GINA (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) goes into effect this week, November 21, 2009. This law, signed in 2008, makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information
Genetic information includes not only information about an individual’s genetic test and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, but also information about any diseases, disorders, or conditions that someone’s family member has. The law includes family medical history because it is often used to determine whether someone has an increased risk of getting a disease, disorder, or condition in the future.
It is also against the law to retaliate against (i.e., take a negative job action or threaten) a person because the person complained about genetic discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination inquiry, investigation or lawsuit.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided guidance on the following GINA topics:
Genetic Information and Workplace Situations
Rules Against Acquiring Genetic Information
Confidentiality of Genetic Information
Genetic Information Discrimination and Harassment
Employment Policies/Practices
To learn more about GINA and these topics Click Here.
The law requires an employer to post notices describing the Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability and genetic information. .
EEOC has revised its “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. This new version reflects current federal employment discrimination law (including the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008). The poster was revised to add information about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which is effective November 21, 2009. The revised poster also includes updates from the Department of Labor.
There are several ways for employers to comply with the law:
1. Print the supplement poster and place it alongside EEOC’s September 2002 “EEO is the Law” poster or OFCCP’s August 2008 “EEO is the Law” poster.
2. Print and post the EEOC’s November 2009 version of the “EEO is the Law” poster.
Be sure that your Federal and State posters are placed in a conspicuous area in your workplace. If you need posters, they are all available to HR Made Simple members at no additional cost. Just type in posters in search and you will have immediate access to all Federal and State poster information.
On January 29th, 2009 the Lilly Ledbetter Act was signed into law. The act states that the 180 day statutory limit for pay discrimination starts with each discriminated paycheck received. The act was named after Lilly Ledbetter who sued Goodyear after claiming sexual harrassment and pay discrimination.
• During her career at Goodyear, Ledbetter suffered sexual harassment and day-to-day discrimination. She testified before Congress in 2007 that a supervisor once asked for sexual favors in return for good job performance evaluations. After Ledbetter complained about the supervisor to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he was reassigned, but Ledbetter said she felt isolated at work and experienced a long-term pattern of discrimination.
• Got periodic pay raises, but all compensation information was kept confidential at her company. She received a Top Performance Award in 1996.
• Shortly before she was due to retire in 1998, an anonymous co-worker slipped a note into her mailbox at work comparing her pay against that of three other male counterparts. Ledbetter was making $3,727 per month, while men doing the same job were paid $4,286 to $5,236 per month. Ledbetter filed a complaint with the EEOC and was then assigned to lift heavy tires, which she felt was retribution.
• Sued Goodyear, which claimed it paid Ledbetter less than other male workers because she was not a good worker. A jury awarded Ledbetter about $3.3 million, but the amount was later reduced to around $300,000. Subsequently, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that Ledbetter was not entitled to compensation because she filed her claim more than 180 days after receiving her first discriminatory paycheck.
After testifying before congress in 2007, the Democratic majority tried to get the bill passed several times along with the Paycheck Fairness Act, but they were always blocked by President Bush. Throughout this time, SHRM has continually taken issue with the measures outlined stating:
“SHRM adamantly opposes discrimination based on gender and believes any intentional misconduct against an employee should be promptly addressed and resolved. We also recognize that some court decisions have narrowed the scope of pay discrimination protections. As a result, we believe that it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to re-examine pay discrimination laws to determine if changes may be needed to restore protection under the law. However, SHRM opposes any efforts to eliminate the statute of limitations for filing claims or to limit legitimate employer pay practices. As a result, SHRM is opposed to both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.”
In a letter to their members, SHRM voiced their opposition to several bills being debated in the House titled the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay act. Acting as an update to the existing Equal Pay Act, the bills would create new mandates for employers as well as making it easier to suit for punitive damages. As a result of the nature of the bill, SHRM sent out a message urging members to contact their representatives to vote no based on the information below:
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – would eliminate the statutory time limit for filing pay discrimination claims.
The Paycheck Fairness Act – would prohibit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different geographic locations.
The House is scheduled to vote on both the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act by the end of this week.SHRM is urging members to let your Representative know today that these bills go far beyond reasonable, balanced approaches to address wage discrimination.
Background
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) – The Ledbetter legislation is a congressional response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.In that case, the Court held that the 300-day time limit for filing a charge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act starts after the alleged unlawful employment action, and does not re-start a new upon receipt of each successive paycheck
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would effectively eliminate the uniform statue of limitations on pay discrimination claims and restart the time clock for filing such a charge with the EEOC upon the receipt of each successive paycheck.The bill would also re-start the time clock when a retiree receives an annuity check from an employer, and would thus keep employers liable to a discrimination claim potentially decades after an alleged act of misconduct.The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12) – The Paycheck Fairness Act would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that jobs requiring comparable functions, skills, effort and responsibility in similar working conditions must compensate equally.Some stakeholders contend that the Equal Pay Act is not sufficient to remedy wage discrimination.While wage differentials remains an important workplace issue, debate continues over whether the differential is attributable to discrimination or the result of legitimate pay practices such as education, skill, experience, or tenure.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay.These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.
