Search form

EEOC Issues Domestic Violence Guidance, Reminds Employers to Consider Title VII and ADA

By Paul Patten
  • November 5, 2012

In a series of Questions and Answers entitled, “Application of Title VII and the ADA to Applicants or Employees Who Experience Domestic or Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reiterated its commitment to ensuring justice for vulnerable individuals.  While the EEOC’s October 12, 2012, guidance does not change fair employment practice law, it reminds employers to review their workplace anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and training for compliance with recent developments in equal employment opportunity law.

As the EEOC explains, “Because… federal EEO laws do not prohibit discrimination against applicants or employees who experience domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking as such, potential employment discrimination and retaliation against these individuals may be overlooked.”  Nonetheless, the EEOC says, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act may apply to employment situations involving applicants and employees in these situations.

In its Qs & As, the EEOC reminds employers that Title VII prohibits disparate treatment based on sex, including sex-based stereotypes, as well as sexual or sex-based harassment and to consider these protections when dealing with employees who experience domestic, dating or other sexual violence.  The EEOC includes the example of a hiring manager who fails to select a male applicant who obtained a restraining order against a male domestic partner, because the manager believes that “men should be able to protect themselves.”  With respect to sexual harassment, there is the example of a supervisor who makes sexual advances toward an employee who recently was subjected to domestic abuse and is now living in a shelter. Employers should consider including these examples in their materials for preventive in-house training.  

The EEOC’s Qs & As also remind employers that the ADA prohibits different treatment or harassment at work based on an actual or perceived impairment, which could result from domestic or dating violence, sexual assault or stalking.  In addition, the EEOC says that the ADA may require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability or record of disability including, among other things, anxiety or depression stemming from a traumatic incident.  Finally, the Qs & As remind employers that the ADA prohibits disclosure of confidential medical information.

Some states, including Florida, Washington, Illinois and California, already require employers to provide leave or extend other benefits to victims of domestic violence.  Companies also may consider doing more as part of an effective employee-relations program to protect their vulnerable workers. 

The EEOC’s Qs & As should be viewed together with the agency’s recent Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2012 through 2016.  The draft Plan, released on September 4, 2012, lists systemic recruiting and hiring discrimination as the Commission’s first priority, followed by protecting immigrant and migrant workers from discrimination.  The EEOC also has committed to investigating “emerging” issues, including common ADA defenses invoked by employers, utilizing Title VII to protect members of the LGBT community, and pushing employers to accommodate pregnant women. 

While the EEOC increasingly is focused on class litigation, the agency recently has shown an interest also in litigating individual pregnancy discrimination claims on behalf of women working in lower paying jobs. 

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers in reviewing their EEO policies and training programs and advising on EEOC developments.

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 12, 2017

New York Bars Insurers from Denying Commercial Crime Coverage Due to Employee’s Prior Criminal Conviction

January 12, 2017

The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) has promulgated a regulation that requires insurance companies to provide Commercial Crime Coverage to employers who have prior knowledge of an employee’s prior criminal conviction. Commercial Crime Coverage is defined as coverage under a policy of commercial risk... Read More

January 10, 2017

Ohio Limits Local Workplace Laws, Expands Concealed Carry Rights of Licensed Gun Holders

January 10, 2017

A new Ohio law mandates uniformity of laws across the state affecting wage-hour, paid sick and safe leave and other fringe benefits, and scheduling of employee work hours. Senate Bill 331 expressly prohibits cities and counties from adopting laws in these areas that differ from those enacted at the state and federal level. Senate Bill... Read More

January 9, 2017

D.C. Council Passes Ban on Credit History Screens on Job Applicants, Interns, Employees

January 9, 2017

The Washington D.C. Council unanimously passed the “Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act” (Bill 21-244) to amend the Human Rights Act of 1977 and prevent employers from taking discriminatory action against applicants, interns and employees based on the individual’s “credit information.” The Fair Credit... Read More

Related Practices