HR Unlimited, Inc

Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits (LA) Charged by the OFCCP for Hiring Discrimination – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/southern-glazers-wine-and-spirits-la-charged-by-the-ofccp-for-hiring-discrimination/

A routine investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits of Louisiana, LLC, systemically discriminated against black applicants in its hiring practices at its St. Rose warehouse facility. The company has entered into a consent decree to resolve the department’s claims.

An OFCCP compliance review found that, from January 2008 to January 2009, the federal contractor discriminated against 467 black applicants for warehouse worker positions in violation of Executive Order 11246. OFCCP also found that the company failed to keep complete and accurate employment records and failed to evaluate its selection procedures as required by law.

Read more

The post Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits (LA) Charged by the OFCCP for Hiring Discrimination appeared first on Affirmative Action | HR Unlimited, Inc..

http://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/southern-glazers-wine-and-spirits-la-charged-by-the-ofccp-for-hiring-discrimination/

OFCCP Files Lawsuit Against Google Inc. for Compensation Data – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/ofccp-files-lawsuit-against-google-inc-for-compensation-data/

The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit to require Google Inc. to provide requested compensation data and documents for the multinational company’s Mountain View headquarters as part of a routine compliance evaluation.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs asked the technology giant to submit information in September 2015 about its equal opportunity program and to provide supporting documents as part of a scheduled compliance review. As a federal contractor, Google must agree to permit the federal government to inspect and copy records and information relevant to its compliance with the equal employment laws administered by OFCCP.

Click here to read more

For more information, contact Ahmed Younies at 714-884-4610 or ayounies@hrunlimitedinc.com.

The post OFCCP Files Lawsuit Against Google Inc. for Compensation Data appeared first on Affirmative Action | HR Unlimited, Inc..

http://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/ofccp-google/

How Effective is the OFCCP? Part IV – The Conclusion – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/how-effective-is-the-ofccp-part-iv-the-conclusion/

Happy New Year! We start 2017 wrapping up our series on the Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s report of the OFCCP’s effectiveness in enforcing Affirmative Action laws and regulations. You may recall that the GAO in its recent report found the OFCCP to be exhibiting five areas of weakness. In the previous parts, we explored the first three areas. We will now discuss the last two. Since you likely have a lot of work to do upon return from your holiday celebrations, let’s not waste any more time. Here they are:

Reported Inconsistencies in Compliance Evaluations May Be Exacerbated by Lack of Training

According to the GAO, Compliance Officers are not receiving the necessary training to obtain, much less maintain, the skills necessary to conduct Compliance Evaluations. This too would tend to lead to inconsistent practices across offices. For example, the OFCCP in 2013 focused its training efforts on recent regulatory changes. OFCCP officials acknowledge that since 2013 they have conducted 23 staff webinars focused on these regulatory changes. The result: Compliance Officers lack access to essential, generalized training and knowledge that enable them to properly address many of the issues that arise during Compliance Evaluations. In fact, the GAO states in its report, that “compliance officers we spoke to in one district office were concerned that the lack of ongoing professional training limited their ability to correctly and consistently conduct compliance evaluations”.

What if anything has the OFCCP done to address this issue? In some offices, managers paired Compliance Officers with less expertise in some areas with more experienced Compliance Officers. While that is certainly a reasonable and sensitive approach, there is one glaring flaw here, too: This approach only occurs in some offices, it lacks the centralized, holistic effort needed, and therefore cannot address the reported inconsistencies in the manner that is truly necessary and appropriate. The GAO also pointed out that the training being given fails to address employees’ career development concerns, as well as needed skill-specific training.

In addition, the training the OFCCP has provided has not been timely. Agency officials stated that “budget constraints” have made providing timely training difficult. (This statement is curious in light of the fact that the OFCCP in the last few years probably experienced the largest budget allocations ever.) In half the regions the GAO visited, managers admitted that new Compliance Officers did not receive training. In one case, a Compliance Officer stated that s/he had been employed with the OFCCP for 8 or more months before receiving formal training. Compliance Officers in one district office specifically complained they felt unprepared to do their jobs.