SHRM’s Position
SHRM adamantly opposes discrimination based on gender and believes any intentional misconduct against an employee should be promptly addressed and resolved. We also recognize that some court decisions have narrowed the scope of pay discrimination protections.As a result, we believe that it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to re-examine pay discrimination laws to determine if changes may be needed to restore protection under the law.However, SHRM opposes any efforts to eliminate the statute of limitations for filing claims or to limit legitimate employer pay practices. As a result, SHRM is opposed to both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
For more information on this bill visit GovTrack or the SHRM website.
Last year the EEOC reported that there were 2,880 religious discrimination charges filed with them, a number that has nearly doubled since 1992. In an attempt to curb this trend, the EEOC has a released a 94-page guidance manual to educate employers. The manual includes best practices for eradicating religious discrimination in the workplace as well as the specifics covered under the law.
Employer Best Practices
Religious Harassment- Employer Best Practices from the EEOC.
Employers should have a well-publicized and consistently applied anti-harassment policy that: (1) covers religious harassment; (2) clearly explains what is prohibited; (3) describes procedures for bringing harassment to management’s attention; and, (4) contains an assurance that complainants will be protected against retaliation. The procedures should include a complaint mechanism that includes multiple avenues for complaint; prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations; and prompt and appropriate corrective action.
Employers should allow religious expression among employees to the same extent that they allow other types of personal expression that are not harassing or disruptive.
Once an employer is on notice that an employee objects to religious conduct that is directed at him or her, the employer should take steps to end the conduct because even conduct that the employer does not regard as abusive can become sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the conditions of employment if allowed to persist in the face of the employee’s objection.
If harassment is perpetrated by a non-employee assigned by a contractor, the supervisor or other appropriate individual in the chain of command should initiate a meeting with the contractor regarding the harassment and demand that it cease, that appropriate disciplinary action be taken if it continues, and/or that a different individual be assigned by the contractor.
To prevent conflicts from escalating to the level of a Title VII violation, employers should immediately intervene when they become aware of objectively abusive or insulting conduct, even absent a complaint.
Employers should encourage managers to intervene proactively and discuss with subordinates whether particular religious expression is welcome if the manager believes the expression might be construed as harassing to a reasonable person.
While supervisors are permitted to engage in certain religious expression, they should avoid expression that might – due to their supervisory authority – reasonably be perceived by subordinates as coercive, even when not so intended.
Employers should inform employees that they will make reasonable efforts to accommodate the employees’ religious practices.
Employers should train managers and supervisors on how to recognize religious accommodation requests from employees.
Employers should consider developing internal procedures for processing religious accommodation requests.
Employers should individually assess each request and avoid assumptions or stereotypes about what constitutes a religious belief or practice or what type of accommodation is appropriate.
Employers and employees should confer fully and promptly to the extent needed to share any necessary information about the employee’s religious needs and the available accommodation options.
An employer is not required to provide an employee’s preferred accommodation if there is more than one effective alternative to choose from. An employer should, however, consider the employee’s proposed method of accommodation, and if it is denied, explain to the employee why his proposed accommodation is not being granted.
Managers and supervisors should be trained to consider alternative available accommodations if the particular accommodation requested would pose an undue hardship.
When faced with a request for a religious accommodation which cannot be promptly implemented, an employer should consider offering alternative methods of accommodation on a temporary basis, while a permanent accommodation is being explored. In this situation, an employer should also keep the employee apprised of the status of the employer’s efforts to implement a permanent accommodation.
It is important to remember that that religion extends beyond just traditional churches and sects. Religion now includes alternative beliefs, no matter how they are perceived by others.
The de minimis undue hardship standard refers to the legal requirement. As with all aspects of employee relations, employers can go beyond the requirements of the law and should be flexible in evaluating whether or not an accommodation is feasible.
An employer should not assume that an accommodation will conflict with the terms of a seniority system or CBA without first checking if there are any exceptions for religious accommodation or other avenues to allow accommodation consistent with the seniority system or CBA.
An employer should not automatically reject a request for religious accommodation just because the accommodation will interfere with the existing seniority system or terms of a CBA. Although an employer may not upset co-workers’ settled expectations, an employer is free to seek a voluntary modification to a CBA in order to accommodate an employee’s religious needs.
Employers should train managers to be aware that, if the requested accommodation would violate the CBA or seniority system, they should confer with the employee to determine if an alternative accommodation is available.
Employers should ensure that managers are aware that reasonable accommodation may require making exceptions to policies or procedures that are not part of a CBA or seniority system, where it would not infringe on other employees’ legitimate expectations.
For more information on other issues covered by the EEOC, visit their homepage or checkout the HRSentry libraries.