Category Archives: EEOC

EEOC Adds Pregnancy Cases to Controversy

Just an update for those who are following the recent pregnancy-discrimination guidelines issued by the Equal Employment 490128943 -- pregnanct employeeOpportunity Commission — despite the controversy some think the agency created amidst the pending U.S. Supreme Court consideration of Young v. United Parcel Inc.:  The EEOC isn’t waiting on the high court before filing or settling pregnancy-discrimination lawsuits either.

According to the EEOC’s website, press releases were issued on nine lawsuits filed and two settlements since the agency issued its updated Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues on July 14.

Here, for your information — should you choose to venture into this much reading — are all the cases the EEOC has filed and listed on its website against employers accused of pregnancy discrimination since the guidance was issued, from most recent to oldest:

All the suits in question accuse the businesses of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

“I am surprised that this issue continues to be a recurring theme in the workplace in this day and age,” says Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, which filed the Pharmacy Solutions lawsuit. “We hope that by continuing to increase public awareness through our law-enforcement efforts, we will see more of an awakening by some companies about the right of a woman to hold on to her job and to earn a living when she is expecting and during her maternity leave.”

But critics of the EEOC’s assertiveness and timing in issuing its guidance — which was the focus of this HREOnline news analysis I wrote back in July — say adding cases to the pregnancy-discrimination docket only clutters an already-cluttered legal landscape.

“With its new pregnancy enforcement guidance still in its first trimester, the EEOC has set about vigorously pursuing companies that do not comply,” thereby filling the courts with more to work on as the Supreme Court hearing has yet to be scheduled,  says Philip Voluck, managing partner in the Blue Bell, Pa., office of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck.

“Since the EEOC first gave birth [pun intended, no doubt] to the guidance in July, it has inserted itself as plaintiff in at least nine federal-court lawsuits against employers [allegedly] discriminating against pregnant employees,” he says. “Each decision is accompanied by rather strong remarks from the [agency], which state quite clearly its intent to induce an ‘awakening’ by employers and erase ‘archaic prejudices’ still held by companies toward pregnant women.”

The issue up for consideration in Young v. UPS is whether an employer — in this case, UPS —  is required under the PDA to offer light-duty work to pregnant employees with restrictions, even if light-duty work is available for certain categories of nonpregnant employees.

“This is precisely the issue the Supreme Court has yet to take up,” Voluck told me back in July, “and that decision won’t come out until next year some time. “I honestly have no idea why this was issued at this time,” he said then. “A power move? I have no idea.

“It’s like the Perfect Storm, these two entities colliding,” he said, referring to the 2000 movie, “though my crystal ball tells me there’s no doubt the Supreme Court will expand the rights of pregnant women.”

Twitter It!

Employers Missing ADA Coverage in FMLA Cases

Employers are missing half of Family and Medical Leave Act cases involving employees’ serious illnesses that should also have been reviewed for Americans with Disabilities Act eligibility.

462011275 - disability and gavelThis according to Chicago-based ComPsych, in this report issued last week, June 24 to be exact, titled The Risk of Non-Compliance With ADA. The report breaks down by certain industries the percentage of FMLA cases that need ADA review, yet are being missed.

They include: retail at 13.2 percent, health services at 10.9 percent, manufacturing at 6.8 percent, public administration at 6.7 percent, trades at 6.5 percent and professional services at 5.9 percent.

These numbers, says Matt Morris, a vice president and licensed attorney at ComPsych, are “significant.”

“A common mistake employers make,” he says, “is to deem an FMLA leave request as ineligible, then not review it for ADA purposes.”

The potential consequences of such oversight “can be severe,” says Morris, “since one ADA misstep can lead to an investigation of the employer’s entire leave practices.” Hence the rash of recent ADA class-action lawsuits by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he adds.

Indeed, the EEOC is coming off a record 2013 in terms of ADA penalties paid out by employers, a whopping $109.2 mill. Here are just three of the most sizable payments: $6.2 million by Sears Holding Co. involving 235 plaintiffs, $3.2 million by SuperValu involving 110 plaintiffs and $20 million by Verizon.

I asked Morris for a good example of an ineligible FMLA leave that would be covered under the ADA. Here’s what he said:

An employee has been at the company for six months and breaks his leg. He needs time off for rehab and to recoup, but is denied FMLA leave because he hasn’t been employed long enough. In this case, the employer should still review for ADA accommodation.”

Basically any ineligible FMLA leave for the employee’s own health condition (obviously not for baby bonding, etc.) has the potential to be an ADA leave, he tells me. “Although a ‘serious health condition’ under the FMLA and a ‘disability’ under the ADA are both two different standards, they are each very likely applicable to a health condition that forces someone to be out of work,” says Morris. And while the FMLA requires an employee to have been employed for 12 months and worked 1,250 hours in the last 12 months in order to be eligible, the ADA has no such standard. So, an ineligible FMLA employee still may have an ADA disability.

Perhaps the most common ADA misstep is waiting for an employee to “raise her hand” to request an ADA accommodation specifically or by name, Morris says. Courts have been clear that the “notice requirements under the ADA are nearly identical to those under the FMLA,” he says, but employers often don’t recognize that requests for FMLA leave are “hidden” requests for an accommodation — i.e., leave — under the ADA.

Interestingly, he tells me, employers all share a common misstep, which is that the company created and tried to enforce a standard policy — strange, in part, because generally this is exactly what HR tries to do: create uniformity and equality.

“But … they don’t consider whether the leave should be continued on a case-by-case basis,” says Morris. Maybe the more important thing is to note how easily one mistake can turn into something broader. What can happen — and, in fact, has been the way most of these cases start, he says — is:

1) The employee has an adverse action taken against her (usually, she’s fired).

2) She files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (such charges are free to file, don’t require a lawyer, and often list several bases on which the employee believes she was discriminated against — for instance, race, sex, religion and then disability).

3) If the EEOC determines that, in that one case, the disability policy had a uniform cutoff — what it calls an ‘inflexible’ policy — it then uses its subpoena power to request the names of all employees who were subject to that policy (fired because they crossed that inflexible line).

4) The EEOC then sues on behalf of all, or most, employees subject to the policy and suddenly there are hundreds of plaintiffs.”

Thus far, this has only arisen because the policy was clear (“if you take more than X amount of time on leave, your job will not be protected”), but even if employers are detecting the right employees [for FMLA leave], they still have to have the expertise to apply such ADA standards as “reasonable accommodation,” “undue hardship” and “significant limitations (of a major life function)” appropriately.

So what should you be keeping top-of-mind? Here’s Morris’ caution:

Employers have been pining for three to four years for additional guidance from the EEOC on how to conduct the interactive process (how to determine a ‘reasonable’ amount of time, etc.). Chances are, given indications from the EEOC itself, the guidance will not come soon. Until then, employers will still be held responsible for appropriately applying these vague standards to a host of factors (e.g., What does the employee do? Could others help? Are there other jobs she could do? How long will the disability last? Are there things [you] can do to help reduce the time?)”

Hope this is helpful.

 

 

Twitter It!

Chamber Renders a Scathing EEOC Assessment

85449254 -- gavel and flagI have Michael J. Lotito’s LinkedIn group, Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, to thank for cluing me in to this latest blast against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that is so weighty with criticism, it comes in two parts: one, an examination of what it calls the agency’s “unreasonable enforcement efforts,” and two, a detailed review of its “unsuccessful 2013 amicus program, in which its legal interpretations were rejected by federal courts approximately 80 percent of the time.”

The conclusions of each part give a clear sense of just how scathing this assessment of the EEOC is. Here’s part one’s:

Combating discrimination in the workplace is a worthy goal and one that the Chamber supports. However … EEOC’s abusive enforcement tactics can no longer be ignored. While some federal judges are pushing back in some cases, EEOC clearly has not received the message. Moreover, relying on judges as the final check on EEOC enforcement is often a case of ‘too little, too late': by that time, employers have already spent significant time and resources defending themselves against unmeritorious allegations. In other words, even when employers win, they lose. The time has come for EEOC to adopt institutional procedures to provide for internal accountability, more efficient use of resources and adherence to its own statutory conciliation requirement. If EEOC continues to ignore the problem, then Congress should use its oversight authority to install much needed safeguards within EEOC.”

And here’s part two’s:

Whether EEOC’s 2013 amicus program’s success is measured on a pure numerical won/los[t] basis, or on the importance of the substantive interpretations of federal law it supported in its amicus efforts, one thing is clear: It was an overwhelming failure. What’s more, the courts’ rejection of EEOC’s underlying regulatory guidance leaves employers searching as to where to find accurate, reliable guidance on their legal obligations under federal non-discrimination laws. And, with a fully staffed Commission, several new guidance positions are possible on a broad range of topics including: wellness plans, reasonable accommodations, pregnancy and national-origin discrimination, and credit-related background checks. Of course, whether any future guidance would fare better than EEOC’s 2013 track record is unknown. However, if the best predictor of future performance is past performance, in light of EEOC’s 2013 amicus performance, it is unlikely.”

I contacted Christine Nazer, public spokesperson for the EEOC, to get her agency’s reaction to this hefty slap. Here’s what she had to say: “The EEOC’s litigation program is a critical part of the success of our mission to stop and remedy unlawful employment discrimination. By any measure, the EEOC has achieved a remarkable record at trial in recent years: We prevailed in nine out of 10 jury trials in 2013.  The agency also takes the concerns raised by members of Congress seriously, and will continue to work with them to ensure the nation’s workplaces are safe and free of discrimination.”

Still, as we report in our July-August HRE cover story, “Get Ready to Rumble,” which went live earlier today, and in last year’s June 16 cover story, “Watch Your Step!” the EEOC does, indeed, need to be reckoned with by employers and their HR departments because of its stepped-up enforcement tactics. And when it does come knocking, and it will, you and your counsel better be prepared with well-documented answers and proof of compliance.

Mind you, as the Chamber points out, and as many news stories and blog posts by us corroborate, including this one of mine on April 17, the agency hasn’t exactly been without its missteps in trying to carry that enhanced enforcement out.

But EEOC missteps haven’t stopped the agency from marching in and clamping down. At least, not yet.

As Merrily Archer — a Denver-based attorney, head of EEO Legal Solutions and a former staff attorney with the EEOC — put it in a recent blog post quoted by writer Will Bunch in “Get Ready to Rumble,” EEOC lawyers and human resource executives should ideally be acknowledging their shared goals in reducing discrimination — “but that level of peace and understanding is not likely anytime soon.”

Twitter It!

A Big Potential Win for Telecommuting

telecommutingJane Harris, a resale steel buyer for Ford Motor Co., suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and sought accommodation from her employer to work from home four days per week, as her job mostly involved contact with suppliers and co-workers via phone and computer. Ford denied her request and later terminated her.

Harris and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit against Ford, charging that the Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it denied Harris’ request to work from home as an accommodation for her IBS. The agency also charged that Ford’s firing of Harris was in retaliation after she filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination under the ADA.

A lower court ruled in the company’s favor, holding that attendance at the job site was an essential function of Harris’ job and that her disability-related absences meant she was not a “qualified” individual under the ADA. The court also said the EEOC could not prove Harris’ firing was retaliatory because it was based on attendance and performance issues that pre-dated her charge filed with the EEOC.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District reversed the lower court’s rulings on both counts and said that the EEOC’s claim against Ford has enough merit to go to trial.

EEOC General Counsel David Lopez hailed the ruling as “the latest in a series of cases ensuring persons with disabilities are allowed the opportunity to use their talents fully.” The court’s decision “reaffirms the employer’s important obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation unless it can show it results in undue hardship,” he said in a statement.

For its part, Ford issued a statement that seems to suggest it will appeal the decision:

“Ford is disappointed with the court’s decision, which conflicts with earlier rulings by this court and other courts. We are evaluating our options for further review.”

Pavneet Singh Uppal, an employment attorney and regional manager partner with Fisher & Phillips in Phoenix, told the Phoenix Business Journal that the ruling could mean telecommuting is a viable option for accommodating disabled employees:

Under the ADA, regular and predictable attendance is usually considered to be an essential job function. In prior years, attendance meant physically showing up for work in person. However, as this case shows, employers must respond to technological advances. … [Telecommuting] cannot be summarily rejected and must be considered as one possible type of reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee.”

 

Twitter It!

Another EEOC Setback in the Courts

I can’t help but think this latest slap on the wrist of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (as documented by HR Morning) will only embolden the agency.

121266265-soc media and hiringThat has been the sentiment after past EEOC court defeats, including this one I blogged about several months back.

In this latest case, a federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against Kaplan Higher Education Corp., claiming the company improperly used credit histories to screen job applicants.

The agency claimed Kaplan discriminated against black candidates applying to senior-executive, accounting and other financially sensitive positions. The EEOC, meanwhile, hired a third party to prove the credit checks had a disparate impact on black applicants, but the court found the third party’s research process — which included examining driver’s licenses to determine race, a technique it calls “race rating” — was flawed and unreliable.

What’s more, the court found, the EEOC was making charges about a background-check technique it employs. And that’s not all the problems found by the court.

As quoted from the ruling, care of HR Morning:

In this case the EEOC sued the defendants for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses.

… We need not belabor the issue further. The EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself.”

This piece from Forbes offers additional details and perspective about the case.

From my limited perspective, I’m starting to see enough of these failed EEOC prosecutions to think the agency might have better luck returning to the old days of helping employers comply rather than looking for ways — even paying third parties to find ways — to nail them.

Twitter It!

EEOC Shares Tips on Background Checks

handcuffsSome would argue the EEOC’s guidance on the use of criminal background check information offers more confusion than clarification for employers.

Critics—including a group of nine state attorney generals that penned a letter detailing its grievances to the EEOC—contend the agency’s regulations unduly burden employers with costs, could actually create more opportunities for discrimination, and may circumvent many state laws with respect to background checks for employment purposes.

The EEOC has made efforts to address such concerns. In September 2013, for example, the agency responded to the aforementioned letter, explaining its recommendation that employers use a two-step process for job applicants—including individualized assessment as the second step—rather than relying on bright-line screens alone.

Earlier this week, the EEOC—along with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission—made another attempt at shedding light on the subject, offering tips to employers and job seekers alike, in the form of two technical assistance documents.

The organizations issued the documents—one for employers, one for job applicants and employees—in an effort to “explain how the agencies’ respective laws apply to background checks performed for employment purposes,” according to an EEOC statement.

For example, the EEOC advises employers to “be prepared to make exceptions for problems revealed during a background check that revealed a disability. … If you are inclined not to hire a person because of a problem caused by a disability, you should allow the person to demonstrate his or her ability to do the job—despite the negative background information—unless doing so would cause significant financial or operational disability.”

The document also reminds organizations of their responsibilities before taking an adverse employment action, such as supplying an applicant or employee a notice that includes a copy of the consumer report the company used in reaching its decision, and a copy of “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”

The publication geared toward employers does contain some “helpful reminders for employers who pursue background checks on applicants or employees,” says Rachel Reingold Mandel, a shareholder in the Boston office of labor and employment law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.

The information presented in the document is especially useful in light of FCRA requirements “[losing] the spotlight recently,” says Mandel, “as the EEOC and state law anti-discrimination focus has gained traction.

“This publication helpfully reminds employers that it is important to both use background checks in ways that do not discriminate based on protected characteristics—race, color, sex and national origin, for example—and to follow [FCRA’s] technical requirements.”

Organizations and HR leaders “have worked to balance their obligations under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against their obligations under applicable anti-discrimination laws, including those enforced by the EEOC,” she says.

“This publication provides a helpful guide to the steps employers should follow to comply with both the FCRA and federal anti-discrimination laws,” continues Mandel, adding that employers would be wise to “keep in mind separate state-specific laws, including those that prohibit asking any criminal background questions on employment applications.”

Twitter It!

More Restrictions on Criminal-Background Checks

California appears to be the latest state to join the criminal-background-restriction bandwagon. A new law enacted last month amends the California Labor Code to prohibit public and private employers from asking job applicants about criminal records that have been expunged, sealed or dismissed.

gavel and handcuffs -- 162424875“The good news is that [the law] doesn’t break entirely new ground, but instead modifies existing law,” says Brian Inamine, a LeClairRyan labor and employment attorney and shareholder in the firm’s Los Angeles office, in this release about it. “The bad news is that it represents one more hurdle that businesses have to contend with.”

Indeed, as my Nov. 13 news analysis on HREOnline points out, the hurdles are racking up. To date, 43 cities, counties and municipalities, and 10 states have passed “ban the box” legislation for public-only or public and private employers, making questions about criminal convictions on job applications illegal.

What’s more, as that story points out, there’s still a lot of confusion about what’s required of employers under the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines on criminal-background checks.

Actually, as it says, nothing’s really required. There’s no federal law being dictated in the guidelines, but failing to follow them could lead employers to discrimination charges under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which the guidelines are based on. The EEOC maintains criminal-history checks disproportionately impact minority candidates. For a rundown of some of the events and issues leading up to the EEOC’s guidelines, take a trip here through some of our earlier blog posts.

Another recent news analysis of mine looks at an additional potential punishment, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that Disney recently found itself ensnared in. In a class-action lawsuit, Culberson vs. The Walt Disney Company, Robert L. Culberson claims Disney illegally barred him from employment by failing to provide him with the proper adverse-action notice — required by the FCRA when an adverse-employment decision is based on any portion of a background check.

In that case, Culberson’s background check showed a criminal conviction on a battery charge from 1998 — when he was 19 years old — that had been expunged from his record in 2010. He claims he was not given the opportunity to correct the information before the company decided not to hire him, nor did Disney re-evaluate his application after the background-screening company, Sterling Infosystems Inc., eventually removed the conviction from his record and issued a new report.

As the new California law reminds us, and as the sources in all these linked stories and posts underscore, make sure you know what criminal-background laws govern the jurisdiction(s) you’re in and — equally important — what other laws might come in to play should you fail to follow proper procedures.

 

 

Twitter It!

Is Anti-Unemployment Discrimination Going Global?

I received an interesting email the other day suggesting the European Union may be in the early stages of adopting legislation to classify individual unemployment as an equal-employment-opportunity issue.

134518530 -- unemployedActually, according to the source, Brussels, Belgium-based Ius Laboris, the suggestion is more like a tiny whisper, but it is safe to say the EU’s general directorate has expressed interest in passing pan-European legislation to classify individual unemployment as an EEO matter.

“In essence,” the email says, “this would mean ‘unemployment’ was a protected category on a par with race or religion, prohibiting employers and employment agencies from asking employees about their current employment status in a job interview, and creating the threat of legal action if a business was demonstrated to have discriminated against an applicant on the basis of unemployment.”

Not sure where this is going and/or in what time frame, IL’s spokesperson tells me. And though it comes on the heels of similar moves across the United States, it’s hard to tell how far the anti-unemployment-discrimination momentum will take us on this side of the pond either.

At the time I wrote this news piece on New York’s passage of such legislation, this is where things stood here: “New York City is only the most recent jurisdiction where legislative action has been taken to protect the unemployed. States that have already passed laws against such discrimination include Oregon (passed in March 2012) and New Jersey (2011). The District of Columbia passed a similar bill in May 2012. And as of May 2013, five states — New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Iowa and Minnesota — have introduced bills during the 2013 legislative session, with another 17 states considering doing so.” Sources tell me this is still the case.

Wondering how this trend will be impacted if the unemployment figures continue to suggest steady job growth, as noted in this Associated Press piece released Wednesday.

Whatever the case, I’m compelled to share with you HREOnlineTalent Management Columnist Peter Cappelli’s column from several years ago, advising against such discrimination because it simply doesn’t make business sense.

 

 

Twitter It!

Will the EEOC Be Updating National-Origin Guidance?

There were some good signs in a public meeting in Washington yesterday (Nov. 13) that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be willing to consider updating its guidance on national-origin discrimination issued after the 9/11 attacks.

177818736-- public meetingSuch is the gist of a blog post on Seyfarth Shaw’s Workplace Class Action Blog by Paul Kehoe, senior counsel in the employment law firm’s Washington office, who attended the meeting — aimed at hearing testimony about the challenges in today’s workplace related to national-origin discrimination, including English-only policies.

In a separate note about the meeting, Kehoe says the testimony “indicated some level of support for updated guidance from the EEOC.” He adds that, while it’s unclear whether the agency will actually revise the guidance, “an initial step to updating [a] guidance is to hold a public hearing.”

In his blog post, Kehoe describes some of testimony on both employer and employee sides:

Employer representatives suggested clarifying certain aspects of the current EEOC guidance and providing best practices, while fully considering employers’ legitimate interests and Title VII’s statutory intent. Advocates for workers suggested providing additional guidance narrowing the permissible instances where English-only policies would be appropriate and addressing ‘listener’or ‘implicit’ bias as it relates to customer preference and other issues.”

He also explains what’s at stake:

Currently, the EEOC’s guidance recognizes that claims may be brought under both disparate-treatment and disparate-impact theories of discrimination. Of course, in a disparate-treatment claim, the plaintiff would bear the ultimate burden of establishing pretext, while in a disparate-impact claim, the ultimate burden would fall on the employer to establish that the policy at issue was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Updated guidance would likely provide more context for the regulated community, but may ultimately make it more difficult for employers to comply with the EEOC’s view of Title VII.”

And in signing off, he provides some worthy employer caution:

Will the EEOC choose to update guidance in this area, which by Commission standards was recently completed in 2002, when there are other more pressing guidance documents to update? Only time will tell, but employers should review their language-related policies to determine whether they are in compliance with Title VII or if the policy needs additional consideration.”

 

 

 

Twitter It!

Religious-Discrimination Claims Rising

Muslim woman at workAccording to a recent Wall Street Journal piece, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 3,811 religious discrimination complaints last year.

While this number represents a dip from the record 4,151 religious-discrimination claims brought to the EEOC in 2011, the article notes that religion-based complaints have more than doubled in the past 15 years, and are growing at “a faster clip” than claims involving race, age, sex or disability, for example.

Part of this uptick “comes from employees—Muslims, Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists and others—who were denied requests to avoid work on Sabbath days,” according to the article. “Conflicts have also erupted over workers’ appearance, particularly in jobs requiring uniforms, involving food preparation and in image-focused fashion retailing.”

In September, for instance, New Albany, Ohio-based clothing chain Abercrombie & Fitch settled EEOC lawsuits involving two Muslim women and their hijabs, the veils typically worn to cover the head and chest of Muslim females. In one case, former employee Umme-Hani Khan said she was fired after an A & F manager said her hijab violated the company’s “Look Policy” dress code. The other suit alleged Abercrombie refused to hire an applicant who wore a hijab. Per the settlement, the retailer will inform applicants that exceptions to its “Look Policy” may be available, and must also regularly review its religious accommodation decisions and report to the EEOC twice annually.

Also in September, the EEOC sued Canonsburg, Pa.-based Consol Energy Inc., alleging the company pushed a long-time employee to retire after he objected to using a new biometric hand scanning device that tracks employee time and attendance. According to the claim, the employee repeatedly told mine officials that submitting to a biometric hand scanner violated his beliefs as an Evangelical Christian, and wrote a letter explaining the relationship between hand-scanning technology and the Mark of the Beast discussed in the Book of Revelation of the New Testament.

Earlier this year, the EEOC filed a suit charging that Star Transport Inc. refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.

Despite the growing number of religious discrimination complaints being brought to the EEOC, it remains a small number that actually reach the litigation stage. In fact, the EEOC filed nine religion-based lawsuits in fiscal year 2012, a drop from 15 in 2011 and 24 in 2010.

Still, settlements of religious discrimination claims such as those leveled against Abercrombie & Fitch often oblige companies to provide training and meet other requirements, as seen in Abercrombie & Fitch’s case. Other organizations may be wise to take note, as these settlements should serve “as a teaching example for other employers,” Jeanne Goldberg, senior attorney advisor with the EEOC, told the Wall Street Journal.

Twitter It!