The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has issued nine Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to address Executive Order 13950, which is intended “to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating.” The FAQs include a range of topics — from the effective date of the Executive Order and examples of race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating, to how to file a complaint for unlawful training programs.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Colorado employers should prepare to comply with the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA), which will become law in the state on January 1, 2021. The new law will prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes gender identity, or sex in combination with another protected status, by paying employees of different sexes differently for substantially similar work.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
The U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced its new hotline and email address to provide a forum to report noncompliance with Executive Order 11246 as well as President Trump’s recent executive order, which curtails certain employee diversity and inclusion training.
As recently reported, on September 22, 2020, President Trump issued an unprecedented “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” (Executive Order 13950) in an effort to “to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating” through a variety of measures. Executive Order 13950 significantly limits the diversity trainings federal contractors may offer and requires contractors to add contract provisions prohibiting “race and sex stereotyping” in their subcontracts and purchase orders, among other requirements. Executive Order 13950 also directed the OFCCP to create a hotline where employees could report suspected violations of Executive Order 13950’s requirements, in addition to violations of long-standing Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and national origin, and prohibits inquiring about, discussing or disclosing one’s compensation or the compensation of others.
State and local governments are increasingly regulating the workplace. Although it is not possible to discuss all state and local laws, this update provides an overview of recent and upcoming legislative developments to help you and your organization stay in compliance. (Please note that developments specifically related to COVID-19 are not included.) This quarter, state and local legislatures were particularly active in passing laws addressing employee classification, sexual harassment training, lactation accommodation, criminal background inquiries and a variety of unpaid and paid leaves.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which extended federal statutory protections to the LGBT community, many have wondered how that decision might impact other employment litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, No. 19-1063 (10th Cir. 2020), suggests that, following Bostock, courts may begin to recognize new claims or even reconsider prior limitations on Title VII’s scope.
For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issued a long-awaited decision giving employers more freedom to discipline employees who engage in abusive, obscene or profane conduct in connection with their work. In General Motors, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), the NLRB rejected three context-specific rules formerly used to assess whether an employee’s inappropriate conduct is protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act). Instead, the NLRB will now assess that conduct under the Wright Line standard, which is used to evaluate all other claims of discriminatory conduct under the Act.