EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination

EEOC Guidance on National Origin Discrimination

by | Feb 2, 2017 | Compliance, Hot Topics, Human Resources

Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance on national origin discrimination. National origin discrimination is discrimination because an individual is, or the individual’s ancestors are, from a certain place or has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a particular national origin group, including Native American tribes. A member of one national origin group can discriminate against a member of the same group. While many of the previous rules and regulations remain intact, new protections have been added.
One of the key changes is the addition of perceived national origin to the definition. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on the belief that an individual is (or the individual’s ancestors are) from one or more particular countries, or belongs to one or more particular national origin groups. The EEOC’s example describes discrimination against someone who is perceived to be from the Middle East, regardless of whether he or she is from the Middle East or ethnically Arab. It is also unlawful to discriminate based on association; for example, you cannot discriminate against an employee because the employee is married to, friends with, or has a child with someone of a different national origin or ethnicity.
Language issues are also emphasized in the new guidance. Specifically, business necessity and material impact on job performance are the only legitimate reasons for basing employment decisions on linguistic characteristics, such as accents. Applying uniform fluency requirements to a broad range of jobs or requiring a greater level of fluency than necessary may result in a violation of Title VII. The EEOC’s long-standing English-only guidelines, issued in 1980, provide that rules requiring employees to speak English in the workplace at all times are presumed to violate Title VII.
Title VII applies to all employment decisions, including those involving:

  • Recruitment
  • Hiring
  • Promotion
  • Work assignments
  • Segregation and classification
  • Transfer
  • Wages and benefits
  • Leave
  • Training and apprenticeship programs
  • Discipline
  • Layoff and termination
  • Other terms and conditions of employment

The new EEOC guidance reinforces and clarifies standing obligations of employers who may be in violation of Title VII if they implement discriminatory practices based on customer, client, or employee preferences. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Segregation of employees by protected class, such as one ethnic group working in back rooms while others are customer-facing.
  • Failure by employers to take steps to protect employees who are harassed by customers based on the employees’ national origin.
  • Failure to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities when a supervisor or employees engage in discrimination.
  • An employer may also be jointly liable with staffing firms that provide workers if the employer knowingly ignores discriminatory practices. Human trafficking that includes employer misconduct has been added to the definition of unlawful harassment.

The guidance includes “promising practices” for employers that are meant to reduce the risk of Title VII violations. This includes:

  • Avoiding word-of-mouth recruitment to attract a diverse applicant pool.
  • Establishing written criteria for hiring and promotion and applying the standards consistently.
  • Offering training in the languages spoken by employees.
  • Developing objective, job-related criteria for identifying the unsatisfactory performance or conduct that can result in discipline, demotion, or discharge.
  • Clearly communicating to employees through policies and actions that harassment will not be tolerated and that employees who violate the prohibition against harassment will be disciplined.

Employers should keep in mind that national origin discrimination is often intersectional; individuals can be members of two or more protected classes, such as race, national origin, and sex. Intersectionality can add complexity to discrimination claims.
On the heels of an acrimonious election that has frequently placed national origin in the spotlight, employers should revisit workplace practices, including talent acquisition policies, training and development protocols, anti-harassment training, and complaint resolution practices.

By Nancy Bourque, Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors

Department of Labor Form 5500’s Time-Intensive and Expensive Reporting Requirements Painful for Small Employers

Department of Labor Form 5500’s Time-Intensive and Expensive Reporting Requirements Painful for Small Employers

by | Jan 18, 2017 | ACA, Compliance, ERISA

Proposed regulations for revising and greatly expanding the Department of Labor (DOL) Form 5500 reporting are set to take effect in 2019. Currently, the non-retirement plan reporting is limited to those employers that have more than 100 employees enrolled on their benefit plans, or those in a self-funded trust. The filings must be completed on the DOL EFAST2 system within 210 days following the end of the plan year.
What does this expanded number of businesses required to report look like? According to the 2016 United Benefit Advisors (UBA) Health Plan Survey, less than 18 percent of employers offering medical plans are required to report right now. With the expanded requirements of 5500 reporting, this would require the just over 82 percent of employers not reporting now to comply with the new mandate.
While the information reported is not typically difficult to gather, it is a time-intensive task. In addition to the usual information about the carrier’s name, address, total premium, and payments to an agent or broker, employers will now be required to provide detailed benefit plan information such as deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, coinsurance and copay amounts, among other items. Currently, insurance carriers and third party administrators must produce information needed on scheduled forms. However, an employer’s plan year as filed in their ERISA Summary Plan Description, might not match up to the renewal year with the insurance carrier. There are times when these schedule forms must be requested repeatedly in order to receive the correct dates of the plan year for filing.
In the early 1990s small employers offering a Section 125 plan were required to fill out a 5500 form with a very simple 5500 schedule form. Most small employers did not know about the filing, so noncompliance ran very high. The small employer filings were stopped mainly because the DOL did not have adequate resources to review or tabulate the information.
While electronic filing makes the process easier to tabulate the information received from companies, is it really needed? Likely not, given the expense it will require in additional compliance costs for small employers. With the current information gathered on the forms, the least expensive service is typically $500 annually for one filing. Employers without an ERISA required summary plan description (SPD) in a wrap-style document, would be required to do a separate filing based on each line of coverage. If an employer offers medical, dental, vision and life insurance, it would need to complete four separate filings. Of course, with the expanded information required if the proposed regulations hold, it is anticipated that those offering Form 5500 filing services would need to increase with the additional amount of information to be entered. In order to compensate for the additional information, those fees could more than double. Of course, that also doesn’t account for the time required to gather all the data and make sure it is correct. It is at the very least, an expensive endeavor for a small business to undertake.
Even though small employers will likely have fewer items required for their filings, it is an especially undue hardship on many already struggling small businesses that have been hit with rising health insurance premiums and other increasing costs. For those employers in the 50-99 category, they have likely paid out high fees to complete the ACA required 1094 and 1095 forms and now will be saddled with yet another reporting cost and time intensive gathering of data.
Given the noncompliance of the 1990s in the small group arena, this is just one area that a new administration could very simply and easily remove this unwelcome burden from small employers.

By Carol Taylor, Originally published by United Benefit Advisors – Read More