Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In what was a welcome decision for employers recently targeted by EEOC administrative subpoenas, on February 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to enforce what it deemed to be an “incredibly broad” administrative subpoena from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The decision — EEOC v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 11-1121 — resolved Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.’s two-year battle with the agency over an administrative subpoena seeking nationwide recordkeeping data.  The EEOC’s administrative enforcement powers stem directly from the agency’s broad legislative mandate to investigate systemic discrimination, the frequency of which has increased in recent years.  But, the Tenth Circuit’s decision is good news for many employers.  Not only does its decision confirm that the EEOC’s subpoena and discovery authority is, in fact, limited, but it also prohibits the agency from initiating “pattern or practice” discovery that is irrelevant to its current charges.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, there has been a significant amount of educated speculation about the effect of that decision on class action litigation in general and more particularly on class actions involving claims of employment discrimination.  Dukes is seen as creating an impassable barrier for class actions claiming discrimination in multiple locations based on excess subjectivity arising from decentralized decision-making.  Dukes instead focuses the inquiry on the existence and discriminatory effect of enterprise-wide policies such as an employment test or standardized performance criterion.  The question remains: what constitutes an enterprise-wide policy or practice?  This is a question that has challenged practitioners since General Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 n. 15 (1982), and before.

While “employees” have the right to form, join, or assist labor organizations under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), supervisors are not employees under the statute and do not have the same rights.  Under current case law, “supervisor” is interpreted broadly and employees who merely assign duties to other employees on a daily basis are statutory supervisors under the Act.  As expected and as we previewed in a prior posting, Senate Democrats recently announced new legislation that would narrow the definition of “supervisor” under the NLRA, increasing the number of workers eligible to join unions.

In several prior blog entries, we told you about the NLRB’s new requirement that employers post a notice regarding employee rights under the NLRA.  Employers have been following the story with interest.

Initially proposed by the NLRB in December 2010, the new posting tells employees about their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The new requirement initially had an effective date of November 14, 2011, but it has been delayed several times.  The NLRB first delayed implementation until January 31, 2012, to allow “for further education and outreach.”  Then, several industry groups and businesses filed federal lawsuits in South Carolina and Washington, D.C., challenging the NLRB’s Final Rule.  The groups argued the NLRB did not have statutory authority to issue the notice requirement.  While the lawsuits were pending, in the District of Columbia and South Carolina, the NLRB agreed to further delay implementation until April 30, 2012.

On February 28, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued additional guidance to wounded veterans and to employers under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  The two publications are revised versions of guides that originally were posted by the EEOC in February 2008. This guidance reflects another move by federal agencies to address the employment of disabled persons.  Last December, we reported that the OFCCP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would, among other things, establish a national utilization goal for individuals with disabilities. There is certainly more than one indication from the federal government that employers will likely continue to face heightened responsibilities concerning the employment of disabled individuals.

In its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658 (2009), the Supreme Court sought to resolve a conflict between the “twin pillars of Title VII,” the Act’s disparate-impact and disparate-treatment provisions.  Ricci involved a promotional examination administered by the City of New Haven.  After candidates took the examination, the City refused to certify the test results because of a concern that the test had a disparate impact on African-American candidates and would lead to the promotion of white candidates.

CONTINUE READING…

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) budget request for next year reflects its intent to increase aggressive enforcement.  The OFCCP, part of the U.S. Department of Labor, is the agency charged with enforcing the affirmative action obligations of federal contractors and subcontractors.   Approximately 25% of the American workforce is employed by federal contractors and subcontractors, whose federal contracts total more than $700 billion annually.  The OFCCP’s proposed budget for FY 2013 is now available online.