DOJ’s Move to Protect Transgender Individuals

Even if you’re not a state or local public employer, you still might want to make note of the following news out of the Justice Department yesterday.

185232263In a memo to the DOJ’s component heads and United States Attorneys, Attorney General Eric Holder said the DOJ is now taking the position that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status, thereby clarifying the Civil Rights Division’s ability to file Title VII claims against state and local public employers on behalf of transgender individuals. Put another way, it will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex excludes discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender discrimination.

According to Holder …

“This important shift will ensure that the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extended to those who suffer discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status. This will help to foster fair and consistent treatment for all claimants.  And it reaffirms the Justice Department’s commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”

As most of you already know, the move follows a final rule released by the Department of Labor earlier this month that implements President Obama’s July 21 Executive Order 13672 prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment practices on the bases of gender identity and sexual orientation.

As might be expected, Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the Associated Press she welcomed the news. But she also noted that, rather than breaking new ground, “it mainly affirms a position the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been taking since 2012.”

Earlier today, I asked Thomas B. Lewis, shareholder in the Princeton, N.J., office of law firm Stevens and Lee, to share his thoughts on the move.

Lewis suggested private employers should pay attention to this, because the “natural progression” will be for these protections to be applied to the private sector.

“These protections already [exist now in some states, such as New Jersey] and I think it’s only natural that other states will follow suit with expanding discrimination protections involving transgender individuals,” he said.

“So if you’re a private-sector employer,” he added, “you have to look at this with an eye toward following the directives of the federal government and stopping any form of discrimination based on somebody’s gender identity and orientation, because it’s not healthy for the workplace environment.”

Twitter It!

Five Important Steps for Retirement

retirement reviewMercer has just released its annual “10 Steps DC Plan Sponsors Should Take” for the coming year, or things employers should do to ensure their defined-contribution plans are meeting the needs of plan participants while staying in compliance and taking advantage of recent innovations. Some of these recommendations include the usual about financial-wellness education, monitoring participants’ progress against their retirement goals, reviewing plan fees and checking up on providers to make sure they’re staying compliant.

Rather than list all 10 steps, I’ve focused on the five that address relatively new developments.

First, you should make sure your plan is responsive to participants’ retirement-security needs by studying the latest available options, such as services promoting Social Security optimization. You should also be prepared to “respond to favorable regulatory changes,” such as the increased guidance on the use of in-plan annuities.

Second, you should conduct an in-depth analysis of your current, or future, managed-account provider. Heightened scrutiny of such providers, including the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation to the DOL to conduct an in-depth review of managed-account providers, means you should be taking a close look at your processes for selecting and monitoring these providers.

Third, make sure the capital preservation option in your plan is still the most appropriate for plan participants. Capital preservation options such as money market and stable value options have an important place within the DC framework. Given the new fixed-income products that have arrived on the market within the last few years, along with the increased SEC regulations that will be placed on money market funds in 2016, now is a good time to review your plan’s offerings to determine whether they’re still meeting participants’ needs.

Fourth, think about what a disabled employee can do to keep current with his or her plan while out on leave.  As Mercer notes, when employees go out on disability, their DC plan contributions can take a hit. This causes a gap in participants’ retirement preparedness that, depending on their leave’s duration, they may never be able to fully close. However, new regulations that allow continued contributions during periods of disability could mean that such a gap is not inevitable.

And finally, # 5: keep an eye on liquidity. Last year saw major growth in liquid alternatives, says Mercer, such as diversified inflation and hedge funds. Exposure to options such as these is not new: Many target-date funds have some exposure to these options. Plan sponsors need to review how these liquid alternatives are defined, reviewed, implemented and monitored within the plan. Make sure these exposures are appropriate for plan participants based on what’s available on the market today, and determine whether or not additional exposure should be considered.

Twitter It!

Home (From Work) For the Holidays

empty cubeIt’s that time of year, when workloads lighten and the holidays are just ahead, and employees begin to cash in the blocks of paid days off they’ve been banking all year long.

At the risk of getting all Grinchy just eight days before Christmas, we invite you to take a look at SHRM’s new Total Financial Impact of Employee Absences Survey, which finds 75 percent of 1,280 HR professionals saying employee absences “carry hidden costs that can [affect] an organization’s productivity and revenue,” according to a SHRM statement.