Such a glaring deficiency leaves little wonder why the OFCCP’s efforts are at best inconsistent, and, in turn, why its effectiveness may be compromised. The GAO’s recommendation in this regard should therefore come as no surprise:

Provide timely and uniform training to new staff, as well as provide continuing training opportunities to assist compliance officers in maintaining a level of competence to help ensure quality and consistency of evaluations across regions and district offices.

Most Violations Are Resolved Through Conciliation Agreements

According to the GAO, between Fiscal Years 2010 and 2015, the OFCCP resolved 99 percent of its violations through Conciliation Agreements, in which the contractor agrees to take certain remedial actions to address the violation(s) in question. Those remedies may include injunctive-type relief, where a contractor is required to either refrain from certain practices deemed discriminatory or to implement certain measures, such as an applicant tracking system. Remedies may also include offering jobs to certain rejected applicants, back pay and other money damages.

Is there anything wrong with resolving violations through Conciliation Agreements? Inherently, no. The problem is if that is effectively the only remedy, then many cases will fall through the cracks. For example, what happens if the contractor does not live up to the commitments it made in a Conciliation Agreement? Compliance Officers are supposed to monitor and report progress in compliance with the Conciliation Agreement. When a contractor does not comply with a Conciliation Agreement, the OFCCP may begin an investigation. The GAO notes that “since 2010, OFCCP has referred a small number of cases to the DOL Office of the Solicitor for enforcement through administrative enforcement proceedings… Additionally, OFCCP may refer a case to the Office of the Solicitor in certain other circumstances, such as when an establishment has denied compliance officers access to information or their facilities. When referred a case, the Office of the Solicitor generally reviews the case and may take further action through administrative enforcement procedures.”

What happens then? Administrative sanctions can be imposed, up to and including debarment, where a contractor loses their contract and is ineligible to receive future federal government contracts. However, even the OFCCP admits that debarment is rare. In fact, on average, debarment happened less than once per fiscal year since 2010. The rarity of this remedy is reflective not of effective enforcement efforts by the OFCCP, but the OFCCP’s reluctance to use it. Why is that? According to the OFCCP, “because contractors who are debarred are no longer under OFCCP’s jurisdiction and not subject to the worker protection requirements the agency oversees.” Here too, it is easy to see where cases of either discrimination or other violations of affirmative action laws and regulations are falling through the cracks.

Oddly enough, the GAO’s remaining recommendations do not address this particular issue. It would seem, however, that the OFCCP needs to re-visit both its methods and its use of available methods. While it did not specifically name these as weaknesses in enforcement efforts, the GAO did include these last two recommendations in its report:

How Effective is the OFCCP? The GAO Answers – Part III – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/how-effective-is-the-ofccp-the-gao-answers-part-iii/

We started this series with an overview of the GAO’s findings as to the OFCCP’s effectiveness. Just to recap, here are the five areas of weakness found by the GAO:

Weakness in OFCCP’s process for selecting contractors for Compliance Evaluations makes it challenging to know the extent to which Equal Opportunity Requirements are followed;

How Effective is the OFCCP? The GAO Answers – Part II – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/how-effective-is-the-ofccp-the-gao-answers-part-ii/

The OFCCP selection process: an area for improvement

What exactly are the weaknesses in the selection process? According to the GAO, “OFCCP’s contractor selection process is nonrandom and does not produce a generalizable sample of contractors for evaluation”. The result, according to the GAO: OFCCP cannot draw conclusions about noncompliance risk in the overall federal contractor population, based on the sample provided by the number of Compliance Evaluations it conducts.

While the OFCCP uses neutral factors in its selection process, such as alphabetical order, employee count, contract value and contract expiration date, it is not able to identify which of these factors, if any, are associated with noncompliance risk due to use of nonrandom selection of contractors for review. The OFCCP therefore cannot state with any degree of certainty the extent of noncompliance by federal contractors, and does not really even know if it is focusing its efforts on those contractors at greatest risk of noncompliance. Even if the ACE method is itself inherently effective, it will not matter, if it is not targeting at those most at risk of non-compliance.

While OFCCP has tried developing a model for identifying factors associated with noncompliance, when put into practice that model did not prove to be useful. Why? According to OFCCP officials “the model was developed with a nonrandom set of contractor establishments selected from prior OFCCP compliance reviews”. OFCCP is reportedly working on developing a new model. It should come as no surprise, then, that the GAO’s first recommendation is as follows:

Make changes to the contractor scheduling list development process so that compliance efforts focus on those contractors with the greatest risk of not following equal employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements.

In plain English, the GAO seems to be saying, that the factors the OFCCP uses in selecting contractors for compliance evaluation are faulty, so therefore OFCCP should revise those factors. Since the report apparently offers no insight into how the OFCCP could or should do that, the recommendation, in and of itself, does not appear to be of much help. Hopefully, some additional guidance will follow.

In light of this finding, here are some proactive steps that federal contractors should take, sooner rather than later:

If you do not have an AAP, make sure to develop and implement one immediately. Not having an AAP is a surefire way to be found in violation of EEO/AA requirements if you are selected for a Compliance Evaluation;

Review your hiring, promotion, termination and compensation practices. Look for statistical disparities;

If you do find disparities, either take steps to address them or, if there are valid reasons for such disparities, document those reasons;

Document any steps you take to address any disparities;

Make sure you are compliant with all recordkeeping requirements;

Investigate any allegations of discrimination, document your findings, your responses and reasons for all actions taken or not taken in response.

How Effective is the OFCCP? The GAO Answers – Part I – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/how-effective-is-the-ofccp-the-gao-answers-part-i/

The OFCCP often projects a larger than life presence in the consciousness of many federal contractors. How can it not? For FY 2016, the OFCCP had an annual operating budget of just over $105 million and was authorized 615 full-time equivalent staff positions. While its staffing decreased from 755 authorized FTE positions in FY 2015 (an almost 19-percent decrease) its budget increased by about a half a million dollars. With its impressive budget and significant FTE authorization, with so many big-payout settlements of discrimination cases, with so many new regulations and data collection requirements, with seemingly so much stepped-up enforcement activities, it must really be making great strides in eradicating discriminatory hiring and employment practices by federal contractors. Not so, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, and its Subcommittee on Workforce Protections requested the GAO to review the OFCCP’s performance. To say the least, those reviews were less than stellar. Since we assume this topic to be of great interest to our readers, we will devote the next few weeks to a series on the GAO’s findings, its recommendations, and, of course, we will also include our own recommended Best Practices. First, however, let’s get some background.

You may be aware that whereas the OFCCP’s activities aimed at ensuring non-discrimination have included outreach and compliance assistance (with AA laws and regulations) it chose to refocus its efforts on enforcement as of 2011. So, in Dr. Phil language, “How’s that working out” for them? Not well, according to the GAO. In order to detect violations, the OFCCP relies heavily upon Compliance Evaluations (aka “audits”). According to the GAO, the OFCCP conducts compliance evaluations on about 2 percent of all federal contractors, annually. Since 2010 about 78 percent of all evaluations found no violations, and about 2 percent indicated discriminatory practices. Wouldn’t that just mean that contractors are doing a great job of complying with affirmative action laws and regulations? Not if the OFCCP’s means and methods are flawed – which, they are, according to the GAO. More on that in a moment.

The OFCCP’s two approaches to ensure compliance with federal EEO and Affirmative Action requirements are enforcement and compliance assistance. We have already established however, that the bulk of the OFCCP’s emphasis since 2011 has been on enforcement, primarily by conducting Compliance Evaluations, which it in turn carries out primarily by using compliance officers to evaluate contractors. The OFCCP selects which contractors to review and then reviews those contractors’ hiring, promotion, compensation, termination and other employment practices, including recordkeeping. The evaluation may occur at the contractor’s facility which produces the goods or services. The facility can be a factory, office or store.

How does the OFCCP determine who it selects for review? In general it uses federal and commercial databases, along with “other factors”. Regional and district office staffing levels establish the basis for determining total number of contractors reviewed each year within the jurisdiction of the particular regional office. Moreover, based on the location of the establishment(s) to be reviewed, the local district office receives the scheduling list of contractors located in its jurisdiction. From there, several facially neutral factors, such as alphabetical order, employee count, contract value, contract expiration date, among other factors, determine further allocation or sorting. Many of you are aware of this process. We include it here, because the GAO raises concern about the selection process, which we will discuss momentarily.

