In my recent newsletter I reported that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issued a report to a House Subcommittee on December 3, 2009 outlining a number of efforts to renew enforcement efforts in the area of Title VII and Disability Rights. Here are two excerpts from that report that have particular relevance to public sector. I will continue to follow the reports and activities from this department and keep you informed.
Title VII
Restoring vigorous enforcement of Title VII, including pattern and practice cases, is one of our highest priorities. Since January 20th, we have filed three Title VII pattern or practice suits, obtained settlements in five pattern or practice cases that provided significant prospective and remedial relief, and opened ten full pattern or practice investigations of State and local governmental employers with respect to employment opportunities for African Americans, Latinos and women. Also, in July, we obtained a highly significant victory in U.S. v. City of New York, NY, when the district court granted summary judgment for the United States and plaintiffs-intervenors on the issue of liability. In the City of New York case, we challenged the city’s use of two written examinations for entry-level firefighters as having unlawful disparate impact on African Americans and Latinos. In the relief phase, we are seeking, among other things, priority hiring and monetary relief for nearly 300 African-American and Hispanic victims of the challenged examinations.
Disability Rights
The Division’s Disability Rights Section has been conducting a wide range of enforcement activities, including its Project Civic Access to increase compliance by State and local governments with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The Project sends investigators, architects and attorneys to conduct on-site reviews of State and local government facilities. These reviews have resulted in agreements reached with the State and local government entities to address compliance issues by rectifying access issues at a wide range of facilities, including administrative buildings, courthouses, police and fire stations and jails, transportation facilities, parks and recreation facilities, libraries, museums, polling places, and emergency and domestic violence shelters.
From, a sub-committee report by the Department of Justice “THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE”PRESENTED DECEMBER 3, 2009
Timken Company Sued by EEOC for Disability and Sex Discrimination
On another but related front, the EEOC has recently decided to file a lawsuit against Timken, a global manufacturer, for discrimination against a woman with a disabled child. This is a reminder to all that complaints may be filed because of a person’s association with a disabled person.
In the press release issued by the EEOC, Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office stated:
Under the ADA and Title VII, employers cannot make employment decisions based on stereotypical assumptions that a female employee with a disabled child would have to miss work or could not perform the job because the employee provides care for a disabled person.
The take home lesson here is to the same as always, develop job descriptions and clear hiring standards, be consistent and objective in your selection practices. Steer clear of questions that invite disclosure of information that is irrelevant to performance of the job. If a candidate offers information without prompting, do not tarry, but re-focus the discussion on job-related matters.
POLICY ON RELATIONSHIPS IN THE WORKPLACE
Organizations vary in the way they set policy around dating relationships dependent upon the size of the organization and the design of the work. However, for most employers, especially smaller size organizations, this is an important issue that is frequently overlooked in personnel policies. One potential problem is the relationship gone bad scenario which results in lingering resentments which lead to more insidious workplace problems, not least of which is the potential for harassment complaints. Another serious issue is the fall-out from two people who marry and continue working together which is not only bad for department morale but sets the stage for a whole host of conflicts within reporting structures.
Recently, I helped a client arrive at a policy that was minimal in nature, but sufficient to address the most serious aspects of this issue. Here is what we came up with:
Romantic relationships between employees in the same work unit, while not prohibited, may not interfere with the department business, and employees will be disciplined for any disruption to the workplace caused as a result of the relationship. Furthermore, if two employees enter into marriage, subsequent to being employed in the same work unit, one of the persons affected must give up his or her position no later than 6 months from the date of their announced engagement. Within 30 days after the employees announce their intentions to marry, both employees must inform (in writing) the manager to whom the unit in which he or she is employed reports that they intend to marry and must state which of the affected persons will relinquish his or her position. Should the written notification fail to specify which of the affected persons will give up his or her position, it will be assumed that the party with the least seniority (length of continuous service from the last date of hire) will relinquish his or her position. The person giving up his or her position may be re-employed in another department, subject to the needs of organization.
Any thoughts on this from your neck of the woods?
Twitter