That’s not all that surprising, and the survey was commissioned by Kronos Inc., which does provide workforce-management software and services, after all. So make of that figure what you will.

But one interesting finding from the survey, as this recent Washington Post article points out, is the difference in how United States-based HR professionals view the impact of unplanned work absences—defined in the survey as times when employees are sick, say they’re sick, or have to stay home to attend to personal matters—in comparison to those in other countries.

In the poll, 61 percent of U.S.-based respondents said unplanned absences increase stress for others in the workplace, while that number dipped to 54 percent and 51 percent in Australia and Europe, respectively. In addition, 48 percent of American respondents reported that unplanned absences hurt morale at the office, while just 36 percent and 31 percent said the same in Europe and Australia.

In an interview with the Post, SHRM Director of Survey Programs Evren Esen hypothesized that cultural norms in the U.S. may help explain these differing views of work absences—be they planned or unplanned. Indeed, as we’ve noted in the past, employees here in the States still aren’t guaranteed paid vacation time, and workers are sometimes hesitant to take advantage of the paid time off they do have available to them.

“There should not be a stigma for taking your vacation,” Esen told the paper, “but it’s evolved into that. And I think that’s [why] there may be a little bit of resentment or stress when others are out. ‘You’re taking vacation, or you’re sick, but I’m here and I have to deal with this.’ In other cultures, it’s more of an expectation that you take your time.”

Maybe it’s the eat, drink and be merry mindset that starts to take over around the holidays, but doesn’t it seem like maybe we should take a cue from these other cultures, and (finally) start taking a bit more time away from work?

Twitter It!

For Women, ‘Assertive’ Still Means ‘Mean’

We really haven’t come that far, fellow females.

Not when recent polls show too many women in business — whether by their own fault or by their being mislabeled — are still being 162892062 -- bitchy bossperceived as too gruff, too assertive, too downright mean when they’re in positions of authority.

When Lawrence Polsky wrote an article about “bitchy bosses” earlier this year, he garnered hundreds of responses, clearly touched a nerve and sparked a nationwide conversation about why women leaders are perceived differently than men, according to one release I read about the article .

“Ninety percent of the leaders I have coached over the past 20 years [have been] women,” says Polsky, managing partner at the Princeton, N.J.-based global consulting firm PeopleNRG.com. “I have found the reason they are called bitchy or some  version of that, by their team or colleagues, comes down to one thing: the perception of being ‘too’ assertive. It can also be a way for employees to undermine a woman leader they don’t like or are jealous of.”

Polsky followed his article up by polling 221 professionals on their perceptions of the article for a survey he appropriately titled “Bitchy Bosses” as well.

That poll found:

  • 76 percent of women reported having a “bitchy boss” in the past, compared to 64 percent of men;
  • 89 percent said it reduced team productivity;
  • 87 percent said they or someone on their team left their job because of it;
  • 79 percent said it made them less motivated to do a good job;
  • 62 percent of men said they were lied to by the boss, compared to 52 percent of women;
  • 36 percent told human resources about the problem, yet only 10 percent said HR did anything to help the situation; and
  • 15 percent called in an outside consultant, and of those, 79 percent said that didn’t help.

A recent post on this blog by Senior Editor Andrew McIlvaine supports this notion that we have a problem out there, women. His post describes, as one linguist uncovered through her research, “what seems to be a powerful bias against women who are seen as ‘too assertive’ in the workplace — and the bias seems prevalent regardless of whether the review was conducted by a man or a woman.

That research, which surveyed 248 performance reviews from 28 companies, showed women received much more critical feedback than men did. (About 59 percent of men’s reviews included critical feedback, while nearly 88 percent of women’s did.)

Some of the criticisms against women written in the reviews included: “Stop being so judgmental” and “You can come across as abrasive sometimes.” In fact, the linguist found the word “abrasive” was used 17 times to describe 13 different women, but the word never appeared in men’s reviews. (McIlvaine’s post also includes a link to an HRE piece addressing this.)

More recently, in her October column addressing the scuffle caused by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s comments on women’s pay, Susan R. Meisinger, our HR Leadership columnist, acknowledges this double standard in how we come across affects pay as well.

“Some women aren’t comfortable asking for more money,” she writes, “because they fear it will adversely impact how they are perceived. The fear may be valid: Research shows that both male and female managers are less likely to want to work with women who negotiate during a job interview, since women who press for higher pay are considered pushy.”

Boy, we really can’t win for losing, can we?

Of special concern to Polsky, from the research he did, is that HR doesn’t appear to be all that effective in mitigating the perception problem, at least as it concerns female bosses.  What this means, in his estimation, is that:

“HR cannot rely on hearing about a bitchy boss from employees but must be proactive to discover if the problem exists. [HR leaders] need to look for clues, such as a leader complaining to HR: ‘The people on my team are not stepping up to the plate.’  Another sign is if you sit in team meetings and many team members are very quiet. Both are clues that there is no space for the team to contribute. This points to the fact that either the leader hasn’t built trust or is eroding it.”

He offers these tips for dealing with this issue (as well as how he gave them to me below). If HR does hear about this type of behavior in a female manager or leader:

  1. Encourage employees to talk directly to the boss. Direct feedback is the most helpful for leaders to understand the impact they are having. Our research showed 43 percent of people spoke to their troublesome boss about the problem and about one in five said it helped improve the situation.

  2. If more than one person brings it up, then they need feedback. This needs to come from their manager, not HR.  Why?  If they are to turn this around, it could get messy before it gets better.  They need their manager on their side through the process, to make them aware of the perception problem. Often, these leaders are not aware of how they are being perceived.  Their manager needs to discuss the situation with them.

  3. Oftentimes, the team and the leader need support to move through this problem.  The leader needs help pulling back and being less aggressive while the team needs help being more assertive.  Most of the times I have been involved, the team needed to learn to be more assertive to push back on an overly assertive leader’s aggressive communication. What often gets forgotten, and what we always do, is help the team go through a process of open, honest dialogue with the leaders. This creates healing and forgiveness. Employees will forgive and move forward if they believe the leader is sorry and will change.

  4. If the leaders do not change, after six months of coaching and support from HR and/or a qualified coach,  then they need to be moved to a different position where they can thrive or be removed from their job.

Also, overlook it, he says, if it’s a one-off. If there is only one person complaining, make sure this is not an employee with an axe to grind. Check into it. “I have seen where an employee with an axe to grind gave anonymous feedback to make the leader look bad,” Polsky says.

Also overlook it if the female leader has been charged with implementing a new vision/strategy/approach. “Employees,” he says, “might be complaining because the leader is  pushing them more than the previous manager/leader/situation required.”

This notion kind of feeds into a piece by Mark McGraw, posted here earlier this month, suggesting there are times when “being a jerk” can be effective in business. Unfortunately, the researchers in his piece don’t address the “bitch” factor, only the multi-gender “jerk” factor.

I guess the million-dollar question that has yet to be answered is: Why are women getting the lion’s share of the “bitch” complaints? And (perhaps for Polsky to take on in 2015) what can HR do to even that score?

 

Twitter It!

About That NLRB Ruling

In a divided opinion yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that employees can use their company’s email system for the purpose of Section 7  union-organizing activities. The case was brought to the NLRB’s attention by the AFL/CIO, which brought a lawsuit against California-based Purple Communications over its policy banning employees from using company email for activities related to union organizing.

In ruling 3-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, the NLRB overturned its 2007 Register Guard decision, in which it gave companies the right to restrict employees’ use of company email for organizing purposes without eliminating their right to use work email for other personal purposes. The latest ruling is “responsive to the enormous technological changes that are taking place in our society,” the board wrote. The NLRB said its ruling is “carefully limited” and applies only to employees who have already been granted access to company systems for their own work. Employers are not required to let employees use work email for Section 7 activities, the Board wrote — indeed, it can ban work email from being used for these purposes during work- and non-work hours so long as it’s part of a total ban on non-work use of its email system.

However, Philip Miscimarra, one of the two board members who voted against the majority, said that technological advances mean that employees have plenty of electronic options other than company email for the purposes of union-related communication. “National uprisings have resulted from the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter,” he said.