One more general point about the OFCCP’s enforcement efforts: whereas through 2010 the OFCCP’s Compliance Evaluation process had been known as Active Case Management (ACM) the OFCCP changed its process to one of Active Case Enforcement (ACE). Why and what’s the difference? Perhaps we can best find that answer in the OFCCP’s own directive outlining ACE procedures. According to the OFCCP, ACM proved to be of “limited utility” because it could not effectively use all of its investigating tools, such as offsite review of records. The OFCCP therefore implemented the ACE process, which requires more comprehensive evaluations of each selective contractor. Presumably, the ACE model allows for a more proactive, if not aggressive approach. The ACE process includes, without limitation, ascertaining the presence of indicators of discrimination or violations that warrant an onsite investigation. Indicators might include patterns of individual and/or systemic discrimination, patterns of major technical violations such as recordkeeping deficiencies and failure to maintain an AAP, in addition to statistical and anecdotal evidence of discrimination. (Item: In 2015, close to 85% of evaluated contractors did not submit their AAP within 30 days of the OFCCP’s request and, in some cases, received extensions).

The GAO concluded that significant weaknesses in the OFCCP’s enforcement efforts render the OFCCP unable to truly assess the extent of federal contractor compliance. With the budget and staff devoted to objectives that the Obama Administration has identified as a high priority, how can that be? What are those weaknesses? The GAO, in its report identifies five key weaknesses. We will list them here:

Weakness in OFCCP’s process for selecting contractors for Compliance Evaluations makes it challenging to know the extent to which Equal Opportunity Requirements are followed;

What the EEOC and OFCCP Want You to Know About Criminal Background Checks – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/03/what-the-eeoc-and-ofccp-want-you-to-know-about-criminal-background-checks/

What’s up with the EEOC, the OFCCP and criminal background checks? While the EEOC enforces anti-discrimination laws for private employers, and generally those who employ 15 or more employees, the OFCCP enforces affirmative action laws and regulations to which federal contractors are subject. Administering background checks to all applicants can’t be discriminatory, can it? If not, then why would employers even have to worry about the EEOC or the OFCCP when conducting background checks?

Let’s answer that question and some others:

Are former convicts a protected class under anti-discrimination laws? No. Certain practices, although themselves neutral, may, by “hurting” a disproportionate number of people protected under federal anti-discrimination laws, have a discriminatory impact. Those practices too would then be in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC, citing studies show that African-Americans and Hispanics have significantly more arrests and convictions, takes the position that blanket exclusions of all applicants with criminal histories therefore has a discriminatory impact on African-Americans and Hispanics. The OFCCP has specifically stated that it follows the EEOC’s practices, and in Directive 306, explicitly adopted the EEOC position and practices with respect to use of arrest and conviction records in making hiring decisions.

Why do the EEOC and OFCCP get involved in this practice? Many employers are surprised to hear that the EEOC has issued position statements since at least 1987 on this very issue. Based on this position, it began investigating complaints relating to use of background checks when hiring, and filing lawsuits long before issuing its latest Enforcement Guidance last April. Again, the OFCCP has long followed EEOC practices with respect to this and many other anti-discrimination laws and measures.

Does this mean that employers can no longer conduct criminal background checks? No! Employers can, and, in order to avoid harmful situations and negligent hiring suits, should, still conduct background checks. The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance attempts to provide employers with some additional guidelines as to how and when to use the information contained in criminal background checks in making their hiring decisions. Prior to issuing its Enforcement Guidance, the EEOC provided more basic guidelines (which the Enforcement Guidance has incorporated) by telling employers to consider the following factors with respect to applicants and their criminal backgrounds:

The nature and gravity of the offense;

Time elapsed since the conviction and/or completion of sentence;

Nature of the job held or sought.

Federal Law Alert: Annual EEO-1 Reports – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/federal-law-alert-annual-eeo-1-reports/

Pay Data Will Now Be Required on EEO-1 Reports for Employers with 100 or More Employees

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that it will require employers with 100 or more employees to submit summary pay data and total hours worked for the year as part of the annual EEO-1 report.

The first report, capturing data from 2017, will be due March 31, 2018. In subsequent years, March 31 will become the new annual deadline for EEO-1 reports—a change from September 30. As a result of pushing the reporting date from September to March, no reporting will be due in 2017.

On the new form, federal contractors and subcontractors with 50-99 employees will not report summary pay data or hours, but they will continue to report employees by job category as well as by sex and ethnicity or race.

Continuing with current practice, employers with 99 or fewer employees and Federal contractors and subcontractors with 49 or fewer employees will not be required to complete the EEO-1 report.

EEO-1 reporting of sex and ethnicity or race is based on counts taken during the “workforce snapshot period.” For reporting years 2016 and earlier, the “workforce snapshot period” was July 1 to September 30. Starting with the EEO-1 report of 2017 data, however, the “workforce snapshot period” will be October 1 to December 31. An employer may choose any pay period during this three-month “workforce snapshot period” to count its full and part-time employees for the EEO-1 report.

According to the EEOC, the new requirement is intended to help decrease pay disparities based on gender and race or ethnicity. The EEOC will use the collected data to help it investigate and identify unlawful pay discrimination. It will therefore be important for employers to ensure that they have systems in place to collect the required data and correct any pay disparities that cannot be explained by legitimate business factors.

For more information, contact Ahmed Younies at (800) 708-3655, x703, or ayounies@hrunlimitedinc.com.

The post Federal Law Alert: Annual EEO-1 Reports appeared first on Affirmative Action | HR Unlimited, Inc..

http://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/federal-law-alert-october/

An Overview of the Fair and Safe Workplaces Final Rules – HR Unlimited, Inc

https://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/an-overview-of-the-fair-and-safe-workplaces-final-rules/

Back in July, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13673, also known as the Fair and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. It is a comprehensive Order aimed at ensuring federal contractors’ compliance with fourteen—yes fourteen–federal labor laws, along with their state counterparts. Now, two years later, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council and the United States Department of Labor have published final rules implementing the EO 13673. The stated objective of the Executive Order and the implementing rules is to ensure that federal government agencies contract with “responsible” contractors. In other words, contractors subject to the Executive Order can face serious consequences, including loss of federal government contracts if they do not comply with the fourteen labor laws. (See below). The new rules are quite comprehensive. While we cannot possibly explore all of them here, we can at least get an overview. Let’s start with 4 of the 5 W’s (who, what, when and how):

Who is affected by the new rules? Federal contractors (and sub-contractors) with contracts valued in excess of $500,000.

What are the new rules? In a nutshell, the new rules, you must self-report any violations with the following fourteen federal labor laws and their state counterparts:

Fair Labor Standards Act

Occupational Safety and Health Act (and state law equivalents)

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

National Labor Relations Act

Family and Medical Leave Act

Davis-Bacon Act

Service Contract Act

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Americans with Disabilities Act

Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Executive Order 11246 (affirmative action and equal employment opportunity)

Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act

Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act

Executive Order 13658 (federal contractor minimum wage)

Anti-Discrimination Rules with a Twist: The OFCCPs Final Rules on Sex Discrimination (Part I of II) HR Unlimited Inchttps://hrunlimitedincblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/anti-discrimination-rules-with-a-twist-the-ofccps-final-rules-on-sex-discrimination-part-i-of-ii/ The OFCCPs Final Rule on Sex Discrimination took effect this week on August 15 2016. Many of you already know that sex discrimination has been illegal since at least 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was enacted. Pay Discrimination based on sex has been illegal since at least 1963. Most employers know they cannot base employment decisions and practices on sex. Yet the OFCCP has issued new rules on sex discrimination why? The OFCCP says its previous guidelines and regulations were outdated. The goals of this Final Rule: [H]armonizing OFCCPs outdated regulations with current Title VII jurisprudence and facilitating contractor understanding and compliance potentially reduc[ing] contractor costs and increase labor-market efficiency changes. Lets have a look those new rules then shall we? Here is what the Final Rule provides: Accommodations to workers with conditions related to pregnancy/childbirth: Required accommodations include without limitation extra bathroom breaks light-duty assignments in those situations where contractors provide similar accommodations to similarly-situated non-pregnant workers (e.g. individuals with disabilities). Fair Pay Practices: Most of you know that employers cant pay workers differently based on sex. What you may not know is what practices could actually constitute pay discrimination. Here are some: denying opportunities for overtime training higher-paying jobs based on a workers sex or based on assumptions about a worker because of their sex or gender stereotypes (not conforming to particular gender norms and expectations about their appearance attire or behavior). The new rules state these and other points clearly whereas the old rules did not. Under this Rule workers can recover lost wages whenever an employer pays wages resulting from discrimination and not just when the underlying decision is/was made. Equal benefits from fringe-benefit plans to male and female employees: Fringe benefits include without limitation medical hospital accident life insurance and retirement benefits as well as profit-sharing and bonus plans leave and other terms and conditions of employment. Forbids sexual harassment: Expand the scope of harassment training to include pregnancy/sex-stereotyping/child rearing/sexual orientation and/or transgender modules. As we know sexual harassment includes without limitation unwelcome sexual advances requests for sexual favors offensive remarks about a persons sex other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when the conduct interferes with the persons work performance forms the basis for employment decisions or otherwise creates a hostile working environment. Equal access to jobs and workforce development opportunities for men and women: Contractors cannot establish different requirements based on sex unless it can show that such requirements are a bona fide occupational qualification (this is a very high standard and therefore a very narrow exception). Different job requirements based on sex must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Protection for workers with caregiving responsibilities: This provision addresses the common practice of basing treatment on stereotypical assumptions that women are more likely to have caregiving responsibilities and then denying employment opportunities on that basis. It reinforces the prohibition against denying opportunities to any employee based on his or her sex. Conversely if a father requests flexible arrangements for caregiving it must afford those accommodations if it makes similar accommodations for working mothers. Protections for transgender workers: This does one thing that Title VII does not: it clearly states that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity. It also requires that workers be allowed to use bathrooms changing rooms showers and similar facilities consistent with their gender identity. It also explicitly states that contractors cannot exclude coverage for care related to gender dysphoria or gender transition. Protection against discrimination based on sex stereotypes: Contractors cannot discriminate in any way against employees or applicants who fail to comply with gender stereotypes about how men and women act or the types of jobs they should do. Protections for religiously affiliated contractors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): The RFRA allows religiously affiliated contractors such as religious corporations educational institutions or societies to favor people of a particular religion when making employment decisions and follows Supreme Court precedent which recognizes the First Amendments requirement of a ministerial exception from employment discrimination laws. The ministerial exception prohibits the government from interfering with the religious organization making employment decisions about its so-called ministers (this alone could probably be a separate topic). As you can see this Rule is fairly comprehensive. It not only takes Title VII and its amendments and cases interpreting those laws and incorporates them into one Final Rule it goes even further. How so? Title VII itself along with its amendments and along with most cases interpreting them is silent on the issues of gender identity and to some extent on gender stereotypes. We see here another example of President Obama using the OFCCP to advance those parts of his agenda that he has not been able to push through Congress and make all his employers subject to it. If you are a federal contractor what has changed for you? Theoretically nothing. Practically speaking the changes may be significant. This Final Rule gives the OFCCP a specific tool to use to go after contractors who continue to engage in sex discrimination. It also makes it harder for you as a federal contractor to claim you didnt know that certain behaviors constitute sex discrimination and puts more greater onus on you to ensure equal employment opportunities for men and women. Finally you cannot argue that the protections dont apply to transgender employees the way non-contractor employers might with regard to Title VII. Suppose you are not a federal contractor. Dont get complacent! The issue of protection to transgender employees will probably reach the US Supreme Court in the not-too-distant future. Moreover the fact that the EEOC and the OFCCP and the President (at least until the end of 2016) are on the same page on this and other sex-related issues does create some pressure to keep the tide moving in that direction. Therefore non-contractor employees would do well to get ahead of the issue by reviewing the Final Rule and acting accordingly. Are there specific steps you can take? Stay tuned as we reserve the right to cover that in an upcoming post! For more information contact Ahmed Younies at (714) 426-2918 ext. 1 or ayounies@hrunlimitedinc.com. The post Anti-Discrimination Rules with a Twist: The OFCCPs Final Rules on Sex Discrimination (Part I of II) appeared first on Affirmative Action | HR Unlimited Inc.. http://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/final-rules-on-sex-discrimination/