Search form

EEOC FY 2016 Performance Report Shows Slight Decrease in Recoveries and Agency’s Struggles with Data

By Paul Patten
  • November 21, 2016

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Fiscal Year 2016 Performance and Accountability Report (“PAR”) shows a slight decrease in the amount of monetary recoveries by the EEOC in litigation and other enforcement activities compared to 2015, as well as its struggles with the data available to it. The report covers the period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016.

In total, the EEOC recovered $347.9 million in pre-litigation relief for those who work in the private sector and an additional $52.2 million through its litigation efforts. The EEOC secured $82 million for federal employees and applicants through its federal sector process. The EEOC’s total claimed monetary achievements for FY 2016 was $482.1 million.

Litigation Recoveries and Filings Down

According to the PAR, the EEOC resolved 139 merit lawsuits in FY 2016, for a total monetary recovery of $52.2 million, down from the $65.3 million recovered in FY 2015.

The Commission filed 86 merit lawsuits in FY 2016, a decrease from the 142 filed in FY 2015. The top bases on which the EEOC sued were:

  • disability (35),
  • gender (25),
  • retaliation (24),
  • race (10),
  • religion (6),
  • national origin (5),
  • age (2), and
  • genetic information (2).

Pre-Litigation Enforcement

EEOC’s monetary recoveries for private sector employees came primarily from pre-litigation early mediation, settlement, or conciliation. As was the case in the 2015 PAR, the 2016 PAR emphasized the high priority the EEOC has put on redressing alleged systemic discrimination. The EEOC resolved 273 systemic investigations, with a total recovery of $20.5 million.

The Commission highlighted several million-dollar pre-litigation settlements that provide further insight into its areas of focus:

  • A $5.05 million conciliation where the EEOC alleged the employer failed to accommodate employees who requested the option to sit during their shift as an accommodation;
  • A $1.7 million Americans with Disabilities Act settlement where individuals with disabilities allegedly were denied reasonable accommodations due to an employer’s policies that did not allow intermittent leave or additional leave of absence;
  • A $1.4 million sexual harassment conciliation; and
  • A $525,000 resolution where the EEOC alleged the employer segregated females into administrative occupations.

EEOC’s Challenges with Data

The EEOC listed as an accomplishment its September 29, 2016, implementation of a new EEO-1 report that will require reporting employers to annually provide summary workforce pay data beginning March 31, 2018. According to the EEOC, the new data provided by these reports will strengthen its abilities to enforce laws against pay discrimination. However, the EEOC’s Inspector General’s portion of the PAR noted that for years the EEOC’s data analysis strategies and tactics have been wanting. The Inspector General pointed out that the EEOC has struggled to use data already available to the Commission.

Looking Forward

The PAR did not mention the results of the presidential election of Donald J. Trump. However, it contemplated that the EEOC would be operating with level funding for the foreseeable future and the Commission would have success without an increased budget. According to the PAR, the EEOC’s digitalization efforts — the Digital Charge and Online Charge Status systems — would free investigators from the time-consuming task of responding to inquiries and allow additional time for direct investigation activities.

Jackson Lewis is available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2016 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

September 14, 2018

New Version of Model FCRA Summary of Rights Released; And You Have One Week to Comply

September 14, 2018

A new model “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” disclosure form document was released on September 12, 2018, by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Employers and background check companies should begin using the new form by September 21, 2018. The federal agency responsible for oversight and... Read More

September 12, 2018

Maryland Employers, Are You Ready? New Sexual Harassment Law Takes Effect October 1

September 12, 2018

Maryland’s “Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018” takes effect on October 1, 2018. The Act prohibits certain waivers related to an employee’s future sexual harassment claims and future retaliation claims for making a sexual harassment claim. It also requires employers with at least 50 employees to complete a survey... Read More

September 5, 2018

Reminder: New York City Employers Must Distribute Fact Sheet, Post Notice on Sexual Harassment Law by Sept. 6

September 5, 2018

Beginning September 6, 2018, all New York City employers must distribute the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ mandatory fact sheet on the “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act” to all new hires. Employers also may wish to distribute the fact sheet to existing employees, even though that is not expressly required by the law or by... Read More

Related Practices