Jeffery Meyer, a labor and employment attorney with Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, says the ruling “opens the floodgates for a full attack on employer property rights.”

“What this decision does is to provide unions and employees with a legal foundation to argue that Section 7 rights now trump an employer’s property right in almost any circumstance,” Meyer writes in a brief on the ruling.

Employers should review and, if necessary, revise their policies on electronic devices and instruments to take advantage of the “caveats delineated in the Board’s decision,” he writes. Although it’s a drastic move, “strict yet clear prohibitions and/or controls on personal use of company email systems could prove to be the difference in an organizing campaign where the union might not otherwise be able to contact the entire workforce.”

A company’s failure to revise its policies “could provide unions with a very useful tool to organize their employees,” writes Meyer. “Purple Communications serves as concrete evidence that a union will not think twice to use an unlawful handbook policy to its advantage in order to seek a new election should the employer win the first go-round.”

Twitter It!

A Blockbuster Hack

By now, I’m sure most of you are quite familiar with Sony’s data breach, which has occupied headlines over the past couple of weeks.

176217375As you might expect, much of the attention surrounds the hacker’s decision to post some of Sony’s yet-to-be-released movies, including a remake of Annie and a new film titled The Interview — a comedy about two American journalists who are recruited to assassinate North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. A group named Guardians of the Peace have taken credit for the cyber attack, but some have speculated the North Korean government could be the real culprit here, since it’s none too pleased with The Interview’s storyline. (Others doubt this is the case, and North Korea has publicly denied its involvement.)

Tom Kellermann, chief cybersecurity officer at the private security firm Trend Micro, told the New York Times after the story broke that “unlike stealth attacks from China and Russia, Sony’s hackers not only aimed to steal data, but also to send a clear message. ‘This was like a home invasion where, after taking the family jewels, the hackers set the house ablaze,’ ” he said.

Though it certainly has been well covered in the mainstream press, just a tad less attention has been paid to the non-creative information liberated from Sony’s computers—employee Social Security numbers, healthcare records, salary information and performance reviews. Sure, Sony isn’t the first to experience such an HR data breach, but there’s little question the scope and nature of the information made public (which includes salaries of executives) make this breach especially noteworthy.

I can only imagine the kind of disruption this is likely causing at Sony—and the toll it’s taking on productivity. Not to mention the financial toll it’s going to have.

I also have to think more than a few CEOs, after reading the various stories appearing in the press, were once again wondering, “Could something like this occur here?”

Yesterday, I asked Gordon Rapkin, CEO of Archive Systems, an HR-document-management firm based in Fairfield, N.J., for his take on what happened at Sony.

“My impression is a chunk of the Sony HR breach has to do with people there who kept things on their computers that shouldn’t have been kept there,” he said. What the field, he adds, calls “shadow files.”

What’s more, Rapkin said, the fact that all this information was unprotected and unencrypted and seemed to be available in the same trove that was pilfered is pretty surprising. “Usually,” he said, “[the information] is carved up in different systems and kept in different files—with salary information in one place, benefit information in another, and employment and performance in a third. But here, it looks as though all of this was accessible in the same place. That’s surprising, especially when you consider HR information represents some of the more sensitive data a company possesses.”

Lisa Rowan, vice president of research at IDC in Framingham, Mass., agrees. “It seems odd for [these] to be stored together,” she said.

At a recent records-management conference he attended, Rapkin said his company surveyed attendees on how many felt HR followed their organization’s information-governance policies. One-third of those queried, he said, responded that HR didn’t follow those policies and procedures. Hardly a vote of confidence.

Perhaps Sony is the latest company to get hit, Rapkin explained, but, he added, “I think the problem may be fairly common.”

(Looking for more thoughts about this topic?  You might want to check out “4 security takeways from the epic Sony hack.“)

Twitter It!

Does Being a Jerk Really Work?

work jerkA good leader knows when to be forceful and when to use finesse.

Of course, some have to fight their naturally aggressive impulses in delicate situations, while others must dig deep to find their inner Type A traits when the circumstances call for assertiveness.

A pair of laboratory studies outlined in a recent Journal of Business and Psychology article contrasted uncompromising approaches with more diplomatic methods in the workplace , and when each may be best, in terms of sharing and utilizing original ideas at work.

College professors Samuel Hunter and Lily Cushenbery sought to “investigate the relationship between lower levels of agreeableness (i.e., disagreeableness) and [the] innovation process, such as idea generation, promotion and group utilization, as well as potential contextual moderators of these relationships.”

Or, in plain English, the researchers essentially wanted to find out if being kind of a jerk helps one to spawn and advance ideas in the workplace.

The overarching theme emerging from both studies seems to be that obnoxiousness doesn’t necessarily give birth to brilliant ideas, but it may help coerce colleagues into buying what you’re selling.

That’s according to the findings of Hunter, an assistant professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University, and Cushenbery, an assistant professor of management and director of the Leadership & Conflict Research Lab at Stony Brook University.

In their first study, 201 college students completed personality tests before strategizing together, in groups of three, to develop a marketing campaign. The authors found no real connection between disagreeableness and the originality of ideas created, but did identify a link between unpleasantness and group utilization of ideas.

The second study placed 291 individuals in an online environment to examine the originality of ideas shared with group members after manipulating both feedback and originality of ideas generated by others, and to determine the effect that creative and supportive co-workers have on the sharing of ideas.

This analysis yielded results similar to the first, with the caveat that a bit of belligerence may actually be an asset in environments where new ideas aren’t exactly welcomed with open arms.

“Disagreeable personalities may be helpful in combating the challenges faced in the innovation process, but social context is also critical,” said Cushenbery. “In particular, an environment supportive of original thinking may negate the utility of disagreeableness and, in fact, disagreeableness may hamper the originality of ideas shared.”

Ultimately, “being a ‘jerk’ may not be directly linked to who generates original ideas,” added Hunter, “but such qualities may be useful if the situation dictates that a bit of a fight is needed to get those original ideas heard and used by others.”

Twitter It!

HO HO HO-liday Bonuses

It’s that time of year again!

No, I’m not talking about Christmas, but rather the annual tradition (depending on where you work, of course) of holiday bonuses.

Two new polls on the topic of holiday bonuses were recently released by Oklahoma City-based Express Employment Professionals. The polls show that, while cash tops both sides’ wish lists, there’s precious little consensus on other “shows of appreciation.”

In an online poll of more than 200 employees and job seekers, they were asked, “How do you wish your company showed appreciation to employees?” They responded:

Cash Bonus 27%
Pay Raises 13%
Days Off or Shortened Holiday Hours 9%
Gift Cards 5%
Gift Items Other Than Money 1%
A Holiday Party 1%
Other 1%
A Combination of the Above 35%

In a separate online poll of 400 respondents, business leaders were similarly asked, “What type of holiday bonus will you give your employees this year?” While 34 percent said cash, another 21 percent said, “We will not give holiday bonuses.”

In addition, of the 7 percent who chose “other,” 27 percent self-reported Scroogish answers such as “no holiday bonuses ever.”

What Type Of Holiday Bonus Will You Give Your Employees This Year?
Cash 34%
We Will Not Give Holiday Bonuses 21%
Gift Cards 12%
Other 7%
Extra Days Off    3%
Tangible Gifts 3%
A Combination of the Above 19%

“During the holiday season, it’s important for businesses to show their appreciation to their employees,” said Bob Funk, CEO of Express, and a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

“It can be disheartening for an employee to feel unappreciated, yet our poll indicates that more than a fifth of employers won’t give their workers anything this holiday season. You don’t have to be extravagant about your holiday bonuses, but it’s important to show recognition. As one respondent told us, ‘A thank you note will suffice.’ ”

So even if your company isn’t planning on handing out envelopes with cash in them this season, you should at least be preparing for some sort of expression of appreciation for your workers.

‘Tis the season!

Twitter It!

Would the Real CHRO Please Emerge

178125175 -- CEO, CHROWhen HRE Senior Editor Andrew R. McIlvaine posted here last month about a study written up in the Harvard Business Review detailing the similarities in traits between chief executive officers and chief human resource officers, I didn’t make the connection that hit me more recently.

His piece was about research from University of Michigan’s Dave Ulrich and Ellie Filler, a senior client partner in the Swiss office of executive recruiter Korn Ferry, examining “Why Chief Human Resource Officers Make Great CEOs.”

Turns out, according to that research, CHROs not only have traits closest to CEOs of all C-suiters combined, but the CEOs in the report, themselves, even agreed the CHRO could be a contender for their role.

Which got me thinking about an earlier report I had come across from Korn Ferry showing the two positions were as far apart as they could possibly be in a ranking of most-sought-after C-suite positions.

In that report, based on a survey of 1,055 executives, the three most desired C-suite jobs are CEO, chief operating officer and chief marketing officer. The least-sought-after? You got it, CHRO.

Interestingly, the top three most challenging posts, according to executives, are CEO, COO and chief financial officer. Least challenging? CHRO. In fact, here’s the table as it appears in the report:

Most Sought After C-Suite Position

Ranked as Most Challenging (1=most, 7=least)

CEO 87% 1
COO 86% 2
CMO 59% 4
CCO 47% 7
CIO 45% 5
CFO 36% 3
CHRO 25% 6

So what, you ask, is my “connection”? More of a curiosity, I guess. If so many executives want to be CEO and the quickest way to get there is through the CHRO’s office, then it’s puzzling to me that the latter job would be so ill-thought-of — and lacking in challenges, to boot.

Of course, as research goes — and often does — we may be looking at apples and oranges here, in terms of the specific aspects of the job being examined. Just interesting that both reports hail from the same firm.

The latter research, says Filler, takes into account the fact that many CHROs today report directly to the CEO, serve as the CEO’s key adviser and make frequent presentations to the board. And when companies search for new CHROs, many now focus on higher-level leadership abilities and strategy implementation skills.

“This role is gaining importance like never before,” she says. “It’s moved away from a support or administrative function to become much more of a game changer and the person who enables the business strategy.”

Hardly lacking in challenges and the kind of positioning that would make it highly desirable. Right?

Time will tell, I guess, just what the perception of the CHRO becomes, and how the specific and required traits and competencies evolve. Personally, I’m kind of excited to be along for the ride.

Twitter It!

Stopping ‘Sex Stereotyping’

After the Department of Labor announced a Final Rule prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors and subcontractors, employers are now being urged to revisit their policies to ensure they are in compliance with the new rule.

Connie Bertram, head of Proskauer’s Washington-based labor and employment law practice and co-head of Proskauer’s government regulatory compliance and relations group, says the executive order and implementing rules clarify the protections that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs had been extending, in part, “under a ‘sex stereotyping’ theory.”

“OFCCP’s revised Federal Contract Compliance Manual, which was released last year, instructs compliance officers conducting audits to examine whether contractors policies make prohibited distinctions in the conditions of employment based on sex-based stereotypes,” she says. “OFCCP has issued several notices of violation recently based on this theory.”

The rule implements Executive Order 13672, which was signed by President Obama on July 21, and is the first federal action to specifically address LGBT workplace equality in the private sector. It will become effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register and will apply to federal contracts entered into or modified on or after that date. More information is available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/LGBT/.

“Americans believe in fairness and opportunity. No one should live in fear of being fired or passed over or discriminated against at work simply because of who they are or who they love,” said U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. “Laws prohibiting workplace discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity are long overdue, and we’re taking a big step forward today to fix that.”

While 18 states, the District of Columbia and many businesses, large and small, already offer workplace protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees, but this rule first federal action to ensure LGBT workplace equality in the private sector, according to the press release announcing the rule.

“This rule will extend protections to millions of workers who are employed by or seek jobs with federal contractors and subcontractors, ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity are never used as justification for workplace discrimination by those that profit from taxpayer dollars,” says Patricia A. Shiu, director of the department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which will enforce the new requirements.

Bertram says it will be critical for contractors to update their internal and external policies, third-party notifications and affirmative action plans to include these new protected categories.

And, as with any protected category, she says, “it is critical to train managers concerning their non-discrimination obligations and to monitor compliance with the contractor’s anti-discrimination policies.

“It is not enough to ‘talk the talk,’ ” Bertram says. “[Y]ou have to ‘walk the walk’ to ensure compliance and avoid claims.”

Twitter It!