Category: EEOC

Applicant Recordkeeping Requirements

Applicant Recordkeeping for Employers

Various laws either expressly require or essentially necessitate that employers retain information about job applicants for some period of time. These applicant recordkeeping requirements arise primarily from employment discrimination statues and obligations imposed on government contractors. But good business records are vital in defense of virtually any potential legal claim.

If you’re interested in other hiring issues, watch my webinar on the Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

EEOC Recordkeeping Rules

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has promulgated recordkeeping rules related to the laws it enforces. These include applicant recordkeeping.

Under the rules:

All Personnel and Employment Records made or used (including, but not limited to, requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants, and records dealing with hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or termination, rates of pay, compensation, tenure, selection for training or apprenticeship, or other terms of employment) must be preserved for these periods:

  1. Private employers must retain such records for one year from the date of making the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, but in the case of involuntary termination of an employee, they must retain the terminated employee’s personnel or employment records for one year from the date of termination.
  2. Educational Institutions and State and Local Governments must retain such records for two years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later, but in the case of involuntary termination of an employee, they must retain the terminated employee’s personnel or employment records for two years from the date of termination.

Uniform Selection Guidelines

Various federal agencies, including the EEOC, worked together to issue “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures” in 1978. These guidelines apply generally to employers subject to Title VII (15+ employees) and federal contractors subject to Executive Order 11246’s affirmative action requirements. They cover an array of topics related to selection procedures used as the basis for any employment decision. This includes validation of employee testing procedures, for example. But also routine hiring interviews, and most everything in between.

The Uniform Selection Guidelines provide that:

“Each [employer] should maintain and have available for inspection records or other information which will disclose the impact which its tests and other selection procedures have upon employment opportunities of persons by identifiable race, sex, or ethnic group . . . in order to determine compliance with these guidelines.”

The Guidelines state that employers with 100+ employees “should maintain and have available for each job information on adverse impact of the selection process for that job and, where it is determined a selection process has an adverse impact, evidence of validity . . . .”

The Guidelines afford “Simplified record keeping for users with less than 100 employees”. These small employers need only retain records showing the:

  • number of persons hired, promoted, and terminated for each job, by sex, and where appropriate by race and national origin;
  • number of applicants for hire and promotion by sex and where appropriate by race and national origin; and
  • selection procedures utilized (either standardized or not standardized).

Obtaining the Data

The Guidelines themselves specify no particular procedure for obtaining data on applicants’ race, sex, or ethnic classifications. Other EEOC guidance allows that:

  • “Where applications are made in person, a user may maintain a log or applicant flow chart based upon visual observation, identifying the number of persons expressing an interest, by sex and by race or national origin; may in some circumstances rely upon personal knowledge of the user; or may rely upon self-identification.”
  • “Where applications are not made in person and the applicants are not personally known to the employer, self-identification may be appropriate. Wherever a self-identification form is used, the employer should advise the applicant that identification by race, sex and national origin is sought, not for employment decisions, but for record-keeping in compliance with Federal law.”

Federal Contractors

As part of their affirmative action programs, federal contractors must analyze personnel activity data. They must determine whether there are selection disparities. In connection with those requirements, regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFFCP) provide that covered contractors must preserve all personnel records for at least one or two years: One year for contractors with fewer than 150 employees or maximum contract size under $150,000. Two years for contractors with 150+ employees or a contract of at least $150,000.

Federal contractors with a contract of $100,000+ and 50+ employees must also create and retain evaluations of outreach and recruitment efforts, certain comparisons regarding applicants and employees, and records related to hiring benchmarks for at least three years.

Collectively, these requirements compel covered federal contractors to identify “applicants” and preserve records and data about them. This may include data about each applicant’s race, ethnicity, sex, veteran, and disability status.

Internet Applicants

Because the Internet created new hiring processes, the OFFCP issued guidelines to define who qualifies as an “Internet Applicant.”

An “Internet Applicant” is an individual who satisfies all four of these criteria:

  • The individual submitted an expression of interest in employment through the Internet or related electronic data technologies;
  • The contractor considered the individual for employment in a particular position;
  • The individual’s expression of interest indicated that the individual possesses the basic qualifications for the position; and
  • The individual, at no point in the contractor’s selection process prior to receiving an offer of employment from the contractor, removed himself or herself from further consideration or otherwise indicated that he/she was no longer interested in the position.

Related Internet Applicant rules apply to federal contractors who accept electronic submissions for a position. If you may be subject to these applicant recordkeeping requirements, check with your legal counsel and/or affirmative action administrators to make sure you are retaining the appropriate information regarding applicants, including those who apply online.

Click here for more on legal issues related hiring through the Internet.

Statutes of Limitations

Beyond satisfying express applicant recordkeeping requirements, employers must be mindful of defending against claims by employees or unsuccessful job candidates. If the employer has not retained all records related to the hiring process, it may face obstacles in providing the validity of its process and decisions. Thus, the statutes of limitations for legal claims are a consideration in determining how long to keep these records.

The federal discrimination laws generally require an applicant or employee to file a claim within 300 days (sometimes less). However, claims of patterns or practice or continuing violation may allow a longer look back period.

State discrimination laws may have even longer statutes of limitations. For example, individuals have up to three years to bring claims under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Overall Suggestions on Applicant Recordkeeping

All employers should create and retain sufficient documentation to support their hiring decisions. Some employers will have specific minimum obligations, especially including federal contractors with affirmative action requirements.

It’s possible that employees or applicants will attempt to litigate years after the underlying decisions. Therefore, it is often prudent to retain all personnel records indefinitely. Fortunately, modern technology permits employers to keep these records at relatively low cost. Scanning and electronic storage can also enable efficient searching and recall of documents when needed.

Again, this is only a general overview of some recordkeeping requirements. An employer’s specific circumstances may warrant additional or different considerations.

For more information about legal issues related to modern hiring practices, check out this webinar on the Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

 

EEOC Discrimination Charges in 2017

EEOC Discrimination Charges in 2017

On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement and Litigation Data. The agency reports that it resolved 99,109 EEOC discrimination charges in the year ending September 30, 2017. The EEOC had a remaining charge workload of 61,621, the lowest year-end level in 10 years.

Among other raw statistics of note, the EEOC received over 540,000 calls and 155,000+ inquiries in its field offices.

The EEOC recovered nearly $400 million on behalf of victims of alleged discrimination.

Bases of EEOC Discrimination Charges

In FY 2017, retaliation was the most common grounds for EEOC discrimination charges. Nearly 50% of all charges included an allegation of retaliation (48.8%).

Three protected characteristics each appeared in nearly one-third of all FY 2017 EEOC discrimination charges: race (33.9%), disability (31.9%), and sex (30.4%). Age discrimination was the next most prevalent allegation, appearing in 21.8% of charges.

Five other categories protected by laws that the EEOC enforces each appeared in less than 10% of the charges:

  • National Origin – 9.8%
  • Religion – 4.1%
  • Color – 3.8%
  • Equal Pay Act – 1.2%
  • Genetic Information – 0.2%

Sexual Harassment Charges

Sexual harassment is only one subset of the 25,605 sex discrimination charges that the EEOC received in FY 2017. Most cases were claims of disparate treatment (favoring one sex over the other), such as regarding employment, promotion, or compensation.

The EEOC received 6,696 charges alleging sexual harassment. It obtained $46.3 million on behalf of sexual harassment victims.

Perhaps surprising given recent media attention, the number of charges alleging sexual harassment declined in FY 2017. They have steadily gone down over the past decade. But the Harvey Weinstein report (followed by others) did not break until the end of the last EEOC fiscal year. So, it will be interested to revisit this statistic next year.

Other Trends in EEOC Discrimination Charges

The EEOC received fewer charges in FY 2017 (84,254) than it had in any year since FY 2007 (82,792). Last year’s total was down 7.9% from FY 2016.

The number of charges alleging discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion, age, and genetic information all reached the lowest levels in at least 5, and in several cases 10+, years.

On the other hand, EEOC charges alleging discrimination based on color reached a 20-year high. Retaliation claims reached their highest proportion of total claims during that same period, continuing a steady upward trend. Disability claims also continued to increase as a percentage of total EEOC discrimination charges.

Geographic Origin of EEOC Cases

Employees of all states may file discrimination charges with the EEOC. In many states, employees also have the option of filing with a state agency that investigates claims under state employment discrimination laws. The varying procedures and substantive grounds for claims under respective state laws may affect the frequency of EEOC cases in a state. The EEOC’s reported statistics do not include charges filed with state or local Fair Employment Practices Agencies.

In FY 2017, 10.5% of all EEOC discrimination charges were filed in Texas. Florida had the second most charges at 8.1%. California was third with 6.4% of charges. These are the also the three most populous states (though California has by far the most residents).

Despite being the fourth largest state by population, New York only accounted for the 8th most EEOC discrimination charges (4.4%). In part, this may be because many employees pursue their claims under the New York State or New York City Human Rights Laws instead of federal law.

EEOC Litigation

Though it has litigation authority, the EEOC does not go to court over many of the charges it receives. The agency filed 184 discrimination lawsuits in FY 2017. This included 124 cases alleging discrimination against an individual, 30 cases involving multiple victims or discriminatory policies, and 30 systemic discrimination cases. The EEOC reports a “successful outcome” in 90.8% of its resolved cases. The agency ended the year with 242 active court cases.

How to Avoid or Prepare for EEOC Discrimination Charges

Employers who learn of possible discrimination, including harassment, must act promptly. This usually involves investigating the circumstances and taking remedial action where warranted.

Click here to download my free Guide to Investigating Workplace Harassment Complaints.

GINA

Don’t Forget GINA

The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) took effect in 2009. Today, most employers have still never heard of the law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees and applicants because of genetic information. Those employers who have heard of GINA probably don’t understand how expansive its protections are.

First, the law defines “genetic information” extremely broadly. It’s not just the results of genetic tests.

Second, the law not only directly prohibits harassment and other discrimination, but also has strict rules against acquiring genetic information.

What Is Genetic Information?

“Genetic information” includes information about:

  1. An individual’s genetic tests;
  2. The genetic tests of that individual’s family members;
  3. The manifestation of disease or disorder in family members of the individual (family medical history);
  4. An individual’s request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or the participation in clinical research that includes genetic services by the individual or a family member of the individual; or
  5. The genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or by a pregnant woman who is a family member of the individual and the genetic information of any embryo legally held by the individual or family member using an assisted reproductive technology.

Genetic information does not include information about the sex or age of the individual, the sex or age of family members, or information about the race or ethnicity of the individual or family members that is not derived from a genetic test.

GINA also defines “family member” broadly to include:

(1) A person who is a dependent of that individual as the result of marriage, birth, adoption, or placement for adoption; or

(2) A first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, or fourth-degree relative of the individual, or of a dependent of the individual.

In other words, family member includes the employee or applicant’s parents, siblings, children, (great) (great-great) grandparents, (great) (great-great) grandchildren, (great) uncles, (great) aunts, nephews, nieces, first cousins, and first cousins once-removed. And it also includes all of those relatives of the individual’s dependents, which could include step-children and adopted children. Hence, an employee’s genetic information could include information that has absolutely no genetic relationship to them personally!

GINA Prohibits Discrimination

GINA applies to all U.S. employers with 15 or more employees. It prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions. This includes hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment.

The law also prohibits harassment and retaliation related to genetic information.

Rules on Acquisition of Genetic Information

GINA also generally prohibits employers from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information about applicants and employees.

These rules may be the biggest trap for the unwary under this law. While most employers aren’t trying to discriminate based on genetic information (even as broadly defined here), they might be acquiring genetic information, especially family medical history.

The EEOC’s GINA regulations indicate that:

“Request” includes conducting an Internet search on an individual in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information; actively listening to third-party conversations or searching an individual’s personal effects for the purpose of obtaining genetic information; and making requests for information about an individual’s current health status in a way that is likely to result in a covered entity obtaining genetic information.

There are several exceptions to the rule against acquiring genetic information related to:

  • Inadvertent requests
  • An employer’s voluntary wellness program
  • Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) certification
  • Acquisition through commercially and publicly available sources (e.g., newspapers, magazines, books)
  • Monitoring the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace
  • Contamination testing by an employer conducting DNA analysis as a forensic laboratory

These potential exceptions have nuanced parameters and require detailed analysis under the circumstances.

Of particular note, the EEOC regulations include specific safe-harbor language for requesting medical information about the employee. Using this language will protect the employer regarding receipt of any medical information that the provider discloses:

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits employers and other entities covered by GINA Title II from requesting or requiring genetic information of an individual or family member of the individual, except as specifically allowed by this law. To comply with this law, we are asking that you not provide any genetic information when responding to this request for medical information. ‘Genetic information’ as defined by GINA, includes an individual’s family medical history, the results of an individual’s or family member’s genetic tests, the fact that an individual or an individual’s family member sought or received genetic services, and genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or an individual’s family member or an embryo lawfully held by an individual or family member receiving assistive reproductive services.

GINA Confidentiality Requirements

GINA requires that employers maintain any genetic information they obtain about applicants and employees in medical files that are separate from personnel files and treat the information as a confidential medical record.

This is similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protections for an employee’s own medical information.

Learn More

Were you already familiar with GINA? Surprised to learn how much it covers? Want to make sure you’re on top of other important employment law compliance issues?

Register here to receive my monthly email newsletter and get my Employment Law Dictionary for FREE right now!