The Office of Management and Budget Hits the Brakes on the Revised EEO-1

By Lynne Anne Anderson, Kate S. Gold and Philippe A. Lebel

Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) unveiled its proposed revisions to the Employer Information Report EEO-1 (EEO-1). Previously, the EEO-1 directed federal contractors and employers with 100 or more employees to report annually the number of individuals that they employ by job category, race, ethnicity and gender in 10 different job groupings. As part of the Obama administration’s enhanced focus on equal pay, the EEOC’s proposed EEO-1 revisions aimed to expand the information collected to include pay data and working hours to help the EEOC discover potential discrimination in employment and pay equity.

The EEOC finalized its new EEO-1 in September 2016, and the additional information was to be provided by employers by the next reporting deadline in March 2018. That was the plan until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stepped in.

Continue reading “The Office of Management and Budget Hits the Brakes on the Revised EEO-1”

Is Your Parental Leave Policy Really Gender Neutral?

By Alexa E. Miller and Noreen H. Cull

On June 15, 2017, J.P. Morgan Chase employee Derek Rotondo filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that the company’s parental leave policy discriminates against males by relying on a sex-based stereotype that mothers are the primary caretakers of children, thereby denying fathers paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers. The EEOC charge, filed on a class-wide basis, seeks relief on behalf of himself and all fathers who were or will be subject to J.P. Morgan’s parental leave policy.

Continue reading “Is Your Parental Leave Policy Really Gender Neutral?”

New York State’s Paid Family Leave Benefits Law – Are You Ready?

By Lynne Anne Anderson

Private employers in New York will need to be ready to provide paid family leave to eligible employees as of January 1, 2018. However, by July 1, 2017, employers may start withholding from employee paychecks to fund the program.

As a brief background, the New York Paid Family Leave Law (NYPFL) is effective January 1, 2018, and has been touted as the nation’s most comprehensive paid family leave program. The NYPFL provides for a phased schedule of paid leave entitlement for employees that need to take time off to:

  • bond with their child during the first 12 months after the child’s birth, adoption or foster care placement:
  • assist a “close relative” with a serious health condition such as inpatient care, outpatient chemotherapy or at-home recuperation from surgery; or
  • for reasons outlined in the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) with regards to assisting a family member called to active military service.

Continue reading “New York State’s Paid Family Leave Benefits Law – Are You Ready?”

Do You Have At Least 20 Employees in California?

By Pascal Benyamini

Currently, if you are an employer with 50 or more employees within 75 miles, you are required, under the federal Family and Medical Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), to provide an unpaid protected leave of absence of up to 12 weeks during any 12 month period to eligible employees for various reasons, including, for the birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care; to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition, or to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

A pending California Senate Bill (SB), if passed, would extend some of the benefits of the FMLA and CFRA to California employers with 20 to 49 employees. SB 63, aka Parental Leave, would add Section 12945.6 to the Government Code, and prohibit employers with 20 to 49 employees within a 75 miles radius from refusing to allow an employee with more than 12 months of service and at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement.

SB 63 would also prohibit employers from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes this leave (assuming an employer has a group health plan). Further, under proposed SB 63, eligible employees will be entitled to utilize accrued vacation pay, paid sick time, or other paid time off during the period of parental leave.

If an employer employs both parents who are eligible for leave, SB 63 would authorize, but not require, the employer to grant simultaneous leave to both employees.

This bill would also prohibit an employer from taking any adverse action, such as refusing to hire, or from discharging, fining, suspending, expelling, or discriminating against, an employee for exercising the right to parental leave or giving information or testimony as to his or her own parental leave, or another person’s parental leave, in an inquiry or proceeding related to rights guaranteed under this bill.

Finally, SB 63 would prohibit an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this bill.

It remains unclear whether SB 63 will pass and be signed into law by Governor Brown. We will continue to monitor any developments on SB 63 and other pending bills that may impact employers in California.

Challenge to Philadelphia Pay History Ordinance Dismissed, But Ordinance’s Future Remains In Doubt

By David J. Woolf

Last week, District Court Judge Mitchell Goldberg granted the City of Philadelphia’s Motion to Dismiss the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit challenging Philadelphia’s controversial new pay history ordinance. As we have discussed previously (see Here’s What that New Philadelphia ‘Pay History’ Law Means for Your Business and Philadelphia Wage Equity Ordinance On Hold … For Now), the ordinance would make it unlawful for an employer to inquire about a job applicant’s pay history and would severely restrict an employer’s ability to base a new hire’s initial pay on his or her compensation history. The ordinance had been scheduled to go into effect on May 23, but was stayed by Judge Goldberg, with agreement of the City, pending resolution of the City’s motion to dismiss the Chamber’s lawsuit challenging the ordinance.

Judge Goldberg’s decision is likely not the last word however, as it did not address the merits of the ordinance. Rather, the Court held that the Chamber, because of the way the lawsuit was worded, did not have standing to challenge the ordinance, and it gave the Chamber until June 13, 2017 to file an amended complaint to cure those deficiencies. The Chamber is now expected to do just that.

In the meantime, the question is whether and, if so when, Philadelphia employers need to start complying with the ordinance. Despite the fact that Judge Goldberg’s decision, in dismissing the Chamber’s lawsuit, arguably lifted the stay, the City announced the following position through a spokesperson:

If the chamber files an amended complaint that cures the standing defects identified by the court, the city will adhere to its agreement not to enforce the order until the chamber’s motion for preliminary injunction is resolved. If no amended complaint is filed within the period stipulated by the court, the city will begin taking steps to enforce the ordinance….

