Category: Employment Law

Hair Discrimination

New York City Styles Hair Discrimination

On February 18, 2019, the New York City Commission on Human Rights released enforcement guidance about discrimination based on hair. “Hair discrimination” is not per se illegal under either New York State or New York City law. However, this guidance notes that race discrimination, especially anti-black discrimination, takes many explicit and implicit forms. Thus, the New York City Commission’s guidance explains that discriminating against someone because of their hair can constitute employment discrimination.

This appears to be the first legal guidance of this nature in the United States. It focuses on “anti-Black” hair discrimination.

What Is “Hair Discrimination”?

The new guidance proclaims that:

“The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) protects the rights of New Yorkers to maintain natural hair or hairstyles that are closely associated with their racial, ethnic, or cultural identities.”

The guidance contains more detail, noting “this includes the right to maintain natural hair, treated or untreated hairstyles such as locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, Afros, and/or the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”

Source of Legal Protections

The New York City Human Rights Law does not specifically prohibit hair discrimination. It does broadly prohibit race discrimination in employment and other areas.

This guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights does not modify the law itself. Instead, it addresses how discrimination based on hairstyle implicates existing protections. In addition to race, the guidance mentions prohibitions against religion, disability, age, and gender-based discrimination. If an employer uses hair as a proxy for any of these protected characteristics, their actions might violate the NYCHRL. But the guidance focuses on race, and specifically Anti-Black, discrimination.

The NYCHRL applies to employers in New York City with at least 4 employees.

The separate New York State Human Rights Law covers employers throughout the entire State. Though similar legal arguments might be available under the State law, this guidance only pertains directly to the NYC law.

Black Hairstyles as Protected Characteristics

Again, the NYC Commission on Human Rights hasn’t actually changed the law itself. An employee who tries to file a complaint based on their hair will still need to check a different box, such as “race,” as the basis of the discrimination. Nonetheless, this enforcement guidance does go so far as to assert that “Black hairstyles are protected racial characteristics under the NYCHRL because they are an inherent part of Black identity.”

The full scope of this newly identified protection remains uncertain. Employers defending against claims based on hair discrimination will likely challenge aspects of the guidance in the future.

According to the guidance: “There is a strong, commonly-known racial association between Black people and hair styled into twists, braids, cornrows, Afros, Bantu knots, fades, and/or locs, and employers are assumed to know of this association.”

Does this mean that employment decisions based on these hairstyles are automatically discriminatory?

Impact on Employee Grooming Policies

There’s little doubt from reading this new guidance that the NYC Commission on Human Rights takes a very broad view on hair discrimination prohibitions. Despite allowing that an employer might have legitimate business reasons for requiring employees to have neatly groomed hair, virtually any restriction that disadvantages anyone with a hairstyle “associated with Black communities” will be legally suspect. To this end, the guidance observes, “an employee’s hair texture or hairstyle generally has no bearing on their ability to perform the essential functions of a job.”

[Click here to review the full guidance document.]

What Does This Mean for New York Employers?

As the New York City Commission on Human Rights concludes in this guidance, employers within NYC should promptly review their grooming and appearance policies. The Commission further encourages employers to “ensure [these policies] are inclusive of the racial, ethnic, and cultural identities and practices associated with Black and historically marginalized communities.”

Outside of New York City, employers throughout the State should still heed this guidance as a warning. The New York State Division of Human Rights has not issued related guidance on this topic. But it may proceed with similar enforcement sentiments. The state employment discrimination laws protect the same underlying characteristics (including race) that the NYC Commission relies on to ban hair discrimination.

 

Please Subscribe to the Horton Law email newsletter so you don’t miss important employment law updates for New York employers! We’ll also let you know about our free live webinars.

Love Contracts

Love Contracts Under #MeToo

Does your human resources department deal with love contracts? If you think this is a crazy question, then you probably haven’t gone down this road before. But these are real legal documents that some companies use when co-workers become involved in romantic relationships. Love contracts (or office relationship contracts) have never been overly commonplace. And the #MeToo movement and the related heightened attention on workplace sexual harassment issues, perhaps ironically, may be revealing even more reason not to use them.

What Are Love Contracts?

You might sooner think of a prenuptial agreement than the type of contract we’re talking about here. But these love contracts are designed primarily to protect employers, not the people who are, well, in love! However, the couple might receive some benefit as well–the ability to continue their relationship without forfeiting their jobs.

There is no straightforward legal definition of a “love contract.” But they usually address these items (perhaps among others):

  • Acknowledgment of a consensual romantic relationship
  • Reiteration of the company’s equal opportunity and anti-harassment policies
  • Guidelines for appropriate workplace behavior
  • Identification of the reporting relationship (if any) between the employees and any potential conflicts of interest
  • Any change in work circumstances necessary to enable the relationship to continue without impairing work performance
  • Recognition that romantic relationships don’t always work out
  • Agreement that the romantic relationship (or its dissolution) does not constitute a violation of company harassment policies

The terms of one of these contracts are usually not negotiable. The company provides the document to the employees. If they choose to sign, then they continue employment and, as they desire, their personal relationship. If either employee refuses to sign, then the company takes alternative action. This could include either re-assigning or possibly terminating one or both of the employees.

Do Love Contracts Work?

One could ask this question from many different perspectives. However, the answer would always be about the same: Maybe, in some respects, but there are no guarantees.

1. Do they encourage employees to disclose workplace romances?

Sometimes, but not always. Dating and sex are topics that most employees don’t want to talk about with HR in the first place. The prospect of possibly being asked to sign a love contract probably further diminishes the incentive to report.

Then you add in the fact that some meaningful percentage of extra-workplace relationships between co-workers are extramarital affairs. Hardly anyone will want to disclose those to their employer, much less put it in writing!

2. Do they ensure that relationships don’t cause trouble at work?

Casual dating among co-workers doesn’t have to be a big problem, and probably isn’t in many cases. The same can be true of more established relationships. But, in either situation, there’s always the reasonable possibility that at least one person will end up upset.

Keep in mind too that relationships don’t always affect just two people. Third parties can also become involved. What of the other employee who is attracted to one of the employees in a workplace relationship? People who were formally involved with one of them? Current or former spouses? For the most part, these “outsiders” won’t be part of a love contract, but could still take offense or otherwise become disgruntled about the relationships or how it carries over into the workplace.

3. Do they prevent sexual harassment claims?

Present data on that question would be hard. But love contracts likely have prevented sexual harassment claims here and there. In different instances, either because they helped employees behave appropriately regarding their relationship or simply discouraged one of the employees from making a claim in light of the existing agreement.

One could also guess that love contracts have, at times, prompted sexual harassment (or sex discrimination) claims. If nothing else, raising the legal significance of the relationship by requiring a contract could make some employees more likely to seek formal recourse when the love dies.

Legally, it is unlikely that the existence of a love contract would automatically “defeat” an employee’s sexual harassment claim. Employees can’t prospectively waive these claims as a formal matter. However, the acknowledgment of the consensual relationship could help the employer overcome some allegations (i.e., that the relationship wasn’t consensual).

As suggested above, love contracts are especially unlikely to prevent or disprove harassment or discrimination claims by employees outside of the relationship. If a co-worker claims he was passed over for a promotion that went to one of the love contract signees because that person was in a relationship with a decisionmaker (the other love contract signee), then the love contract would probably be irrelevant as to that claim.

How Does #MeToo Enter the Equation?

From a societal standpoint, it probably shouldn’t. Workplace sexual harassment has always been inappropriate, and it has been illegal for many years.

At the same time, most companies that have asked employees to sign love contracts probably had good intentions. They weren’t prioritizing hiding sexual harassment. They were trying to make sure that nothing unwelcome was occurring in the first place. HR wouldn’t (in all but the worst run organizations) put undue pressure on an employee to sign an agreement saying they were having a consensual sexual relationship if the employee didn’t believe at the time that it was consensual. If the employee instead said they felt subject to harassment, good companies would have promptly investigated the claim and taken appropriate corrective action.

The positive impact of love contracts on employees has been that they were able to continue to pursue their hearts and their careers (potentially) without interruption. Without love contracts, employers might have (lawfully) forced the employees to choose between their relationship or their jobs.

Now, of course, sexual harassment is at the forefront of media and business attention. That’s good in the sense of hopefully reducing the incidence of harassment. But it does risk increased litigation, which imposes costs on employers.

All told, anyone faced with a workplace romantic relationship these days should be on high alert. Again, no one (whose opinion matters) wants sexual harassment to occur. We don’t want employees to be disadvantaged because they didn’t accept romantic or sexual advances or because co-workers did. At the same time, few employees want to go to HR and put this target on their backs. And, frankly, probably fewer and fewer human resources department or managers want to hear about these relationships because of how complex the implications can be. Sure, they’ll try to do the right thing as problems arise, but that’s different than proactively asking people to sign legal documents related to their romantic, probably sexual, activities.

What’s the Alternative to Love Contracts?

Let’s leave open the possibility love contracts might still work well in some situations. Use them thoughtfully, on a case-by-case basis, though consistent with company policies. Get legal advice and don’t assume they’ll solve all your problems.

As an alternative, many companies have anti-fraternization policies. The limits of these policies vary. Some prohibit any dating or romantic relationships between employees. Others only restrict relationships between employees in the same departments or within the same reporting structure.

Unfortunately, these fraternization or dating policies share many of the same side-effects as love contracts. Principal among them is that they encourage employees to hide their relationships at work. On the one hand, this could be good to the extent that it prevents the relationship from directly affecting the workplace. On the other hand, it can create animosity among employees who do find out about relationships.

Again, it’s not fair to universally condemn or endorse anti-fraternization policies. What works in one workplace might not work in another. But there is one policy that is paramount for all organizations: the anti-harassment policy.

All employers should have written anti-harassment policies covering sexual harassment and all other categories protected by applicable laws (which may vary from state to state). Whatever preventative measures might be in place, employers must take all allegations of sexual harassment seriously, investigate promptly, and take appropriate action.

 

Horton Law PLLC shares legal updates and best practice reminders for employers through its monthly email newsletters and regular complimentary webinars. Sign up here to stay informed.

 

2018 EEO-1

Delayed Filing for 2018 EEO-1

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has postponed the filing period for 2018 EEO-1 surveys. Employers usually must file these annual reports by March 31st. However, this year’s deadline will be May 31, 2019, as a result of the recent federal government shutdown.

Who Must File a 2018 EEO-1?

Private employers with 100+ employees must annually report employee data on race, ethnicity, and gender by occupational category.

Many federal contractors with less than 100 but more than 50 employees also must file these EEO-1 reports.

EEO-1 Data

The EEO-1 survey requires covered employers to identify the number of employees they have in various job categories based on several demographic groups.

The EEO-1 job categories are:

  • Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers
  • First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers
  • Professionals
  • Technicians
  • Sales Workers
  • Administrative Support Workers
  • Craft Workers
  • Operatives
  • Laborers and Helpers
  • Service Workers

Within these job categories, employers must provide the number of employees based on sex and race/ethnicity from among these options:

  • Hispanic or Latino
  • White
  • Black or African American
  • Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
  • Asian
  • Native American or Alaska Native
  • Two or more races

Employers must attempt to allow employees to self-identify among these groups. If an employee declines to do so, then the employer can rely on existing employment records or observer (e.g., manager) identification to complete the survey.

The EEO-1 is a snapshot report as of a single pay period in October, November, or December. Thus, it does not necessarily reflect all individuals who worked for the company during the survey year.

Why the Delay?

The EEOC has not finalized details and instructions for the 2018 EEO-1 reports. It expects to open filing for employers in early March 2019.

For updates on the 2018 EEO-1, visit the EEOC’s website.

Not Unprecedented

EEO-1 filing was also delayed last year.

Toward the end of the Obama administration, the EEOC planned to modify the EEO-1 report to include wage and hours data beginning with reports of 2017 data. The Trump administration, however, rejected that expansion.

Though it’s not clear whether that situation alone prompted the move, the EEOC postponed the filing deadline to June 1, 2018, for 2017 data. So, barring a further postponement this year, employers have one fewer day (albeit a Saturday) to submit the 2018 EEO-1 surveys.

What Should You Do Now?

If you’re not already sure, check to determine whether your company must file a 2018 EEO-1. If you will be filing for the first time, make sure you know what data to use. You might also need to obtain employee self-identification of ethnicity. Then check back with the EEOC in early March to confirm the procedure for filing this year.

 

Want to receive updates about employment law topics of interest to employers and notification of our free webinars?

Click here to sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter.