Tag: Title VII

Tax Reform Affects Sexual Harassment and Employee Benefits

Tax Reform Affects Sexual Harassment Settlements and Employee Benefits

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed sweeping tax reform legislation. The controversial tax bill includes many changes that directly affect the employment relationship. These range from sexual harassment settlements and paid family and medical leave to reimbursed employee expenses and retirement plans.

Although I am neither a tax lawyer, nor an accountant, I offer a synopsis of these changes here.

Tax Deductions for Sexual Harassment Settlements

In response to the ongoing #MeToo movement, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced a new provision to the Internal Revenue Code’s section on tax deductions for ordinary trade or business expenses. The provision prohibits deductions for:

  • any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement; or
  • attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.

The tax reform bill doesn’t expand on the meanings of the terms used in this new provision. That leaves its application open for debate, at least until the IRS issues guidance and begins to apply the restriction to actual returns.

Clearly, this new tax code provision will affect settlements of employment claims. This may include both cases of an asserted claim involving sexual harassment or sexual abuse and those where the employer seeks a general release to cover all employment-related claims. In the latter scenario, the employee may not have specifically alleged sexual harassment/abuse. But a broad release would typically reference Title VII and similar state laws that could encompass sexual harassment claims. Employers (and employees) will need to weigh the trade-off between release coverage, confidentiality, and tax deductibility.

Employer Credit for Paid Family & Medical Leave

Employers can now claim a tax credit starting at 12.5% of wages paid to qualifying employees on family and medical leave. Wages paid must be at least 50% of the employee’s normal wages. The credit increases by 0.25% for each full percentage point by which the employer’s wage payment exceeds 50% of the employee’s normal wages, up to a maximum 25% credit.

To be eligible to take the credit, the employer must provide all qualifying full-time employees at least two weeks of paid family and medical leave each year under a written policy. The employer must also provide part-time employees leave on a pro-rata basis.

Qualifying employees are only those who have been employed for one year or more and whose wages do not exceed $72,000 (in 2018, indexed for inflation).

The credit is limited to 12 weeks of paid leave per employee in a tax year. It is only in place for 2018 and 2019 and does not apply to paid leave mandated by state or local law.

Certain Reimbursed Expenses No Longer Excluded from Employee Income

The 2017 tax reform bill repeals certain exclusions from employees’ taxable income. One such exclusion previously applied for certain moving expenses reimbursed by their employer. Another permitted employees to exclude up to $20 per month of qualified bicycle commuting expenses reimbursed by their employer. Under the new tax law, neither of these exclusions apply between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2025. Subject to future Congressional action, these exclusions are scheduled to return in 2026.

The reforms also indefinitely eliminated employer deductions for certain transportation benefits provided to employees. Specifically, these deductions applied to up to $255 per month for employee mass transit commuting and parking and up to $20 per month in bicycle costs.

There are also changes to tax treatment of qualified equity grants to employees, employee achievement awards, and length of service award plans.

Retirement Plans

The tax changes also affect employer-sponsored defined contribution plans. It gives employees more time to roll over loan balances to an IRA following plan termination or separation from employment. Under the old rules, employees had 60 days to avoid having the loan treated as a distribution. They now have until the due date for filing that year’s tax return.

Other earlier drafts included additional changes that were ultimately dropped. These included reducing the age for beginning in-service distributions from defined benefit and state and local governmental plans to 59 1/2 and changing rules regarding hardship distributions.

Health Care

The new tax bill eliminates the penalty connected to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as of 2019. The penalty still applies to individuals who haven’t maintained sufficient health insurance coverage in 2017 and 2018.

It also reduces the threshold for claiming itemized deductions for qualified medical expenses from 10% to 7.5% of income in 2017 and 2018. The 10% threshold returns in 2019.

Response to Employment-Related Tax Reform Issues

Most of these issues do not require employers to take action (other than paying taxes differently). However, because they will affect taxation of both the employing organization and the employees, questions are likely to arise. Proactive employers should consider the tax impacts and plan accordingly.

Businesses should seek further guidance from appropriate professionals in considering their approach in response to these developments. Often that will mean accounting or tax law professionals. But it will also include attorneys involved in settling disputes with employees, especially (but not only) those involving sexual harassment allegations. An experienced employment lawyer can also assist in preparing a credit-qualifying paid family and medical leave policy.

The IRS indicates that it will provide updates and resources about the new tax reforms here.

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.

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

On December 20, 2017, the Communications Workers of America filed a federal lawsuit in California claiming that various employers had discriminated against job applicants based on age. The named defendant employers are T-Mobile, Amazon, Cox Communications, and Cox Media Group. CWA contends these companies (among others) unlawfully targeted candidates through Facebook ads. Several individuals joined CWA as plaintiffs in this proposed class action.

In addition to the four named defendants, the lawsuit purports to also “bring this action . . . against a Defendant Class of hundreds of major American employers and employment agencies that, upon information and belief, routinely exclude older workers from receiving their employment and recruiting ads on Facebook, and thus deny older workers job opportunities.” The lawsuit indicates that the plaintiffs intend to identify additional defendants “through early discovery in this action or a pre-discovery exchange of information with Facebook.”

Prefer a free webinar? Try Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

These statements from the lawsuit reflect the theory behind the plaintiffs’ claims:

  • “These companies eliminate older workers from receiving job ads by specifically targeting their employment ads to younger workers via Facebook’s ad platform.”
  • “Upon information and belief, nationwide, large and small employers alike apparently believe that it is appropriate and desirable to exclude American workers from job opportunities solely based on their age.”
  • “When selecting the population of Facebook users who will receive employment ads, employers and employment agencies routinely focus their ads on prospective applicants who are in age bands that exclude many workers who are 40-years-old or greater, e.g., workers who are ‘ages 18 to 38,’ ‘ages 22 to 45,’ or ‘ages 21 to 55,’ thereby preventing older workers from receiving advertising and recruitment for job opportunities, upon information and belief.”
  • “Upon information and belief, Facebook does not stop an employer or employment agency from selecting a younger age range (such as ages 18 to 40) that discriminates against older workers in setting the population that will receive an employment ad via Facebook.”
  • “Facebook provides advertisers the ability to send employment ads to individuals who fall into the following categories related to a younger age group or categories that ordinarily would be a proxy for younger workers: Young & hip – a group of millions of people “whose activities strongly suggest they are young and hip” (according to Facebook); and Millennials – a group of millions of people “who have expressed an interest in or like pages related to Millennials” (according to Facebook).”

Potential Defendants

The lawsuit describes as defendants:

All employers or employment agencies who annually employ at least 2,500 employees or annually refer for employment at least 2,500 employees, and have purchased or sent employment-related Facebook advertisements that placed an upper age limit on the population of Facebook users that was eligible to receive an advertisement, at any time from the earliest date actionable under the limitations period applicable to the given claim, until the date of judgment in this action.

A Federal Complaint for the Facebook Age

The complaint document itself demonstrates a modern approach to federal court litigation. It includes screenshots of some of the contested Facebook ads pasted right into the standard pleading paragraphs.

One such screenshot is a “Why am I seeing this ad?” window. It indicates, “There may be other reasons you’re seeing this ad, including that T-Mobile Careers wants to reach people ages 18 to 38 who live or were recently in the United States.

The lawsuit does not specifically name Facebook as a defendant. However, it uses Facebook’s own job posting as evidence of the capability to target job candidates by age. (At least the Facebook example shown suggests a larger age range, from 21 to 55!)

Age Discrimination

For procedural reasons, the CWA lawsuit only asserts claims under various state laws that prohibit age discrimination. But the plaintiffs reference the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act in summarizing the legal/policy basis for their claims.

The ADEA prohibits employers with 20+ employees from discriminating based on age among employees 40 years old or older. It includes this provision specific to job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notice or advertisement indicating preference, limitation, etc.

It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age.

Not Just Age Discrimination

Age isn’t the only characteristic upon which applicants have alleged employment discrimination through Facebook ads. On November 3, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the same California federal court. Facebook is the only named defendant in that case, which alleged both employment- and housing-related discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin.

The employment discrimination claims allege violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Besides Facebook, this lawsuit uses “Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999” to refer to purported “entities that have used Facebook’s Ad Platform to illegally discriminate . . . with advertisements for employment or housing.”

Like the ADEA, Title VII has a specific provision regarding job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination; occupational qualification exception

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer . . .  indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.

Facebook and the plaintiffs are currently mediating this lawsuit.

Avoiding Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

We don’t have court decisions on these claims yet. Nonetheless, most employers should probably avoid limiting publication of their online job postings to certain age groups. Targeting individuals 18+ may be acceptable for many jobs. But there would be few situations where an upper age limit would be a risk-free approach.

Likewise, limiting ads based on gender, race, religion, etc., is also a risky strategy. Perhaps a compelling (and potentially non-discriminatory) business case can be made. But applicants may still follow the lead of these cases and challenge online recruiting practices that appear to exclude them.

As the litigation develops in these and other cases, perhaps some additional leeway may emerge as reasonable. For example, is it okay to run separate ads for different age groups, as long as no-one is excluded? Would the employer need to spend an equal amount on all age groups? Is that even possible to guarantee?

We may also see Facebook change its approach to ad targeting because of the discrimination claims. That could have implications beyond recruiting, potentially affecting all forms of online advertising.

Learn more about employment discrimination through Facebook Ads and other recruiting issues:

Check out my webinar on Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring!