EEOC, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

‘Any Family History of Disease?’ EEOC Says Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

If employers had any doubt about whether they – or their fitness-for-duty doctors – were allowed to ask about family medical history or genetic information in pre-employment medical tests, the EEOC is putting that doubt to rest with a string of recent enforcement actions.

As one example of this trend, three agricultural employers in California recently agreed to pay $187,500 to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC (the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) because they asked job applicants to disclose their medical histories and their family medical histories as part of pre-employment physical exams and health questionnaires.family tree

The EEOC takes the position – which the Update will not dispute here – that such inquiries violate the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is one of the first enforcement actions under GINA, but expect more to follow as the EEOC seeks to eliminate pre-employment inquiries into family medical history and genetic information.

“There are strict guidelines prohibiting inquiries into a job applicant’s medical condition and disability prior to hire,” states the EEOC’s Marla Stern-Knowlton. “Even after hire, employers should avoid asking questions about an applicant’s medical condition if it is not job-related. With respect to genetic information – or family medical history – the law is even more restrictive in that most employers may never ask or acquire genetic information from applicants or employees.”

Takeaway: Although healthcare providers hired to conduct fitness-for-duty medical exams may think it basic and vital to ask about family medical history or genetic conditions, employers should take immediate steps to ensure the process is cleansed of such inquiries and instead focuses on job-related capabilities.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC, Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, Pregnancy Discrimination Act

EEOC Gives Birth to Pregnancy Rules – Father Unknown.

In case you missed it, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued 40-plus pages of new guidance on pregnancy discrimination and related issues, including a fact sheet and Q&A guide. See http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy_guidance.cfm.

No new law, Executive Order or court decision spawned these publications, nor do they create any new laws. But the guidance does illustrate that the EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination a top priority. The guidance also helps employers address common pregnancy-related workplace issues, and the overlapping coverage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and laws relating to lactation breaks and working parents.

Regardless of whether you read the EEOC guidance, think about your mother and do the right thing: treat pregnant workers fairly and equally in all respects.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
EEOC, LBGT Employees, LGBT Employees

Update Gay-dar Beeping Loudly.

As previously reported, legal developments and protections for same-sex marriage and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees have been fast and furious.

Most importantly and recently, on July 21 President Obama issued an Executive Order banning discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/21/executive-order-further-amendments-executive-order-11478-equal-employmen. This affects roughly 20 percent of the U.S. workforce.

In addition, the EEOC and plaintiffs’ lawyers have been successfully pursuing claims on the theory that discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity is equivalent to sex discrimination, as any such discrimination is based on an employee’s failure to conform with gender stereotypes as to sexual partners and/or gender identity. The most recent success in this respect is Barrett v. Pennsylvania Steel Co. In that case, decided this month, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that the alleged mocking of a gay office worker, including references to him as “Mary” and “gay” by male coworkers, was sufficient to establish that the same-sex harassment was based on his failure to conform to male gender stereotypes, and thus a violation of federal and state laws against sex discrimination. It is the latest in a long line of cases expanding the coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
EEOC, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC affirms position that ‘partner’ may be an ‘employee.’

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been busy lately challenging the mandatory partner retirement policies and other practices of large accounting firms.

In two “informal discussion letters” posted by the EEOC this summer, EEOC Legal Counsel Peggy R. Mastroianni states that, “It is well established that in some instances individuals who have the job title of ‘partner’ may qualify as employees for purposes of the [equal employment opportunity] laws, including the [Age Discrimination in Employment Act].”

Mastroianni cites the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, as affirming the EEOC’s position that a fact-specific analysis of relevant factors is necessary on the question: “There is no legal presumption that an individual who holds the title of ‘partner’ is never an employee. This determination depends on the actual working relationship between the individual and the partnership. The relevant question is whether the individual acts independently and participates in managing the organization (not an employee), or whether the individual is subject to the organization’s control (an employee).”

While these letters do not stake out a new position for the EEOC, they remind us that firms with working “partners” or “shareholders” should always examine the partner-employee issue closely before implementing rules — such as mandatory retirement — that would be unlawful if imposed upon employees.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC

Performance Problem + Disability = Request for Accommodation?

Federal law and court decisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act have long held, in general, that an employee must request an accommodation for his or her disability before the employer has a duty to explore accommodation options.

But recent case law and updated EEOC regulations make clear that when an employee identifies a disability as a cause for his or her performance problems, the employee has put the employer on notice of a possible need for an accommodation. This triggers an employer’s duty to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine whether the disability can be reasonably accommodated.

In Thomas v. Bala Nursing & Retirement Center (E.D. Pa. 2012), for example, a nurse defeated summary judgment when she communicated that her attendance problems were the result of severe fatigue caused by anemia, but did not explicitly ask for a reasonable accommodation. The federal court held that the notice requirement for an accommodation under the ADA is met when the “employee provides the employer with enough information that, under the circumstances, the employer can be fairly said to know of both the disability and desire for the accommodation.”

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
EEOC, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

EEOC collecting record amounts, but claims down slightly

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced recently that it recovered a record-high $365.4 million for private-sector employees through its administrative enforcement efforts in fiscal year 2012, and an additional $44.2 million through litigation. In fiscal year 2012, the EEOC processed 99,412 private sector discrimination, harassment and retaliation charges, down slightly from the record of 99,947 set in 2011.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard