The employee had declined to sign the release as part of her layoff severance package and subsequently filed discrimination charges with the EEOC. Then the company conditioned her severance benefit receipt on her withdrawal of the EEOC charges. According to the court decision, the broad language of the release was “facially retaliatory.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published proposed amendments to its rules due to a Supreme Court decision rejecting claims that favoritism toward older employees violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Comments on the changes must be received by the EEOC by Oct. 10, 2006.

The question-and-answer publication by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covers what an employer may ask, what to do if an applicant voluntarily discloses a hearing impairment, and types of reasonable accommodation companies can consider.

Only 47.8 percent of the public have confidence in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ability to enforce federal equal opportunity laws, according to the agency’s 2007 Performance and Accountability Report. The EEOC had commissioned a 2007 survey to establish a baseline for measuring whether it is being effective in handling discrimination complaints. According to its performance report, the EEOC did not meet its target of resolving at least 72 percent of discrimination charges in the private sector in 180 days or less—meeting that goal only 55.6 percent of the time in 2007. “While trying to maintain sufficient staff levels our case inventory continued to rise to more than 9% above last year’s levels,” reports EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp. She says that the agency will continue to focus on improving service delivery and strengthening its “systemic enforcement efforts.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to change its current regulations on disparate impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The EEOC rule currently prohibits employment practices that have a disparate impact on older individuals unless it is justified as a business necessity. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Smith v. City of Jackson held that the “reasonable factors other than age” (RFOA) test, rather than the business necessity test, is the appropriate standard for determining the lawfulness of an employment practice that disproportionately affects older workers. The Commission proposes to revise it rules to state that when the RFOA exception is raised, the employer has the burden of showing that a reasonable factor other than ages exists factually.

The Court says that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was within its authority to interpret that a document such as an intake questionnaire could be construed as a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The case involved an age discrimination claim brought by a group of couriers against Federal Express Corp. The company had sought to have the case dismissed because it claimed that the completion of the intake questionnaire was not a charge, and the EEOC did not treat it as a charge.

The Court majority agrees with the EEOC’s position that the filing should be construed as a request by the employee for the agency to take whatever action is necessary to vindicate his or her rights. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has approved a rule allowing employers to coordinate company health benefits offered to retirees with Medicare or comparable state benefits, without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The rule means that employers do not have to ensure that Medicare eligible retirees are receiving the same benefits as younger retirees.

EEOC had earlier adopted an enforcement position that health insurance benefits received by Medicare-eligible retirees be the same, or cost the same, as health plan benefits received by younger retirees. The agency reversed itself after employers, labor unions, and state and local governments said this position would result in the reduction or elimination of retiree health benefits currently provided.

EEOC has issued a question and answer sheet clarifying the rule.

Employers who use employment tests and other procedures in making hiring decisions can refer to a  fact sheet issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  It provides technical assistance on how federal anti-discrimination laws apply to testing and other selection procedures, including background checks.  The fact sheet also includes recent EEOC enforcement actions illustrating what employer should consider in implementing employment tests, and some suggestions on employer best practices for testing and selection.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is warning employers about a bogus e-mail being sent to companies purporting to be from the agency regarding a harassment complaint. The phony e-mail contains links where the respondent can allegedly access details of a fake discrimination complaint, but will download a Trojan horse virus if the user clicks on the link. The EEOC says it only notifies employers of discrimination charges via the U.S. Postal system, never through e-mail.

The new Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination provides guidance and instructions for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations and analysis of charges alleging discrimination based on religion. The information in its previous compliance manual on religious discrimination is rendered obsolete.

The 97-page manual covers the definition of what is a “religion,” including “sincerely held” beliefs, and employer inquiries into “religious nature or sincerity of belief” if a religious accommodation is requested. The EEOC has also issued a companion “best practices” guide for employers outlining policies that help in reducing or eliminating religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Lockheed Martin Owes Record $2.5 Million to Settle Race Harassment Suit The monetary relief for former Lockheed employee Charles Daniels is the largest amount ever obtained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a single person in a race discrimination case, according to the agency. Daniels was subjected to a racially hostile work environment–including threats of lynching and the “N-word”—while working on military aircraft as part of a field service team, which included a stint in Hawaii. The EEOC charged that Lockheed had failed to discipline the harassers, even though it was aware of the unlawful conduct.

“This is a very good resolution because Lockheed Martin agreed to terminate and permanently bar Daniels’s harassers from employment,” says EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been barred by the D.C. Circuit from divulging confidential employer information to a third party until it can show that its disclosure rules do not conflict with various federal laws, including the Freedom of Information Act and the Trade Secrets Act.

In the course of its investigation of age discrimination complaints brought against the Venetian Casino Resort, the EEOC required submission of numerous documents that the company had marked confidential. The company subsequently sued for an injunction, contending that an EEOC rule permitting it to disclose an employer’s confidential information to potential plaintiffs without first notifying the employer that its information will be disclosed violated the FOIA.

The company’s concern was that competitors and labor unions would obtain confidential information regarding its hiring practices, which they could use to its economic detriment.

The D.C. Circuit found that the EEOC could not provide a reconciliation between its rule and the FOIA. “Absent an adequate justification, the Commission’s disclosure policy must be deemed arbitrary and capricious,” the Court holds, and remands the case to the district court to enjoin the EEOC from disclosing the company’s confidential information without adhering to the notice and other requirements of the agency’s regulations implementing the FOIA. Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC

According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has lost nearly 25 percent of its full-time equivalent staff between 2000 and 2007, and that within four years, all of its current senior executive and senior managers will be retirement eligible. The GAO points out that over the past four years, the EEOC’s private sector workload has increased by 10 percent.

“Factors that have contributed to the growing workload include the growth in the number of new discrimination charges, which have become increasingly resource intensive, and a decrease in the number of investigators,” the GAO reports. It says that the number of total charges handled per investigator has increased by 22 percent, the average number of days to close a charge increased by 34 days, and the number of open charges at the end of the fiscal year has increased by 82 percent. The GAO says the EEOC “lacks a systematic process to identify promising management practices,” and that its mandate to enforce federal antidiscrimination laws “could be compromised” if the agency cannot keep pace with its growing private sector workload.

The House Appropriations Committee recently approved a $350.4 million increase in funding for the EEOC, a $21 million increase above its fiscal 2008 level.

The guidance is intended to help in determining whether discrimination against employees with caregiving responsibilities is unlawful under federal law, says the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the EEOC, the guidance “is not intended to create a new protected category but rather to illustrate circumstances under which stereotyping or other forms of disparate treatment may violate” federal civil rights law or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Examples include treating male employees with young children differently than females with young children; reassigning new mothers to less desirable projects than new fathers; refusing to hire a worker who has caregiving responsibilities.

E-RACE (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) is a national campaign of outreach, education, and enforcement by the EEOC to eliminate workplace racism. Under the program, the EEOC will identify specific issues and barriers contributing to race and color discrimination, explore improvements in its processing and litigation of race and color cases, and enhance public awareness of such discrimination in employment, according to EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp.