Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

While much attention has been paid this year to the EEOC’s agenda and litigation over criminal background checks (the agency asserts such background checks have a disparate impact on minority groups), a parallel challenge kept pace in the form of private class action litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). 2013 saw a number of significant class action settlements against both employers and consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) for alleged violations of the Act in the use of criminal background checks:

Employers' use of criminal background checks in the hiring process is creating growing exposure to liability on several fronts.

Please join us for a complimentary webinar on this topic:

Thursday, January 16, 2014

10:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. PT
(1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. ET)

Register Now

The government shutdown may have ended six weeks ago, but its impact may be felt for months to come.  The Office of Management and Budget recently released a report entitled “Impacts and Costs of the October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown,” which details the costs of the government shutdown and the impact it had on government workers, which in turn impacts the private sector workplace as well.

The “ban the box” movement continues to sweep through state legislatures.  These laws, which vary in terms of scope and detail, generally prohibit employers from requesting on applications information about applicants’ criminal histories.  Recent legislation in two states applies “ban the box” prohibitions to private employers in the state.

The EEOC recently settled a national origin discrimination case involving a “restrictive language policy” or “English-only rule.”  EEOC v. Mesa Systems, Inc., 2:11-cv-01201 (D. Utah 2013).  The employer agreed to pay $450,000.00 and to provide a variety of injunctive relief, including training, policy revisions, apologies, notice postings, and reporting to the EEOC.  The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan made it a priority to protect the most “vulnerable workers,” and Commissioner Jacqueline Berrien said the settlement is an important demonstration of a “renewed commitment” to that goal.  And, indeed: this settlement is the latest in a decade-long line of EEOC enforcement actions based on English-only rules.  See, e.g.: $2.44 million settlement with University of Incarnate Word (2001); $700,000 settlement with Premier Operator Services, Inc. (2000).

In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on November 4, 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the EEOC on the grounds that the agency’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions “purports to preempt the State’s sovereign power to enact and abide by state-law hiring practices.”  In particular, the complaint argues against the EEOC’s prohibition against blanket “no felons” hiring policies.  The Texas AG’s complaint highlights key failures and shortcomings of the EEOC’s recent investigative actions, and provides detailed examples of the “real world” effect of the guidance on the state’s hiring decisions.

On October 7, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the imposition of fees and costs against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in EEOC v. Peoplemark, Inc., Case No. 11-2582, for knowingly pursuing a meritless claim in which the agency alleged that Peoplemark’s criminal background check policy had a disparate impact on minority job applicants.  The EEOC recently has moved aggressively to enforce its April 2012 guidance regarding the use of criminal background checks in hiring.  That guidance appears to suggest that any criminal background check policy may be vulnerable to an EEOC enforcement action under a disparate impact theory—regardless of its terms and the manner in which it is implemented—solely on the basis of national data that show disproportionate rates of incarceration for African-Americans and Hispanics.  However, the Peoplemark decision, of which the EEOC presently seeks en banc review, also heralds an emerging pattern of judicial skepticism towards the agency’s enforcement tactics and its efforts to pursue disparate impact claims premised solely on national statistical evidence that is unrelated to any specific employer practice.

In a 2-1 decision, the Tenth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on its claim that Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. failed to provide an applicant with a reasonable religious accommodation and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Abercrombie.

EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Vance v. Ball State University: Narrow Definition of Supervisor in Harassment Suits
In Vance, the Supreme Court announced a narrow standard for determining which employees constitute “supervisors” for purposes of establishing vicarious liability under Title VII. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that a supervisor is a person authorized to take “tangible employment actions,” such as hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities. The majority opinion rejected the EEOC’s ...

In an article to be published this month in the Seton Hall University Law Review, Hunton & Williams partners, Terry Connor and Kevin White have challenged the authority of the EEOC to publish its April 2012 Guidance.  That Guidance interprets Title VII to impose disparate impact liability on employers who consider the criminal background of applicants for employment as a criterion for selection.

For 60 years psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have been using the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM) as the “bible” for diagnosing mental diseases and disorders.  Health and disability insurance providers  use the DSM in deciding what conditions and treatments to cover, as do government agencies in determining eligibility for benefits and services.  These and other factors make the DSM an unusually powerful document.

The latest DSM revision (the DSM-5) is set for release later this month.   It creates several new mental disorders and broadens the definition of a number of existing ones.  These changes will affect employers in a variety of ways, from expanded protection under the ADA and FMLA to increased benefit costs.  

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that it won what it describes as a “historic” verdict last week when an Iowa federal jury awarded $240 million to a group of intellectually disabled plant workers who were subjected to disability-based discrimination and harassment.  The award is the largest in the agency’s history.  The EEOC’s General Counsel, David Lopez, remarked that the verdict is “one of the EEOC's finest moments in its ongoing efforts to combat employment discrimination.”

The 2012-2013 flu season continues to take a toll on the workplace.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (”CDC”), this year’s flu season began four weeks earlier than most recent seasons and, as of the week ending March 9, 2013, flu season activity has remained elevated across the United States.  Having already taken the lives of 64 children, and with adult numbers  unavailable until the end of the flu season, many employers are considering the implementation of mandatory flu vaccination policies.  While such policies may serve business and safety needs of protecting their workplace and workforce, employers should ask themselves the following three questions before adopting such a policy:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) recently approved a new Strategic Enforcement Plan to establish national enforcement priorities and provide more transparency for employers who may find themselves the subject of EEOC investigations.  After soliciting public and internal recommendations, the EEOC approved a plan that identifies six specific areas in which the agency believes increased enforcement will result in the most change. 

On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  adopted its Enforcement Guidance: Consideration of Arrest - Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“2012 Guidance”), expanding on its 1987 and later policy statements to its field offices.

Continue Reading...

The EEOC is targeting pregnancy discrimination in several states.  The EEOC has filed a string of recent cases in an apparent attempt to crack down on workplace discrimination against pregnant women.  A California-based security guard contractor was recently sued by the EEOC on September 20 after it terminated a female employee when she tried to return to work after her pregnancy leave.  A week later, a Texas-based restaurant was also sued after terminating eight pregnant employees. The restaurant allegedly had in place a written policy that instructed managers to terminate pregnant employees three months into their pregnancies.  One of the fired employees was terminated pursuant to the policy even though her doctor had cleared her to work without restrictions until the 36th week of her pregnancy.   In another restaurant-related complaint, this one filed September 27, the EEOC sued a Florida-based restaurant in Panama City, Florida for terminating two pregnant waitresses.  According to the EEOC, the restaurant told pregnant workers that their pregnancies made them a “liability” to the company.  In a related matter, the EEOC is seeking an injunction against a Michigan juvenile detention center to prevent it from maintaining a policy that requires women to immediately notify the company when they become pregnant.

On August 20, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Seff v. Broward County, finding that premium surcharge imposed under Broward County’s employee wellness program did not violate the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it was part of a bona fide benefit plan.

The Seventh Circuit gave an unexpected answer when asked:  is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) the exclusive remedy for federal age discrimination?   Deciding an issue of first impression for that court, it said no.  Levin v. Madigan, 7th Circuit, No. 11-2820, August 17, 2012.   The Seventh Circuit is an outlier, as every other circuit to consider the question (the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and D.C. Circuits) has held the ADEA is the sole remedy for federal age discrimination claims.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held recently that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “pattern and practice” disability discrimination claims are subject to a 300-day limitations period, furthering a pronounced split among federal district courts on the issue.  In the case, the EEOC took the position that its pattern or practice claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act were not subject to the limitations period, or, in the alternative, that the employer’s violations constituted a “continuous violation” and the EEOC’s claims were, thus, exempt from the 300-day limitations period.  The court, however, agreed with the employer’s position that the EEOC’s claims were subject to the limitations period based upon the plain language of the statute.  The decision holds the EEOC subject to the same limitations period applicable to individual claimants in any Title VII context.

