In 1966, the EEOC began requiring companies with 100 or more employees to compile employment data by race/ethnicity, gender, and job category. Dubbed EEO-1 Reports, these surveys were meant to provide a snapshot of how many racial and ethnic minorities and women were working in a company.

EEO-1 Reports Expanded

During President Obama’s tenure, the EEO-1 Report was broadened into two components. Component 1 would include the same information always collected, while Component 2 would include W-2 wage information for employees by race, ethnicity, and sex. Although designed to target pay discrimination, Component 2 was viewed as overly burdensome. Data compilation would take countless hours, while the human error rate was sure to increase on account of the significantly expanded form.


Continue Reading

Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced it received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during the 2012 fiscal year.  In its  press release , the EEOC noted that while the number of charges is down slightly from last year, it recovered $365.4 million dollars for employees, the “largest amount of monetary recovery” through its

Tis election season! And it is impossible to ignore the political debate that is unfolding in the media, on social networks, and in everyday conversation. Can and should employers restrict political discussion in the workplace? It depends.

Private employers enjoy wide latitude in determining whether and how to regulate employees’ expression of their political views

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion expressly recognizing “a ministerial exception,” which bars “ministers” employed by faith based employers from suing for discrimination. In Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court considered the case of Cheryl Perich, an elementary teacher at a Church School. Although Perich was also

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this week, those in the employment law/human resources field have inevitably heard about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case.  The decision, which was handed down Monday, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s certification of a class of approximately 1.5 million female employees claiming gender-based pay/promotion

Yesterday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) re-introduced the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (“ENDA”) in the U.S. House of Representatives.  As you may recall, the ENDA would prohibit discrimination in employment based on an applicant’s or employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  If passed, the ENDA would create an additional protected class of employees.  Many states already have