The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced the filing window for the newly required Component 2 pay data opens July 15, 2019. Private employers with at least 100 employees are required to submit pay data for calendar years 2017 and 2018 by Sept. 30, 2019. This new requirement is ordered by the court decision in the National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget case.

The EEOC has taken a number of steps to assist employers with this new filing requirement.


Continue Reading EEO-1 reporting: Pay data filing begins July 15, 2019

Pay Data Required by September 30, 2019

Further action has occurred in the National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget case, about which we reported here. Employers will need to report 2018 pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by September 30, 2019. While it is clear that employers

UPDATE – Pay Data Required by September 30, 2019

Further action has occurred in the National Women’s Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget case, about which we reported here. Employers will need to report 2018 pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by September 30, 2019. While it is clear that employers will be required to report 2018 pay data later this year, it is unclear whether pay data for 2017 will also be required at that time. The EEOC has until May 3, 2019 to decide what time period must be reported on September 30, 2019.

Porter Wright will continue to provide updates on this breaking news as more details become available.

It’s that time of year again. The 2018 EEO-1 Survey is open and must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics’ Employer Data Team. Employers must submit their reports by Friday, May 31, 2019.

What is the EEO-1 survey?

Federal law mandates that certain employers submit employment data for compliance purposes. The survey requires employers to submit data on employee race, ethnicity and sex categorized by one of ten job categories. Employers must gather this data from one pay period in October, November or December of each reporting year. Data must include both full-time and part-time employees.

In addition to sex, employers must report data on the following race and ethnicity categories:
Continue Reading EEO-1 reporting; Now open for business

In an opinion issued this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee) affirmed dismissal of a case alleging same-sex sexual harassment primarily based on the prompt and effective action taken by the employer in response to the plaintiff employee’s complaint.

Plaintiff (Hylko) and the alleged harasser (Hemphill) worked closely together at U.S. Steel. Hemphill trained Hylko and assigned his duties. Both reported to an area manager.

Hylko claimed that Hemphill harassed him as soon as they started working together, that Hemphill regularly asked Hylko about his sex life and that Hemphill grabbed his buttocks and private parts.

Hylko complained to management, who offered him a transfer to a different area of the plant, which he accepted. Management then met with Hemphill, who admitted some of the harassment. They then gave him a verbal warning, one week suspension and demotion to shift manager and made him take a leadership class. No harassment occurred again after that.

The standard for employer liability for hostile work environment harassment that does not result in a tangible adverse employment action depends typically on whether or not the harasser is the victim’s supervisor. An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor unless it can prove that (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment; and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. By contrast, an employer is liable for hostile work environment harassment by employees who are not supervisors only if the alleged victim can prove the employer was “negligent in failing to prevent harassment from taking place.” In assessing such negligence, the court will look to such factors as the nature and degree of authority wielded by the harasser and evidence the employer did not monitor the workplace, failed to respond to complaints, failed to provide a system for registering complaints or effectively discouraged complaints from being filed. In essence, the supervisory status of the alleged results in a shifting of the burden of proof with respect to whether the employer has taken necessary steps to prevent and respond to allegations of harassment.


Continue Reading When can an employer be found liable for ‘supervisor’ harassment?

Now that it is clear that Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States, questions are continuously being asked about how the regime change when he takes office in January of 2017 will impact labor and employment law. Acknowledging that any discussion of Trump’s policies before he takes office on Jan. 20, 2017 is purely speculation, it is important for employers to consider the potential implications on labor and employment law.
Continue Reading November election results likely will significantly impact labor and employment law in coming years

We have reported previously on the emerging trends in litigation over website accessibility. Briefly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires accessibility for disabled persons to places of public accommodation. Increasingly, disabled persons are pursuing litigation or threats of litigation, arguing that a company’s website which provides access to goods and services must be accessible under the ADA. The law remains somewhat unsettled. Federal courts have reached varying conclusions on the question of whether websites are places of public accommodation and, if they are, what steps are required to make them accessible under the ADA. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the position that websites are places of public accommodation. DOJ has promised to issue guidance on specific steps needed to comply. Although DOJ’s ADA compliance guidelines were initially expected in April 2016, DOJ has pushed the expected ADA compliance guideline timeframe to 2018.
Continue Reading Website accessibility case shows big risks to companies

We are seeing more and more employers receive electronic notice of new EEOC charges through the EEOC’s new “digital charge” system. This system was piloted in certain EEOC districts starting last May. Starting Jan. 1, 2016, all EEOC offices will notify employers via email of new EEOC charges filed against them. However, this last month and a half we have continued to see a few new charges come in the traditional way via snail mail.

What happens when you receive a digital charge? The EEOC will send an email to the email address on file for the employer. The EEOC does not provide much guidance on how it determines which email address to use, but encourages employers to update their contact information with the EEOC by contacting their local EEOC office. Ask yourself who in your organization you want to receive first notice from EEOC that a charge has been filed, then make sure the EEOC has that person’s contact information. For employers in Columbus and points generally east and north, the appropriate local office is the EEOC Cleveland Field Office. For employers everywhere else in Ohio, your local EEOC office is the EEOC Cincinnati Area Office. Have operations outside Ohio? The EEOC’s local offices are listed here. We strongly recommend employers ensure the EEOC has the right contact information so that charges are routed appropriately within their organizations. If the EEOC local office sees that the employer has not logged into the system within ten days of the EEOC’s email notice, the local office is instructed to attempt to notify the employer again of the charge.
Continue Reading The EEOC enters the digital age with electronic notice of charges

Think for a moment about all of the employment law obligations you face as a Human Resources professional or employment legal counsel. As extensive as those are, there is actually very little that you have to report to the federal or state government on a regular basis about your employment activity. You have very few obligations to report to the government on your personnel actions, including compensation – at least as of now. In fact, about the only obligation to report information to the federal government is the annual federal EEO-1 report, which must be filed by companies with 100 or more employees and by federal contractors with 50 or more employees. As you know, the federal EEO-1 currently requires only that you report the number of employees at each covered establishment and corporate-wide, by ten broadly defined job categories and broken down by race, gender, and ethnicity. If adopted, the EEOC’s recently-announced proposed wage reporting rules will require that compensation data be added to the EEO-1 report. In addition to the administrative burden this will cause, employers have real concerns about the ways in which the EEOC promises to use the data.

Continue Reading EEOC proposed wage reporting rules: could be a major problem