As the 2013 open enrollment season approaches, group health plan sponsors are trying to hold down health care costs.  Implementing a wellness program may be part of that effort.  The difficulty lies in designing a program that promotes wellness without running afoul of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC is appealing the recent decision in EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., et al., Case No. H-11-2442 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2012), which dismissed a complaint filed by the EEOC, and held that “firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.”  The District Court stated that even if the EEOC could prove that Houston Funding had fired an employee because she sought permission to pump breast milk at the office, the agency would not have a Title VII claim because lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

It is commonplace in employment litigation to learn that a charge by a single employee of a discrete violation of law has become the basis for broad and far reaching requests for information and documents or that the EEOC has filed a complaint for hundreds of employees it has not even considered in its investigation or in its attempts at statutory conciliation.

In what has roundly been hailed as a landmark decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held in Macy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012) that, although no federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity, transgender individuals may nonetheless state a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII.

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.

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.

On January 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its enforcement and litigation statistics for FY 2011.  The statistics show that the EEOC received a record 99,947 charges of discrimination and that, despite a record number of charges, the EEOC processed and resolved more charges than were filed, resolving 112,499 charges during FY 2011.  On the monetary damages front, the EEOC obtained $455.6 million in relief through EEOC mediation and litigation efforts, which represents $51 million increase from the previous fiscal year.

The EEOC recently voted to move forward on new regulations that will likely make it easier for older workers to bring disparate impact claims, and harder for employers to defend against such claims.  The EEOC is taking the position that employers have to prove their choices are reasonable when adopting policies that might adversely affect older workers, and the rules provide several guidelines for consideration.  In light of the new regulations, employers should revisit the factors used in making hiring, promotion, and termination decisions and take steps to minimize the use of subjective criteria and procedures.  Employers should also consider the likelihood that litigation costs may increase as more cases may survive summary judgment, and consult with legal counsel to determine whether additional precautions must be put into place to proactively address potential disparate impact issues.

Thirty-four percent of adults in the United States presently qualify as obese under standards adopted by the Center for Disease Control.  Morbid obesity (defined as having a body weight more than 100% over the norm) and obesity caused by a psychological disorder are "disabilities" as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), according to the EEOC.  Lawsuits involving morbid obesity are on the rise and come in many shapes and sizes.  The most common involves a “substantially limiting” health condition such as diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.  Others involve employers who assume an obese employee would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of him or herself or other employees if he or she were to carry out the essential functions of the job.

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information.  While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.

On September 28, 2011, an Illinois federal district court dismissed the putative class action claims brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) in a case where the EEOC alleged that UPS’s 12 month medical leave policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  (EEOC v. United Parcel Service Inc., N.D. Ill, No. 1:09-cv-05291.)

In the current economy, with unemployment over 9% and multiple applicants for every position, an out-of-work individual should be doing everything possible to get a new job, right? Perhaps, but not for purposes of “mitigation” under fair employment statutes.

On August 11, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that a fired employee alleging discriminatory discharge under Title VII had no obligation to enroll in vocational training in order to mitigate his damages from the alleged discrimination. EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., No. 04-CV-66300, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89466 (Aug. 11, 2011).

In March, we reported on the increasing attention that federal and state legislatures, as well as the EEOC, were paying to employers’ use of employee credit checks in employment decisions. At the time of posting, four states had laws regulating employer use of credit history data and fourteen additional states were considering similar measures. Earlier this month, Connecticut passed Public Act No. 11-223 regulating employer use of credit reports.

The EEOC recently released an informal discussion letter suggesting that employers may be obligated to do more than just maintain a separate file for employee medical records, especially when those records are in an electronic format. Both the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended, and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) require employers to maintain a confidential medical record, which is separate from the employee’s other personnel file(s), for information about the employee’s medical conditions, medical history or “genetic information.” The statutes do not, however, specify how such records are to be maintained or what level of security must be in place to protect the confidentiality of medical or genetic information.

By proposing to amend its Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is at it again, imposing greater burdens on federal contractors.  Following its recent proposal to strengthen contractors’ affirmative action efforts for veterans, the OFCCP has now issued a proposal to modify its Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing used in compliance reviews and compliance checks.  On May 12, 2011, the OFCCP published Notice in the Federal Registry requesting comments on its proposed changes.  The current Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing are set to expire on September 30, 2011.  Comments on the proposed changes must be submitted by July 11, 2011.

A recent Tenth Circuit decision sends a strong message that the court takes seriously the jurisdictional prerequisite that plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies in a Title VII claim prior to taking a claim to court.  The process to do so is well-known -- before an employee can file a lawsuit alleging discrimination against his or her employer, he or she must file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Requiring individuals to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit serves, hopefully, to eliminate facially meritless charges, facilitate internal resolution, and help avoid litigation.  This is often the case, as many charges filed with the EEOC never end up on a court’s docket.  But what happens if the parties are already enmeshed in litigation and the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s conduct during the course of that litigation is retaliatory?  Can the plaintiff amend his or her complaint to include that allegation?  Or must he or she go back to the EEOC and file a charge for that claim?  In McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc., the Tenth Circuit held that the latter is true.  No. 10-2151 (10th Cir. May 9, 2011).  The Fourth came down the other way in a similar case.

In recent months the federal government has announced a number of initiatives designed to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities in both the private and government sectors.  These measures send a clear message to employers: audit your practices now to ensure adequate outreach and accessibility to the disabled.

Disability discrimination claims have long been difficult for employees to pursue in court. Although employers are often grappling with reasonable accommodation and leave issues in the workplace, such issues have typically not spilled into the courtroom. One reason for that has been the difficulty in proving an employee has a “disability.” The final regulations issued by the EEOC in March 2011 could change all of that. The new regulations, interpreting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) expand the definition of “disability” and otherwise remove several impediments to pursuing lawsuits under the ADA. This should lead to an increase in ADA litigation.

During the past 50 years, the American workforce has changed drastically. One of the most noticeable changes has been the absorption of immigrants into the workforce who do not speak English as their first language.

In response to the increased linguistic diversity of the workforce, many employers have implemented policies that limit or completely prohibit their employees from speaking languages other than English while at work. These so called “English-only” polices may violate the national origin protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers that implement these policies are at risk of being sued not only by employees who feel wronged by the policy, but also by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A commonly used pre-employment screening method--conducting credit checks--has drawn increased scrutiny in recent months. Legislatures at the state and federal levels are considering bills that would limit employer use of credit checks. Moreover, two recently-filed lawsuits, one of which was filed by the EEOC, seek to challenge the use of pre-employment credit checks in hiring decisions. 

Only four states--Hawaii, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington--currently have laws regulating employer use of credit history data. Sparked by the downturn in the economy, fourteen additional states--California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont--are considering similar measures.

When an employer faces litigation following an unfavorable cause determination by the EEOC, it may seek to depose the EEOC investigator who made the finding. However, the scope of discovery obtainable from the EEOC is somewhat different from that available from a non-governmental third party. The EEOC may seek to quash a subpoena by asserting that the information sought is protected by the deliberative process privilege, which is available to the agency in addition to the more common protections of attorney-client privilege and work product protection.

Expanding on our December 21 post, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on January 11, 2011, announced that private sector workplace discrimination charge filings reached the “unprecedented level” of 99,922 during fiscal year 2010, which ended on September 30, 2010.  According to the data, all major categories of charge filings in the private sector, including charges against state and local governments, increased significantly.

The fiscal year 2010 was a record-setting year for the number of private-sector discrimination charges filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Nearly 100,000 charges were filed -- the most charges in the commission’s  45-year history.  This number represents an increase of just over seven percent from 2009, becoming the third consecutive year in which over 90,000 charges were filed.

With the closing of the first month of the federal government’s 2011 fiscal year, employers may be curious to know what the EEOC’s litigation landscape looks like.  For instance, what type of employers are being sued, and for what?  Importantly, what can employers learn from the EEOC’s litigation efforts?  A review of recently filed lawsuits that the EEOC has announced in its October press releases found that few claims have been brought under recently passed laws and only a small portion of the defending employers are Fortune 500 companies.

If an employee told you that a regular customer had a habit of making inappropriate sexual comments to her, would you think that your company could be liable to your employee for the customer’s conduct?  The answer is “yes,” your company could be liable.  A recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) serves as a reminder that employers may be liable for the harassing conduct of not only their employees, but also, non-employees such as customers, delivery people, copier repair personnel, and independent contractors.

According to recent federal court decisions, a shareholder, director, or other individual holding a similar position in a corporation may find his or her job status disqualifies him or her from legal relief under many state and federal anti-discrimination laws should such individual believe that he or she has been the subject of unfair treatment in the workplace. In Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., No. 09-4498 (3rd Circuit July 14, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a law firm shareholder was not an “employee” of the professional corporation protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

In a move sure to draw fire from Republican lawmakers and segments of the business community, President Obama on Saturday issued recess appointments to place controversial candidates on the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Presidents have constitutional authority to fill vacancies without the advice and consent of the Senate when Congress is in recess, as it is now.

For those who thought the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act had faded away, here is a wake-up call.  After more than a year since the bill was passed by the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is holding a new hearing on March 11 to focus on equal pay issues.

A new proposed rule by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provides new guidance in determining what constitutes a “reasonable factor other than age” in defending against a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The EEOC introduced the proposed rule on February 18, 2010 and is currently soliciting comments until Monday, April 19, 2010.

In an order issued on February 9, 2010, a United States District Judge in Iowa sent a stark reminder to the EEOC that its statutory obligations to investigate and conciliate Title VII claims are not to be ignored.  More than three years after the EEOC filed its complaint alleging systemic sex harassment, the court, in its February 9 order, awarded Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc. ("CRST") $4.5 million in attorneys' fees and $460,000.00 in expenses as a prevailing party, following a finding that the EEOC abandoned its statutory obligations under Title VII.

The Obama Administration announced on February 1, 2010, that it requested $385.3 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for fiscal year 2011.  In addition, the administration requested $162 million for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.  Significantly, the requests represent an $18 million dollar budget increase for the EEOC and a $17 million dollar budget increase for the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

The EEOC reported that workplace discrimination charges reached near-record highs in 2009.  According to the EEOC, there were 93,277 charges filed in fiscal year 2009 -- the second-highest level in its history. 

Recently a woman found out just how serious social media can be when she lost her benefits as a result of photos she had uploaded to her Facebook page.  She posted photos on her Facebook page that showed her having fun on vacation and also enjoying a “Chippendales” show.  The problem was that she was on extended sick leave from her job at the time, purportedly because she was suffering from depression.  Her employer’s insurance company saw the photos and discontinued her benefit payments, concluding that she was not unable to work due to depression.  She argued her doctor recommended that she try to have fun to help her forget about her problems.

Last week, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced the Department of Labor's planned launch of an ambitious new public awareness campaign called "We Can Help."  The campaign, set to debut in early 2010, is designed to help inform workers about their rights under federal wage and hour laws.

Title II of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) covering employment goes into effect on November 21, 2009.  GINA, which was enacted in May 2008, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information and from intentionally acquiring genetic information from employees or applicants.  The Act also imposes strict confidentiality requirements on employers, and requires them to segregate and maintain all such information in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

H1N1 flu has become as widespread as feared.  For the period of August 30 to October 24, 2009, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 12,466 confirmed U.S. H1N1 hospitalizations and 530 confirmed deaths.  The CDC attributes 1339 deaths to H1N1 since the outbreak began in the Spring.  The Countries that are experiencing the worst outbreaks are the US, Mexico, and China.

This public health crisis is expected to get worse.  Any employer who has not yet put together a pandemic flu plan should do so immediately.  The details regarding such a plan are contained in the April 2009 "Swine Flu Pandemic Preparedness" and the May 2009 "H1N1 Update" Client Alerts.

On July 15, 2009, the EEOC issued guidance entitled "Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements." In this guidance, the EEOC generally explains the waiver of discrimination claims through release agreements and answers questions employees may have about the effect of those agreements on the filing of charges of discrimination and on severance pay. These questions include the following: "May I still file a charge with the EEOC if I believe I have been discriminated against based on my age, race, sex or disability, even if I signed a waiver ...

President Obama recently nominated Victoria A. Lipnic for a seat on the five-member Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Lipnic is Republican, with an extensive background in employment law.  During the prior Administration, she served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards from 2002-2009.  In that capacity, Lipnic oversaw the Department of Labor’s largest agency, and led the teams that revised the Part 541 overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations.