david foleys blog

David Foley's Labor and Employment Law Blog

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

EEOC Charge Data by State Map

Following up on my last post, here is a map I generated of the per capita EEOC charges filed by state. The darker the state, the greater the per capita EEOC charges filed.



You can see that the above map is much different than the following map which shows total charges filed by state. The darker he state, the more charges filed in that state

The top map is based on the following data, which represents the percentage of charges in a state as compared to the value expected by its population. A couple of states, Maine, Montana and Vermont have too few EEOC charges filed to give an accurate rating on this map.


Alabama 209%
Mississippi 189%
Arkansas 183%
New Mexico 182%
Georgia 181%
Tennessee 163%
North Carolina 161%
Nevada 151%
Illinois 149%
Louisiana 145%
Arizona 142%
Oklahoma 142%
Indiana 140%
Florida 135%
Virginia 125%
Texas 124%
Maryland 124%
Colorado 124%
Kentucky 121%
Missouri 120%
Pennsylvania 106%
Kansas 99%
South Carolina 95%
Michigan 85%
Ohio 84%
Minnesota 71%
Hawaii 70%
Delaware 69%
New Jersey 64%
New York 61%
Washington 60%
California 60%
Wyoming 56%
Wisconsin 55%
North Dakota 48%
Alaska 43%
South Dakota 38%
Rhode Island 29%
Connecticut 26%
Oregon 25%
Massachusetts 25%
New Hampshire 24%
Utah 23%
Iowa 21%
Idaho 20%
Nebraska 17%
West Virginia 17%
Vermont 0%
Maine 0%
Montana 0%

Monday, May 21, 2012

EEOC Charges by State

The EEOC has recently released data of charges filed by state for 2011. As others, like Mike Maslanka  have noted, you can't try to read too deeply into the data because in some states there are more favorable state agencies for charging parties to bring their allegations. And furthermore, the EEOC put out its statistics largely as the percentage of the nations' charge total coming out of each state.   Because of the wide variation in state populations, such percentages don't mean a whole lot.  However, neither of these factors has stopped headlines from proclaiming that Texas led the nation in EEOC Charges.
It is true that Texas led the nation in charges with 10% of all filed in 2011. Of course, Texas is one of the largest states, and with 8% of the nation's population, it makes sense that it would be a leader in EEOC charges.

You can see the EEOC's full data set here. Below is a chart that I made based on that data. I have taken some liberties with it, deleting many of the columns and adding in a couple of my own to make for easier comparison. I left only those columns which show the percentage of national charges in each state and I added a column to the EEOC's data showing the percentage of the US population living in each state. That column is to gives context to the EEOC's numbers. I also added a column for the percentage of the minority population of the US living in each state. Again, this column gives context to the EEOC's numbers with the premise that, all things being equal, where there are more employees and applicants in a protected class, there are likely going to be more cases of alleged discrimination. For instance, you can see that while Texas has almost 13% of the nation's minority population, it only has 10.2% of the nation's race-based EEOC charges. Besides race, I do not know the extent to which other factors creating a protected class vary significantly by state. The number of employees hailing from foreign nations probably varies with state. I remember hearing that men outnumber women in Alaska significantly, but I don't think there is much difference in sex ratios in other states. It seems like disabilities shouldn't vary much by state.  States like Florida and Arizona have large senior populations, but that is largely due to retirement moves, so that shouldn't affect the EEOC charges significantly.  Religion would have state and regional differences, but I don't know how you would go about comparing it.



 

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Two Questions about EEOC Transgender Discrimination

Last week, the EEOC formally took the position that sexual discrimination under Title VII includes discrimination against on the basis of transgendered status.  In Mia Macy, the EEOC reversed course and expressly overturned its policy by deciding to investigate  an allegation of transgender-based discrimination.

The case involved Macy, who was a police detective in Phoenix and had applied for a job as a ballistics investigator with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in San Francisco.  Macy applied as a man and then had sex-change surgery while a background investigation was being conducted. Macy alleges that a job offer was revoked because the background investigator and the Bureau learned of the surgery.

In a sea change move, the EEOC adopted the position that "[w]hen an employer discriminates against someone because the person is transgender, the employer has engaged in disparate treatment 'related to the sex of the victim.'"  The EEOC reasoned:
This is true regardless of whether an employer discriminates against an employee because the individual has expressed his or her gender in a non-stereotypical fashion,  because the employer is uncomfortable with the fact that the person has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning from one gender to another, or because the employer simply does not like that the person is identifying as a transgender person. In each of these circumstances, the employer is making a gender-based evaluation, thus violating the Supreme Court’s admonition  that “an employer may not take gender into account in making an employment decision."
Of course this is just the EEOC's position on the matter and the courts will have the ultimate say in whether the EEOC is right. But, looking at the EEOC's definition, I am left to wonder about what exactly is unlawful in its view.

I think that the phrase "because the person is transgender" fairly clearly applies in circumstances where an employer does not hire someone because the employer thinks that a man should not wear women's clothes or go by women's names. In that situation, the employer is engaging in a sort of sex-stereotyping.  Similarly if an employer does not hire someone because he thinks that a transgendered applicant is acting in a way inconsistent with the employer's notions of how men and women should act, this seems to be sex-stereotyping.

1. On the other hand, what if the employer discriminates against the transgender person because the employer thinks that a person's willing, surgical removal of a healthy organ reflects poorly on the employee's judgment? This is not a motivation based on a sex-stereotype that "men should act like men and women should act like women" but rather a motivation based on stereotypes about people who have medically unnecessary surgery and or people who modify their bodies.  Whether the employer's inference is well-founded is beyond the point.  Most types of "body-modification" involve non-transgender modifications (tattoos, piercings, breast augmentation, etc) and no one doubts that at times, employers discriminate on the basis of those modifications.  My point here is that if an employer is, as the EEOC says, "uncomfortable with the fact that the person has transitioned or is in the process of transitioning from one gender to another",  there is an important distinction between whether that discrimination is based on notions of how men and women should behave or whether it is based on notions of what people should do to their bodies.  While the former indicates sex-stereotyping, the latter does not.


2. What if an employer fears that during the period following the surgery, the employee might have a lot of psychological, physiological or hormonal issues to overcome or get used to and thinks those issues might detract from the job? That's not discriminating on the basis of gender or sex-stereotypes; that's discriminating on the basis of a non-ADA-covered surgery and its effects. In this scenario, the employer isn't saying, "men shouldn't act this way", but is instead saying, "I don't think this employee will be able to focus as intently at work at a time in their life when they are going through a big change."



Saturday, March 10, 2012

Celebrity Chefs' Employment Law Problems

In 1942, Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I don't know if he was talking about the then current state of restaurant employment laws, but if he was, things have changed since.


Nowadays there are other options, as is evident by the legal troubles of two celebrity chefs.  Jeff Hirsch posted today at Workplace Prof Blog about Mario Batali, et al. agreeing to pay plaintiff former employes $5.25 million to settle allegations regarding alleged tip skimming.  And the AU Labor Forum posted earlier in the week about a discrimination suit filed against Paula Deen.
Mario Batali and Paula Deen on ABC's The Chew




Thursday, March 8, 2012

LaborRelated Song of the Week: Sons of Fathers

Sons of Fathers' eponymous single is the LaborRelated song of the week.  It's a stoic song about staying true to values and not compromising  despite what temptations may be offered and what consequences may come.

Some of the lyrics:
...I am working every day to make something of myself, hoping to please all the faces on the shelf
...you can try to change me into something that I'm not

Even though I know what's coming, I remain a righteous man
...I am the son of my father and I do the best I can

It's a good song for a Friday in Lent too.



Saturday, February 25, 2012

Braun Drug Testing and Industrial Due Process


Yahoo news and Slate have coverage and commentary on an arbitration panel's decision to overturn the 50 game suspension of National League MVP Ryan Braun.  Braun had been suspended for testing positive for synthetic testosterone.  Braun--who maintains his innocence--with the MLB Players Association, fought the suspension on the grounds of the chain of custody provisions of nonadherence to the league's and players' Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.

Braun's urine sample had been collected on a Saturday night and not sent to the testing lab until Monday.

 Article X of the Joint Program, Integrity of the Specimen, lays out a very detailed process on how the testing process works. At Section V., it provides,
7. The Collector shall check the “FedEx” box in the section entitled “Specimen Bottles(s) Released to:” Absent unusual circumstances, the specimens should be sent by FedEx to the Laboratory on the same day they are collected. [Emphasis supplied].
Although the arbitration decision has not been published, by looking at Article X it's pretty clear where at least some of the battle lines were drawn.

The decision is stirring up dismay and controversy among baseball fans, but it stands as a good illustration of "industrial due process" and a good reminder for those of us in labor and employment law that there is no substitute for a close reading of a contract.