EEOC Will Focus in 2013 on Hiring, Pay, Harassment
By Allen Smith

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) put all
its cards on the table in its new strategic enforcement plan, which
the commission approved Dec. 17, 2012. The plan noted that the
commission will focus enforcement efforts on hiring, pay and

So there shouldn’t be much guesswork among employers in
prioritizing their EEO compliance efforts for 2013 or, theoretically,
for the next four years covered by the plan.

The plan also identified three other enforcement priorities—
protecting immigrant, migrant and other vulnerable workers;
addressing emerging and developing issues; and preserving
access to the legal system. But these are more nebulous than the
priorities on pay, hiring and harassment, which Barry Hartstein, an
attorney at Littler Mendelson in Chicago, called a “triple play” that
“employers need to not ignore.”


The EEOC didn’t say which of its six priorities is the most important,
or claim to list them in order of priority. But Hartstein thought there
might be some significance to the fact that eliminating barriers in
recruitment and hiring was listed first.

Though the guidance mentions background checks only once,
Hartstein said it’s important to read between the lines and take into
consideration what the plan says in light of recent EEOC initiatives.
And its most significant guidance last year undoubtedly was the
much-publicized enforcement guidance on individualized
assessment of criminal conduct in background screening.

Hartstein said the agency is focusing on background screening
because it can play a pivotal role championing lawsuits in this area.
Few lawyers in private practice will touch these cases because of
the time and expense required to litigate them. He expects test
cases in early 2013.

The guidance on background checks discourages employers from
using blanket exclusions of individuals who have been convicted
of crimes, which employers are struggling with, Hartstein said. “The
guidance is clear as mud about what employers are expected to
do,” he remarked, saying more guidance from the EEOC and courts
is needed.

But employers should at least be consistent, he suggested. For
example, employers should consider whether they are ignoring
drug convictions against young white job candidates, writing them
off as youthful experimentation, but jumping to the conclusion that
the drug convictions of young black job candidates suggest
something more sinister, like drug dealing.


The one surprise in the strategic enforcement plan was its
inclusion of enforcing equal pay laws to target practices that
discriminate based on gender—a priority that didn’t appear in the
agency’s draft plan, Hartstein noted.

But it isn’t much of a surprise, he added, in light of the emphasis
President Obama has placed on unequal pay, such as signing the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act early in his presidency.

How quickly enforcement will come in this area is anyone’s guess,
Hartstein said, noting that the EEOC has filed only two Equal Pay Act
lawsuits in the last two fiscal years.

But employers should pay attention, he cautioned. This is one area
where the EEOC can show up at an employer’s door without a
complaining party through directed investigations and
commissioner charges, which the strategic enforcement plan
specifically encourages to fight pay discrimination.

Hartstein urged employers to conduct pay audits protected by the
attorney-client privilege, noting that fighting pay discrimination also
is a priority with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance


The last priority mentioned by the commission isn’t exactly new:
preventing harassment through systemic enforcement and
targeted outreach. In the last four years, a third of the agency’s
systemic discrimination suits challenged workplace harassment.

But settlements of harassment suits of all stripes continue to pile
up, Hartstein noted, highlighting the following EEOC settlements of
sexual and race harassment:

$8 million—Alleged sexual harassment claims involved 82 female
workers with payments ranging from $30,000 to $70,000 (EEOC v.
International Profit Associates, No. 01-CV-4427 (N.D. Ill. 2011)).
$2 million—Alleged sexual harassment by a fast food restaurant,
including teenagers, involving comments, innuendo and touching
(EEOC v. Sonic Drive-In, No. 09-CV-953 (D. N.M. 2011)).
$1 million—Compensatory damages awarded to 10 former McDonald’
s employees, plus outside monitor and hotline (EEOC v. Missoula
Mac Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00267-bbc (W.D. Wis. 2012)).

$11 million—Alleged hangman’s nooses, racial graffiti, comments,
harsher discipline and discriminatory work assignments involving
black workers by a freight hauling company (Brown v. Yellow
Transportation Inc., No. 08 CV 5908, and EEOC v. Yellow
Transportation Inc., No. 09 CV 7693 (N.D. Ill. 2012)).

Harassment is being targeted partly because it is “one of the most
frequent complaints raised in the workplace,” the strategic
enforcement plan noted. “Harassment claims based on race,
ethnicity, religion, age and disability combined significantly
outnumber even sexual harassment claims in the private and public

Another reason the commission may be making the fight against
harassment a priority is that this stand isn’t controversial.

The strategic enforcement plan showed the agency is taking steps
to not inadvertently stir up controversy in coming years by
directing its general counsel to get the full commission’s approval
before litigating cases likely to be controversial, such as recently
adopted commission policies.

The plan isn’t devoid of controversy though. For example, one of
the emerging issues it identifies is the coverage of lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex
discrimination provisions.

Though important, the EEOC’s national priorities aren’t the be-all
and end-all in EEO enforcement. The strategic enforcement plan
itself notes that “local challenges demand attention as well” and
directed its district offices and regional attorneys to develop a
district complement plan identifying local priorities and how the
offices will implement the plan’s priorities.

Allen Smith, J.D., is manager, workplace law content, for SHRM.

Strategic Enforcement Plan
Hiring, Pay, Harassment *

The C-letter is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Please see