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

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.


BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

CLIENT ALERT: Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law

Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law As we head into 2018, you should be aware of some recent changes made in Ohio’s laws concerning Workers’ Compensation. These changes became effective September 29, 2017. Some will affect business more than others, but these are changes you should really know about.

Client Alert: NLRB Reverses 2015 Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Decision

The NLRB issued a 3-2 decision reversing the Board’s standard for joint employment in collective bargaining that it issued in the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. That controversial decision by the liberal leaning Board overturned years of precedent and significantly expanded the definition of joint employment. The decision spurred legislation (H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act) to overturn the expansive definition, and replace it with a far more narrow and proper definition of joint employment.

Ohio Court of Appeals Upholds Sanctions for Attorney’s Frivolous Conduct

On August 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District upheld a trial court’s order imposing frivolous conduct sanctions in the amount of $22,926.72 on a plaintiff’s attorney and his law firm in the case of Keith-Harper v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., --- N.E.3d ----, 2017-Ohio-7361 (11th Dist. Lake).

The Impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments on the Definition of "Substantial Limitation" Under the Ohio Civil Rights Act

The Impact of the 2008 ADA Amendments on the Definition of “Substantially Limitation” Under the Ohio Civil Rights Act