In May 2024, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement made headlines, with numerous states challenging the recently updated EEOC harassment guidance and the EEOC cracking down on EEO-1 delinquent filings, while Starbucks’ labor woes continued. Read about the details below.
18 State Attorneys General Assert EEOC Transgender Harassment Guidance Oversteps
Eighteen Republican state attorneys general, led by Tennessee, have filed a lawsuit against the EEOC, urging a federal judge to revoke recently finalized workplace harassment guidelines related to gender identity. The guidelines, issued in October 2023 and finalized in April, mandate employers to use employees’ preferred pronouns, allow transgender employees to use restrooms matching their gender identity, and prohibit dress codes based on biological sex. The states argue that the EEOC overreached its authority by issuing these protections, which they claim extend beyond the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which held that terminating an employee based upon transgender status constitutes unlawful discrimination based upon sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. They further argue that the mandates contradict state laws and impose significant costs and irreparable harm. They contend that the EEOC lacks the authority to amend Title VII to include such gender identity accommodations, a task they believe should be reserved for Congress and the states. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti described the EEOC’s actions as a misuse of federal power that undermines constitutional separation of powers and local governance, particularly regarding gender ideology and privacy concerns in schools and workplaces.
The case is State of Tennessee et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 3:24-cv-00224, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
EEOC Files Lawsuits Over EEO-1 Reporting Noncompliance
The EEOC initiated a series of lawsuits this month against companies in hospitality, transportation, food service, and construction sectors for failing to report required demographic data about their employees. Federal law mandates that businesses with 100 or more employees must annually submit workforce data to the EEOC, detailing job categories by sex, race, and ethnicity. This data aids in enforcement, research, and employer self-assessment.
The EEOC’s actions target firms in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin, alleging noncompliance with EEO-1 report submissions for 2021 and 2022. Notable defendants include Transdev Services Inc., an Ohio-based auto parts dealer, and Primary Aim LLC, a Wendy’s franchisee. Despite notices, these companies failed to submit the required reports. The EEOC seeks court orders for compliance with past and future reporting obligations, with the 2023 EEO-1 report deadline looming on June 4.
The filings may signal a renewed effort by the EEOC to require employers to turn over pay information, and serves as a reminder to employers that EEO-1 reporting is more than a formality – the failure to comply can lead to legal consequences.
NLRB Judge Rules Starbucks Violated Labor Law by Banning Union Shirts While Allowing Other Logos
A National Labor Relations Board judge recently ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law by preventing workers at its Staten Island, New York store from wearing union shirts, while allowing other non-standard attire. Judge Michael Silverstein noted that Starbucks’ claim of a strict dress code was undermined by its acceptance of shirts promoting various causes, such as Pride and Black Lives Matter, and themed attire for holidays and events.
The ruling followed a complaint from Workers United, which represented the employees after their union vote in September 2022. The dispute intensified when store manager Michelle DeAngelo enforced the dress code against union shirts and stickers about store closures, leading to unfair labor practice allegations.
The judge determined that the restriction on union shirts and stickers violated the National Labor Relations Act, as these were union activities protected by law. However, he dismissed one allegation due to insufficient evidence that Starbucks enforced its dress code more strictly for union apparel compared to other non-uniform clothing.
The case is Starbucks Corp. and Workers United, case number 29-CA-305960, before the National Labor Relations Board Division of Judges.
Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.
Leave a Reply