Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

2020 EEOC Statistics – More Money and Fewer Charges

Client Alert
March 16, 2021

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its comprehensive report on the workplace discrimination claims it received in Fiscal Year 2020. The Enforcement and Litigation Statistics provide detailed breakdowns of charges of employment discrimination and resolutions under a variety of statutes. Here are the highlights:

Total Charges Filed

The EEOC’s FY 2020 ended on September 30, 2020, and the total number of workplace discrimination charges filed with the EEOC dropped to 67,448. This was to be expected with the number of workplaces that shut down in 2020. Also, the increase in remote work in 2020 reduced the prospect of inappropriate interaction among employees. It was somewhat surprising that the total number of charges only dropped by 7% compared to FY 2019. Nearly every measure of labor-statistics showed a decrease of at least 10%-15% in workforce participation.  

Total Dollars Recovered

The EEOC recovered $106 million in FY 2020 through litigation. This exceeded the total litigation recovery in 2018 and 2019 combined. The previous 10-year average was approximately $53M/year. The $106M was the largest amount recovered by the EEOC since 2004. Again, this was somewhat surprising based upon the limitations on the legal system and the conservative administration in place. Outside of litigation, the FY 2020 monetary benefit recovered by the EEOC was $333.2 million. The total recovery of $439 million was the most in the past 20+ years.  

Claims of Interest

For the 18th year in a row, Retaliation claims continued to increase. Retaliation remains the most common type of charge filed with the EEOC. In FY 2020, Retaliation was part of 55.8% of all charges filed, an increase from 53.8%. If nothing else, this stresses the importance for all employers to educate their supervisors, managers, and employees on the strict prohibition against retaliatory conduct.

Disability Discrimination was the second most common claim, with 36.1% of all charges filed, an increase from 33.4%. This is likely due to the expansion of the definitions of a disability and the requirements on employers to engage in an interactive accommodation process.   

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) claims increased by 110%, although they still make up around 1% of the total charges. This law is still in its relative infancy but may see another increase surrounding vaccination issues.

All other claims remained largely consistent. Race Discrimination modestly dropped to 32.7% of the charges from 33% in 2019. Although Color Discrimination increased to 5.3% of total charges from 4.7%. Sex Discrimination accounted for 31.7% of claims. Age Discrimination was included in 21% of claims. National Origin claims were approximately 9.5%. Religious Discrimination accounted for 3.6% of charges.

Employer Takeaway

In evaluating claims, the percentages will always add up to more than 100% because some/most charges allege multiple types of discrimination. 

It is important for employers to evaluate the types of charges as they create policies and educate their workforces. Too often, employers will focus only on sexual harassment training and policies and/or may include some discrimination training, but will overlook age discrimination, when those claims account for over 20% of the risk. The $439M recovered by the EEOC does not include any of the other litigation, arbitrations, informal resolutions, and severance packages that employers face in claims of discrimination and retaliation.

Obviously, the most significant risk to employers is a Retaliation claim. It accounts for the greatest number of claims, and results in the highest amount of damages and penalties. 

For additional information or to evaluate trainings, policies, and other risk mitigation measures, please contact Labor + Employment Law Member Jeffrey C. Miller, jcmiller@bmdllc.com or any member of the BMD Labor + Employment Team.

Labor and Employment LawJeffrey C. MillerEqual Employment Opportunity Commissionemployment discrimination
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts