HireCentrix News Updates
Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in EEOC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. that will embolden "'The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"- EEOC's aggressive use of its investigatory powers to require production of evidence in a single employee charge that could support a more systemic investigation.
In Konica, a salesperson filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC alleging that, although he had been hired only eight months previous, he was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and then ultimately discharged due to his race. During the course of its investigation into the charge, the EEOC learned through information produced by Konica that relatively few African Americans were employed at the facility where the charging party worked or at other locations in the Chicago area. In addition, the information provided by Konica suggested to the EEOC that the majority of the African American sales persons at the charging party's facility were on the same sales team. As a result, the EEOC requested and ultimately subpoenaed Konica records relating to its hiring practices for sales personnel at all of Konica's Chicago-area facilities. Konica asked the EEOC to revoke the subpoena and, when the EEOC refused, notified the EEOC that it was refusing to comply. Konica argued that the hiring data was irrelevant to the charge, which was directed at terms and conditions of employment and termination. The EEOC then filed an application with the federal court for an order enforcing the subpoena.
The district court granted the EEOC's application and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Noting that Konica's relevance argument was "too narrow," the Seventh Circuit stated that "the Commission is entitled generally to investigate employers within its jurisdiction to see if there is a prohibited pattern or practice of discrimination." Because the charging party had alleged unequal terms and conditions of employment, the EEOC was entitled to see whether Konica's hiring practices "cast light" on the charging party's race discrimination complaint. In reaching this conclusion, the Court held:
Nothing in this record suggests that the EEOC has strayed so far from either [the charging party's] charge or its broader mission that it has embarked on the proverbial fishing expedition. The Commission has a "realistic expectation rather than an idle hope" that the hiring materials it seeks will illuminate the facts and circumstances surrounding [the charging party's] allegations of race discrimination.
The Seventh Circuit's Konica decision underscores the EEOC's perspective in investigating charges of discrimination. Yes, it is investigating the specific charge before it. But, the EEOC also has its eyes wide open looking for evidence that may suggest a more systemic pattern of discrimination. The facts of Konica provide an excellent example of how a single employee claim of a racially discriminatory termination decision can lead to an investigation of the employer's regional hiring practices. Another example of this kind of "investigation creep" can be found with respect to leaves of absence under the ADA. An employer who relies on a maximum medical leave of absence policy to support an employee termination can expect the EEOC to cast its net more broadly to see whether the policy is being enforced in a manner that systemically discriminates on the basis of disability.
In light of Konica, employers responding to EEOC charges of discrimination need to be mindful of the expansive nature of the EEOC's investigatory powers and to limit their responses as much as possible to the facts and allegations contained in the charge. Otherwise, they risk closing one small hole in the dam, only to later cause a much larger breach in the dam further downstream.
At PoterWright Mr. Brian Hall helps companies effectively manage their full range of workforce issues. He helps employers reduce their potential liability, risk and costs by providing preventative advice and counsel regarding day-to-day workplace issues. In addition, as editor of the firm’s employment law blog — Employer Law Report — Mr. Hall is constantly reviewing recent cases, legislation, and other employment law developments and helping our clients understand how these changes may impact their organizations.
When employment-related disputes escalate to litigation, Mr. Hall represents management interests in employment and workers’ compensation matters in both union and non-union environments. In fact, he devotes a majority of his practice to defending employers in litigation involving employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, allegations related to workplace injuries and occupational diseases (including employment intentional tort litigation), as well as claims arising under ERISA. Mr. Hall also has significant experience advising employers and litigating the enforcement of rights and obligations under non-compete agreements and laws relating to misappropriation of trade secrets.
As a Certified Specialist in Ohio Workers’ Compensation Law by the Ohio State Bar Association, Mr. Hall helps both state-funded and self-insured employers manage their workers’ compensation programs and defend against individual claims. Viewing workers’ compensation from a general employment law perspective, he helps employers understand how their approach to workers’ compensation is impacted by federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and ERISA and state law concepts addressing workers’ compensation retaliation and employment intentional tort.
Mr. Hall is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), the world’s leading association of privacy and security professionals. Mr. Hall regularly advises employers concerning workplace privacy matters, including medical privacy issues raised by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), maintaining the privacy and security of human resources data, and privacy issues raised by communication, internet, social media, location and other technologies.
Mr. Hall is listed in The Best Lawyers in America® in the areas of Employment Law and Workers’ Compensation Law and has been named an Ohio Super Lawyer® in 2004 and 2005 (Workers' Compensation) and 2010 (Employment Law).
Healthcare Costs grew a cumulative 138% between 1999 and 2010 and outpacing cumulative wage growth of 42% over the same period. Average employer costs for health insurance per employee hour rose from $1.60 to $3.35 during the 1999 to 2010 period. This almost 110% increase in average costs per hour was much larger than the 39% increase in average employer payroll costs per hour for these workers KFF
We have 412 guests and no members online