Given this statement, we believe that the best approach is for Philadelphia employers to continue to prepare to comply with the ordinance, but to hold off on implementation until we see what the Chamber does between now and June 13. If, as expected, the Chamber files an amended complaint, we will be back to playing the waiting game for a little while longer.

We will continue to provide updates as developments occur.

California Cracks Down on Employers’ Use of Criminal Background Information

By Kate S. Gold and Jessica A. Burt

California employers using employees’ criminal convictions to make employment-related decisions should be aware of the recent flurry of new regulations and pending state legislation that place increased limitations on employers’ use of such information.

New FEHC Regulations Prohibit Consideration of Criminal History When Doing So Has An Adverse Impact On Individuals in A Protected Class

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) issued new regulations on employers’ use of criminal background information when making employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination. The new regulations take effect on July 1, 2017, and are intended to clarify how the use of criminal background information may violate the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  The regulations prohibit employers from seeking or using any criminal history information that has an adverse impact on an individual within a protected class, such as race, national origin or gender. The new regulations provide that an adverse impact may be established through the use of state or national level statistics or by offering “any other evidence” that establishes an adverse impact.

If an employee or job applicant can demonstrate that an employer’s criminal background check policy or practice creates an adverse impact, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the policy or practice is nonetheless justifiable because it is: (1) job-related and (2) consistent with business necessity. The criminal conviction policy or practice must bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance on the job and measure the person’s fitness for the specific position, not merely evaluate the person in the abstract.  An employer must demonstrate that the criminal background check policy is “appropriately tailored” to the job, taking into account: (i) the nature and gravity of the offense; (ii) the amount of time that has passed since the offense and/or since the sentence for the offense was completed; and (iii) the nature of the job the employee holds or seeks.

An employer can demonstrate that its policies or practices are “appropriately tailored” to the job by either: (1) conducting an individualized assessment of the circumstances and qualifications of the applicant or employee and providing the individual with notice (before any adverse action is taken) that he or she has been excluded based on a conviction and affording the individual an opportunity to show that the criminal history exclusion should not apply due to their particular circumstances; or (2) demonstrating that a “bright line” rule regarding conviction disqualification can distinguish between those employees who actually pose an unacceptable risk and that the convictions being used to disqualify, or otherwise adversely impact the status of the employee or applicant, have a direct and specific negative bearing on the person’s ability to perform the duties or responsibilities necessarily related to the position.

The new regulations further provide that any bright-line policy that includes conviction-related information that is seven or more years old is subject to a rebuttable presumption that the policy is not specifically tailored to meet the job-related and consistent with business necessity defense.

Under the new regulations, even if an employer’s background check policy meets the new stringent standard, employers may still be liable if an individual employee can demonstrate that there is a less discriminatory policy or practice that serves the employer’s goals as effectively, such as a more narrowly targeted list of convictions or another form of inquiry that evaluates job qualification or risk as accurately.

Employers that are required to comply with federal or state laws or other regulations that mandate a criminal history screening process or require an employee or applicant to possess or obtain a required occupational license can rely on the applicable laws as a defense to an adverse impact claim.

The Regulations Require Employee Notification of an Adverse Action and Opportunity to Present Evidence of Factual Inaccuracy

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act currently requires employers to provide notice to employees or job applicants when an adverse employment decision is made based on information obtained by an employer through a background check. In addition, the FEHC’s new regulations require that employers notify an employee or applicant of the disqualifying criminal conviction if the information was obtained from any source other than the applicant or employee (e.g., through a consumer report or internally generated search).

Under the regulations, the employee or applicant must be given a “reasonable opportunity to present evidence that the information is factually inaccurate,” and the criminal record may not be considered if the employee establishes that the information is inaccurate.

Similar Pending California Legislation

Employers should also note that pending Assembly Bill (AB) 1008 goes even further than the FEHC regulations and would make it unlawful for a California employer to: (1) include on any job application questions that seek the disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history; (2) inquire or consider an applicant’s prior convictions before extending a conditional offer of employment; and (3) when conducting a criminal background check, to consider, distribute, or disseminate information on (i) an arrest not followed by conviction, (ii) referral to or participation in a pretrial diversion program, (iii) convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated pursuant to law, (iv) misdemeanor convictions for which no jail sentence can be imposed, or (v) misdemeanor convictions for which three years have passed since the date of conviction or felony convictions for which seven years have passed since the date of conviction.

If passed, AB 1008 would also require California employers that intend to deny employment to an applicant because of prior convictions to perform an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s criminal history has a direct and adverse relationship to the specific job duties. The employer must then notify the applicant of the reasons for the decision and provide the applicant with 10 days to respond and challenge the accuracy of the information or provide evidence of rehabilitation, which the employer must then consider before making a final employment decision.

The bill is scheduled for a hearing before the California Committee on Labor and Employment on May 3, 2017.

Best Practices for California Employers Conducting Criminal History Checks

California employers that screen applicants and employees for criminal convictions should review and evaluate their criminal conviction policies, background check policies, and job applications for compliance with the new regulations and, potentially, for compliance with pending AB 1008.