In a recent series of FAQs regarding student workers, the OFCCP answered the question of if students should be included in the Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs). The FAQs also provided guidance regarding who is considered a student worker.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has released a statement that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking comments on the process of applying for the Contractor Recognition Program-Disability Inclusion Award. This award recognizes the contractors and sub-contractor establishments that have achieved a level of excellence in their compliance with the regulations set forth in Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This program joins the HIRE Vets Recognition Program released by OFCCP last year and supports the agency’s stated goal of recognition of contractors “doing the right thing.”
It’s that time of year again. OFCCP is getting ready to release their next list of contractors who will be subjected to a compliance review in fiscal year 2019. The agency has indicated they intend to increase the number of audits this fiscal year to 3,500. These audits may consist of compliance evaluations, compliance checks, and focused reviews. This is the first time the since fiscal year 2014 that the OFCCP has planned to schedule more than 3,000 audits.
The EEOC recently announced a settlement with the cosmetics maker Estée Lauder for $1.1 million. The cosmetic giant was charged with discriminating against male employees by providing less paid leave and related benefits after the birth or adoption of a new child, than what was provided to female employees.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has charged Zachry Construction, a San Antonio based construction and industrial contractor, with violating a federal law that protects individuals with disabilities. The agency alleges the contractor violated this law when it fired several employees with disabilities. The contractor became aware of the employees’ disabilities during a post-offer medical questionnaire and subsequent medical examinations. Before their terminations, the EEOC claims these individuals were performing their job duties in a satisfactory manner.
The practice of hiring interns has become widely recognized across different organizations. Determining whether an intern is considered an “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been a troubling task for most organizations until now. The Department of Labor has recently updated Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs under the Fair Labor Act, and have adopted a “primary beneficiary test” that has been used by the courts to determine whether an intern (or student) is an employee under FLSA.
The EEOC has filed three lawsuits alleging gender-based pay discrimination in the D.C. metro area. The defendants were George Washington (GW) University, National Association for Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and Vadar Ventures, Inc. who acted on behalf of Total Quality Building Services. The suits were filed after pre-litigation settlements failed in all three cases. The GW and NAEYC cases were filed in the U.S. District Court of Washington. The Total Quality case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division). The EEOC is seeking back pay, compensatory, punitive, and liquidated damages, in addition to injunctive relief to discontinue the discriminatory practices.
On September 15, in Philadelphia, PA, a group known as The Women’s Law Project, along with a host of other groups, urged a Pennsylvania Federal court not to block a recent law which bars employers from asking applicants about their pay history. The coalition, with the belief the ordinance would address the gender wage gap without hurting any businesses, filed an amicus brief supporting the city’s opposition to a bid from the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia for a preliminary injunction to bar the law from taking place.
On August 31, 2017, a federal judge in Texas annulled the Obama administration’s controversial rule on expanding overtime practices to millions of “white collar” workers. The rule would have raised the minimum threshold requirements to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white collar” exemption to just over $47,000 per year and increase the overtime threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 per year to about $134,000 per year. Judge Amos Mazzant granted the summary judgment to the Plano Chamber of Commerce and other business groups that challenged the 2016 ruling. When the regulation was first announced, Texas, Nevada, and 19 other states also filed a suit challenging the rule. Their case was consolidated into the lawsuit filed by the business groups.