Author: Scott Horton

Scott has been practicing Labor & Employment law in New York for almost 20 years. He has represented over 400 employers and authored 100s of articles and presentations and wrote the book New York Management Law: The Practical Guide to Employment Law for Business Owners and Managers. Nothing on this blog can be considered legal advice. If you want legal advice, you need to retain an attorney.

2019 Sexual Harassment EEOC Charge Statistics

2019 Sexual Harassment Charges Down at EEOC

On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission disclosed its 2019 sexual harassment statistics. After a significant increase in sexual harassment charges in FY 2018, the EEOC reports a 1.2% decrease last year. Despite the year-over-year drop, 2019 still had the second-highest number of sexual harassment charges since 2012.

2018 Sexual Harassment Statistics

In Fiscal Year 2018, the EEOC received a total of 7,609 charges alleging harassment of a sexual nature. That represented more than a 13% increase in sexual harassment charges versus FY 2017. It was the first time the number of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC had increased in more than a decade.

FY 2019 EEOC Data

For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, the EEOC received 7,514 sexual harassment charges. This number represents 10.3% of all charges the agency received between October 2018 and September 2019.

The full break down of cases by nature of allegation follows:

  • Retaliation: 39,110 (53.8% of all charges filed)
  • Disability: 24,238 (33.4%)
  • Race: 23,976 (33.0%)
  • Sex: 23,532 (32.4%)
  • Age: 15,573 (21.4%)
  • National Origin: 7,009 (9.6%)
  • Color: 3,415 (4.7%)
  • Religion: 2,725 (3.7%)
  • Equal Pay Act: 1,117 (1.5%)
  • Genetic Information: 209 (0.3%)

(Total exceeds 100% because some charges allege multiple bases.)

Big Picture

It’s hard to tell whether the 2019 sexual harassment data indicate that the 2018 spike was an aberration. Another increase last year would not have been surprising, but a 1% drop after a 13% increase doesn’t suggest that sexual harassment is no longer a concern in U.S. workplaces. There were still many more sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC in FY 2019 than in the five years preceding the launch of the #MeToo movement.

EEOC Sexual Harassment Charges

2019 Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC Chart
Fiscal Year Data as Reported by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Full EEOC charge-filing statistics are available here.

State-Level Claims

Many states have their own employment discrimination statutes and state agencies who process sexual harassment complaints. Many of these state (and some local) agencies have worksharing agreements with the EEOC. Such agencies, known as Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs), typically cross-file complaints with the EEOC.

The EEOC reports annual data on total sexual harassment charges, including those filed directly with FEPAs. However, this data may not encompass all state and local sexual harassment complaints. Some cases do not get timely registered with the EEOC or may be encoded differently at the state and federal level, for example.

The EEOC reports a total of 11,283 sexual harassment charges in FY 2019, combining cases filed with the EEOC directly and those reported from FEPAs. Or only a half-of-a-percent decrease from FY 2018.

EEOC & FEPA Sexual Harassment Charges

2019 Sexual Harassment Charges FEPA
Fiscal Year Data as Reported by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

An Ongoing Concern

With or without these statistics, it’s clear that workplace sexual harassment remains a problem and an area of focus for regulators. Many states are reviewing their sexual harassment laws and requirements regarding initiatives like policies and training. New York, for example, dramatically relaxed the burden of proof on employees in all workplace harassment cases through 2019 legislation (after imposing mandatory annual sexual harassment training for all employees the year before). The EEOC reports a 5.3% increase in sexual harassment complaints in New York in FY 2019 (including FEPA data).

No one wants their business to become part of these statistics. However, policies and training sessions can be only part of the solution. Employers must respond promptly and thoroughly to all allegations of harassment in the workplace. This includes addressing problematic behavior that has not reached the level of a formal complaint. Waiting to see if a situation gets is destined to be a failed strategy.

2020 NLRB

NLRB 2020 (Webinar Recap)

On January 22, 2020, I presented a complimentary webinar called “NLRB 2020: Updates for All Private Sector Employers”. For those who couldn’t attend the live webinar, we’re happy to make it available for you to watch at your convenience.

In the webinar, we discuss:

  • Employee Policies
  • Email Use
  • Investigatory Confidentiality
  • Representation Election Rule Changes
  • Union Issues

The National Labor Relations Board has a significant impact on private companies throughout the United States. The NLRB not only oversees union elections and management-labor relations, but also enforces employee rights to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection. Recently, the Board has taken many steps to reverse pro-labor rulings under the prior administration in Washington. We summarize many of those in this webinar.

Don’t have time to watch the whole webinar right now? Click here to download the slides from the webinar.

Why You Should Watch “NLRB 2020”

Whether you currently have unionized employees or not, recent NLRB actions could affect your company. Fortunately, it’s mostly good news for employers.

After several years of restrictive enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB is now reiterating private companies’ rights to run their business. While employees still enjoy many protections, employers have more leeway in several areas that would have been problematic before.

If you are concerned about potential organizing activity, be sure to learn about the new NLRB election rules. These will favor employers compared to the current rules. But the procedures don’t change until April 2020, leaving open the possibility that unions will hurry to pursue organizing campaigns and elections before then.

Plus, if you already have unionized employees, there are also updates that affect you more directly. Recent NLRB decisions restore earlier longstanding views on deferral to arbitration awards, dues checkoff, and union insignias.

We also comment on the current composition of the NLRB Board and how it could change, along with what that could mean for employers.

Don’t Miss Our Future Webinars!

Click here to sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter to be among the first to know when registration is open for upcoming programs!

And follow us on LinkedIn for even more frequent updates on important employment law issues.

Union Election Procedures

Union Election Procedures to Change in 2020

In December 2019, the National Labor Relations Board finalized a rule to modify its union election procedures. This action will slow down the election process, giving companies more time to respond to election petitions. It ends a five-year reign of so-called “quickie elections.”

The new procedures will be in place beginning April 16, 2020.

2014 “Quickie-Election” Rules

The NLRB substantially changed its election procedures in 2014. Under the Obama Administration, the Democrat-led NLRB revised the rules to expedite elections. Those changes were primarily intended to reduce companies’ opportunity to respond to union organizing efforts. In other words, making it easier for employees to unionize.

In addition to condensing the timeline, the 2014 rules created a new disclosure requirement for employers. They required companies to provide extensive information about their workforce and response to the election petition in writing often in one week.

More Balanced Approach

As of April 16, 2020, the rules will change again to give employers more time to respond. The now Republican-led Board has not, however, completely reverted to the pre-2014 union election procedures.

There are many nuances to these procedures. Here are just some of the most impactful changes:

More Time Before Pre-Election Hearing

The 2014 rules provided for a pre-election hearing as soon as 8 days after the union filed an election petition.

The new rules delays hearing to the 14th business day. As before, the NLRB Regional office can postpone the hearing for good cause.

Statement of Positions Remains

Employers understandably did not appreciate the new requirement of preparing and submitting a Statement of Position after receiving an election petition. However, the NLRB has decided to keep that requirement in place. But they are making a couple of compromises in this area.

First, employers will now have 8 business days to file the Statement of Position. Under the 2014 rules, they often only had 7 calendar days, with a hearing to follow the next day.

Second, unions must now also file a written Statement of Position. The union has until 3 days before the hearing to do so.

Expanded Scope of Pre-Election Hearings

The 2014 union election procedures limited the subject matter of pre-election hearings to relatively few subjects. Fundamentally, they were limited to determining whether a question of representation exists. This required an appropriate bargaining unit to be identified, but did not allow employers to litigate individual voter eligibility or inclusion in the bargaining unit before the election. If the parties did not mutually agree on those issues, the NLRB would decide them after the election, if necessary, depending on the results.

Under the new rules, voter eligibility and unit inclusion issues usually will be part of the pre-election hearing process. This includes litigation over supervisory status. That question can be significant, as supervisors are not eligible to join a unionized bargaining unit. Moreover, employers can rely on supervisors as part of their election preparations. Thus, it is valuable to know who does and doesn’t qualify in that capacity under the National Labor Relations Act before the election takes place.

The new rules will also bring back the right for parties to call witnesses at the pre-election hearings. The 2014 rules limited the ways parties could present evidence at this stage.

Post-Hearing Briefs

With a focus on quick elections, the 2014 rules eliminated written post-hearing briefs by the parties. They would just be something else taking time to prepare, read, and respond to, after all!

The new union election procedures will allow the parties to summarize their positions in writing after the pre-election hearing. They have 5 business days after the hearing to submit briefs. The hearing officer can allow up to 10 additional days.

Scheduling the Election

Before the 2014 rule changes, union elections usually occurred 25-30 days after the direction of an election. That means, once the parties resolved all preliminary matters, either mutually or by hearing decision, the election would take place about 4 weeks later.

The 2014 union election procedures, moved that timeline up considerably. They required a Regional Director to “schedule the election for the earliest date practicable . . . .” That resulted in reducing the time between petition and election from 38 days to 23 days. The NLRB shows these statistics here.

The rules effective April 16, 2020, will return closer to the pre-2014 timeline. They provide that regional directors “normally will not schedule an election before the 20th business day after the date of the direction of election.”

More Time for Voter Lists

Once an election is scheduled, the employer must give the union a list of all eligible voters with contact information. Under the 2014 rules, companies only had 2 days to do so following the direction of an election. Now they will have 5 days.

Good and Bad News for Employers

Most companies should welcome these changes to the NLRB’s union election procedures. If nothing else, it gives you more time to respond if you do receive an election petition. And most employers will welcome the time to review their options in hopes of staying union-free.

But, there is a potential short-term downside to the rule changes. Significantly, they don’t take effect until April 16, 2020. Before then, the 2014 union-friendly rules remain in effect. This may result in unions rushing to begin election proceedings under the “quickie election” rules.

Companies that have any concern of a potential union organizing effort should evaluate the heightened possibility of an election petition in the first quarter of 2020. It is always better to be proactive if you want to keep a union out. This primarily means doing the right thing by your employees. But it also includes knowing the relevant procedures, legal parameters, and other logistical best practices. If you have any concerns in this area, you should consult with an experienced labor attorney sooner rather than later.

 

For more on what the NLRB has been up to, check out our upcoming webinar: NLRB 2020: Updates for All Private Sector Employers