC has proposed using aggregate W-2 data in 12 pay bands for the 10 current EEO-1 job categories. “Employers will simply count and report the number of employees in each pay band. For example, a filer will report on the EEO-1 that it employs 3 African[-]American women as professionals in the highest pay band.” The EEOC believes this method for collecting and reporting pay data not only will be more likely than others to generate reliable data but also will be less burdensome for employers than other possible alternatives.

If this change sounds familiar, it’s because the EEOC’s proposed rule is similar to-and replaces-a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor that would have required federal contractors to submit comparable pay information in their annual equal pay reports to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

To “Assist the agency in identifying possible pay discrimination”; and To “Assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.”

Even an individual claim could be costly because it will require the employer to justify not only the employee’s pay but also the pay of all of her comparators.

If you anticipate that your company will be subject to the rule, consider asking your employment law counsel to review your pay practices and evaluate your risk before you’re forced to disclose your employees’ pay data next year.

By Allen Smith  5/5/2016

This is an article I find very interesting as it can set precedence in many ways.  I, by all means, cannot publicly take a stance on this as it is far more controversial of a road than I would like to go down.  However the precedence that can come out of it is whether transgender people have certain rights, if employers have rights, and if states have rights as the Federal Government may step in and make the decision for them.

At any rate, I am sharing this one as it is going to make a difference in your workplace regardless of the outcome.  From changes to hot topics to flared conversations.  I suggest you be prepared for whatever comes of it. ~The Organic Recruiter

Denying an employee access to a restroom that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated in a May 2 fact sheet. “Contrary state law is not a defense under Title VII,” the commission noted, a veiled reference to North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (H.B. 2).

And on May 4, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was even blunter, writing to North Carolina Republican Governor Pat McCrory to inform him that H.B. 2 violates Title VII and Title IX. The letter asks the state to respond no later than May 9 about whether it will remedy these violations of the law.

“If North Carolina does not respond by May 9, 2016 affirming that it will not comply with HB 2, it could face losing federal funding—state public schools receive $861 million in federal funding,” said Todd Solomon, an attorney with McDermott Will and Emery in Chicago.

In addition, “The EEOC’s fact sheet has been issued in direct response to H.B. 2 and other anti-LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] legislation, such as in Mississippi,” said Michelle Phillips, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in White Plains, N.Y.

North Carolina’s H.B. 2 provides that transgender individuals are permitted only to use bathrooms that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificate, Solomon noted. The law affects North Carolina state government employers but does not cover private employers, he added.

Based on the language in the EEOC’s fact sheet, “an employer will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time trying to defend the imposition of restroom usage based on biological sex if a charge is filed with the EEOC on these grounds,” Phillips said.

“Transgender workers don’t stand alone, even when they are in the crosshairs of discrimination,” said Peter Renn, staff attorney with Lambda Legal, which advocates on behalf of LGBT individuals, in Los Angeles. “They have the support of the federal government behind them.”

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that defends civil liberties, have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of H.B. 2. The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Joaquin Carcaño, a University of North Carolina (UNC) employee; Payton McGarry, a UNC-Greensboro student; Angela Gilmore, a North Carolina Central University law professor; Hunter Schafer, a student at University of North Carolina School of the Arts High School; and Beverly Newell and Kelly Trent, a married same-sex couple in Charlotte, N.C.

Unlawful Sex Discrimination

The fact sheet is intended to educate people that from the EEOC’s perspective, denying transgender individuals access to common restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination, said Elizabeth Gill, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project in San Francisco, a project that seeks equal expression and association for LGBT individuals.

The EEOC notes in its fact sheet that the commission held in Lusardi v. Dep’t of the Army last year that an employer:

• Cannot condition a transgender employee’s right to equal access to a common restroom on the employee undergoing or providing proof of surgery or any other medical procedures.
• Cannot avoid the requirement to provide equal access to a common restroom by restricting a transgender employee to a single-user restroom instead.

The EEOC fact sheet also observes that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in a Title IX case last month. In that case (G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd.), the court deferred to the Department of Education’s position that Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination requires educational institutions to allow transgender students access to the restroom that is consistent with their gender identity.

“The fact that other employees may be confused, uncomfortable or anxious about the transgender employee’s use of the restroom is not a sufficient basis to prevent the transgender employee’s access to the restroom,” Phillips said. “The timing of the publication of the EEOC fact sheet is not an accident. The EEOC and other federal agencies have clearly signaled their intention to fight LGBT discrimination in the workplace.”

“With its recent lawsuits and fact sheets, the EEOC is reminding states that it can and will prosecute employers that discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sexual orientation,” Solomon said.

Follow Federal Law

“Ultimately, state employers in North Carolina are put in a difficult position where they must determine whether to follow state or federal regulation on this issue,” he remarked. After all, the EEOC’s position has not been extensively tested in the courts. But employers may not want to take the time and expense of fighting the EEOC on this.

Renn asserted that the EEOC’s announcement makes clear that H.B. 2 directly conflicts with, and violates, federal law, in the commission’s view. “Because federal law controls over contrary state authority, employers should follow the EEOC’s guidance for applying Title VII and not H.B. 2,” he said.

Allen Smith, J.D., is the manager of workplace law content for SHRM. Follow him @SHRMlegaleditor.