EEOC

Abercrombie & Fitch Hijab Case Heading To Supreme Court

mbudkaLeave a comment

HijabLast week, the Supreme Court announced that it will decide whether Abercrombie & Fitch’s refusal to hire a woman wearing a Muslim hijab (that they said conflicted with their dress code), constituted religious discrimination.

The EEOC is appealing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the retailer could not be found liable for discrimination against the job applicant because she didn’t say she needed a religious accommodation during her interview.

The Court will hear arguments next year, and we will keep you posted as the case develops.

Webinar- Back to School: Employment Law Update

LPLeave a comment

school-suppliesAs fall approaches and students head back to school, The Employment Lawyers are taking a look back and a look ahead at issues in labor and employment law. Join us for an informational webinar to review developments over the past year and discuss tips to keep your workplace practices current in the coming year.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014
12:00 pm – 1:30 pm (CDT)
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

TOPICS

• Supreme Court developments, including the important decisions in Noel Canning and Hobby Lobby
• The EEOC’s new challenges to release agreements and steps you should take to ensure enforceability
• What Illinois and New Jersey employers need to know about new laws limiting questions about an applicant’s criminal record
• Developments under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including working at a home as a reasonable accommodation
• New guidance on how far employers need to go in accommodating religious beliefs and practices
• The Supreme Court and IRS weigh in on taxability of severance payments and health insurance reimbursements
• What to expect from the DOL’s fresh look at overtime requirements
• Continued rollout of the Affordable Care Act in the coming year
• Key changes to requirements for federal contractors

And more…

CLE Credit Available | This program has been submitted to the HR Certification Institute for review.

QUESTIONS

Contact Annie Darmofal at 312.476.7626 or adarmofal@lplegal.com

The EEOC Strikes Again

LPLeave a comment

lawsuit-letterIn a suit filed in February, the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argued that the separation and release agreements used by CVS Pharmacy were “overly broad, misleading, and unenforceable.” Specifically, the EEOC argued that provisions in CVS’ agreements infringed on employees’ rights to file discrimination charges and participate in EEOC investigations. See our February 2014 post, EEOC Files Suit Over Separation Agreement Language for more details on that case.

Now, a different district office of the EEOC has filed a similar suit against another employer. The Phoenix District Office sued CollegeAmerica Denver on April 30, 2014 alleging that CollegeAmerica violated federal age discrimination laws by including various provisions in its form separation and release agreements impeding employee rights. The EEOC objects to CollegeAmerica’s broad release language, provisions limiting an employee’s ability to assist others with claims, and provisions requiring the employee to represent that he or she has not filed administrative claims or lawsuits.

Separation and release agreement language clearly is a “hot button” issue for the EEOC. Employers should review their form release agreements to ensure that they specifically permit an employee to file charges and participate in investigations by governmental authorities and do not place other impermissible limits on employee rights.

EEOC Files Suit Alleging Attendance Policy Failed to Accommodate Disabled Employees

LPLeave a comment

sealOn Friday, the EEOC filed suit against AutoZone, alleging that the car repair company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by applying its attendance policy in a way that failed to accommodate certain disability-related absences.  This is the EEOC’s fourth disability discrimination case against AutoZone in the last 5 years.

Under AutoZone’s policy, employees received points for absences, with 12 points resulting in termination.  According to the EEOC, the policy did not make any allowances for disability-related absences (such as early departures by a diabetic employee who had insulin reactions), which the EEOC has alleged constituted a failure to accommodate.

Employers often — wrongly — assume that the fact that an employee doesn’t qualify for (or has exhausted) FMLA leave means that he can be terminated for his absences.  However, if the reason for the absence relates to the employee’s medical condition, it’s critical that the absence be considered under an ADA reasonable accommodation analysis as well.

EEOC and FTC Offer Joint Tips on Use of Employment Background Checks

LPLeave a comment

UntitledOn Monday, the Federal Trade Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued joint publications offering informal guidance on conducting background checks that comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and anti-discrimination laws. The overlapping rules and jurisdiction of these two agencies in this area of the law can sometimes be confusing for employers.

The first brochure, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know, offers nuts-and-bolts guidance for employers to consider when investigating the backgrounds of applicants and employees for use in hiring, retention, promotion, and reassignment decisions. The publication also reminds employers to review local laws regarding background reports and information because some states and municipalities regulate the use of that information for employment purposes in addition to what federal law requires. The brochure also has many helpful links to other EEOC and FTC guidance in this area.

The second brochure, Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know is geared toward job applicants and employees.

The EEOC press release describes the joint guidance as “a unique opportunity for the agencies to work together to provide user-friendly technical assistance to our stakeholders.” Given that the EEOC has not been particularly successful in the cases it has brought against companies for allegedly using background checks improperly, it is likely that the agency also has decided that getting employers to voluntarily alter their practices by providing additional guidance to them may be a better enforcement strategy.