A core component of a federal contractor’s affirmative action plan (AAP) is the creation of a job group structure. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program’s (OFCCP) regulations state the “job group analysis is a method of combining job titles within the contractor’s establishment” (41 CFR 60-2.12). However, what does this mean? What is the best way to do this? Why does this matter?
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has struck hard against California’s high tech industry again, this time quietly settling hiring discrimination claims against California technology company—Splunk Inc., located in San Francisco, California. The $2.7 million settlement resolves claims by the agency that Splunk Inc. selected Asians and African Americans applicants less often for certain Technical and Administrative Professional positions. This case follows OFCCP’s recent high profile lawsuits against Palantir Technologies, in which OFCCP alleged the company’s hiring practices disproportionately excluded Asians, and Oracle America Inc., in which OFCCP alleged that the company disproportionately favored Asians, specifically Asians of Indian descent, when hiring.
On January 30, 2017, the Trump Administration released its Executive Order (EO), “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” an EO intended to cut regulations by removing two existing regulations for each new regulation enacted. The EO intends to “manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with federal regulations” through gradual attrition of regulation:
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) recently entered into a conciliation agreement with Crossmatch Technologies in Palm Gardens, Florida to resolve allegations of pay discrimination. As has been the case with other recent conciliation agreements, OFCCP did not issue a press release regarding this resolution. The conciliation agreement follows OFCCP’s recent filing of two administrative lawsuits alleging pay discrimination against Oracle America Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and is a good reminder pay discrimination continues to be an enforcement priority for OFCCP.
Now that the transfer of power has taken place in Washington, D.C., the only certainty the Federal government contractor community can count on is change. For OFCCP and DOL watchers, the extent of that change and the areas where it will be concentrated is up for debate, so we have summarized a few fearless predictions about what may come in the new year.
In 2016 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced revisions to the EEO-1 Report that will require most organizations to submit employee pay data to the federal government annually. The new requirement begins with the 2017 EEO-1 reporting cycle, and will be due by March 31, 2018.
Lynn Clements, Berkshire’s Director of Regulatory Affairs, and former policy advisor at the EEOC, explains what HR professionals need to know about the revised EEO-1 Report. This paper outlines what changed in the reporting requirements, what didn’t change, and what companies need to consider as the new reporting requirements are implemented.
At first glance, a banking giant and one of the world’s largest tech companies would not have much in common. However, both are federal contractors with multiple, lucrative contracts with federal government agencies, and both were sued by the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) on Wednesday January 18, 2017—just days before the new administration begins. Coincidence? Not likely.
According to a press release from Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), on January 12, 2017, LexisNexis Risk Solutions, while not admitting liability, agreed to pay over $1.2 million in back pay and interest to settle claims by OFCCP that it paid women less than men in Operational Leadership roles at the Company’s Boca Raton, FL and Alpharetta, GA locations. The Company also agreed to pay $45,000 in salary adjustments to women in Operational Leadership roles at its Boca Raton, FL location. Finally, the Company agreed to review their pay policies and to conduct a compensation analysis annually through the duration of the conciliation agreement.
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently published guidance to alert Human Resources professionals of the risks of entering into agreements with competitors about employment terms and to provide guidance for safeguarding against the violations. According to the guidance, when competing employers establish “no poaching” agreements for each other’s employees, it may be a violation of U.S. anti-trust laws.
Pay equality and “living wages” continue to be an important issue in the United States. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) the federal minimum wage has remained the same since 2009 at $7.25 per hour. Although federal rates have yet to increase, many states have started raising minimum wage rates on their own. If a state has a minimum wage higher than the federal rate, employers are obligated to pay the higher state rate. By January 1, 2017, 29 states plus Washington, D.C. will have higher minimum wages than the federal requirement.