Source: https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/regulations/retro-review-comments.cfm?renderforprint=1
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 10:26:34
Document Index: 254006272

Matched Legal Cases: ['§12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 12112']

Public Comments Submitted in Response to Request for Public Input on EEOC’s Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EEOC’s Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review
Over the past decade, the EEOC has begun to lose focus of its original charter and purpose and has become, unfortunately, a quasi “Complaint Department” for disgruntle employees. Record levels of charges are being filed each year, many of which have little to zero basis in the laws or regulations for which the EEOC has oversight authority. As a result, the nation has been burdened with a bureaucratic cancer that it slowly and steadily eating away at the ability of employers and the EEOC to allocate the resources necessary to achieve their respective missions. Rather than strengthening our nation, as originally intended, current administrative policies and procedures require EEOC personnel to spend tens of thousands of hours per year in each of its offices processing complaints that are not at all related to illegal discriminatory practices. Seemingly, any disagreement between two or more parties is fair game for an EEOC Charge and the corresponding investigations and responses. That requires manpower and resources that all parties could better used to advance their performance towards achievement of their respective missions.
The current administrative policies and procedures, evidently do not allow EEOC personnel to establish a minimum threshold of factual information before accepting a charge and beginning the laborious process of investigation and response. Too often, employers receive charges that offer no grounds to substantiate the allegation other than the claimants’ belief they have been discriminated against. Often there is no statement as to why the claimant believes they were discriminated against. Too often the employee has never initiated any steps with his or her employer to redress the issue before filing their charge even when there are employer.provided grievance or EEO complaint processes readily available to them. Even after exhaustive investigations and documentation that disprove the allegation, the claimant gets a Right to Sue letter which they interpret as affirmation of their charge, even though the letter does not make such a statement. Claimants then proceed to shop for an attorney willing to accept their case, further costing employers and claimant time and resources that could be better utilized to improve the country’s productivity and competitiveness. This broken process neither advances the cause of fairness and equality in the workplace nor does it optimize the use of the limited dollars and human resources available to the EEOC.
More and more charges being filed each year is not necessarily evidence of more illegal discrimination taking place or a better informed public on the anti.discrimination laws and regulations. Rather, I submit, it could very well be symptomatic of the broken processes described above. More and more people are filing charges because it is easy to do and they do not have to substantiate their allegation. Filing a charge is a means to “get back” at the employer and a way to “hurt” a manager or supervisor.
The courts require claimants to file first with the EEOC so its (the courts’) processes are not choked by cases without merit or that should be settled outside of the legal process. Because of a dysfunctional charge assessment process, EEOC and Employer Processes are becoming choked while the real campaigns for equality and improving American economic competiveness are suffering as a result. “More” is not always “better.”
If the EEOC’s current administrative policies and procedures were truly effective logic would dictate that the incidents of real discrimination charges should be declining after decades of enforcement and employer training. For the very opposite to be occurring should be an unmistakable indictment of the current policies and procedures.
“MORE” is not always “Better.”
In pursuit of the EEOC efforts to better achieve its regulations’ objectives, this comment is respectfully submitted to the Agency so that it may clarify its regulatory language regarding what constitutes a prohibited medical inquiry pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A) in light of the recent ruling in the Sixth Circuit. See Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 2011 WL 611904 (C.A.6 (Ohio)), No. 09.3899. 6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that employers “shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job. related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) (4)(A) The ADA does permit an employer to inquire as to the ability of the employee to perform his or her job.related functions upon returning to work. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(B) The EEOC defines a “disability.related inquiry” as “a question (or series of questions) that is likely to elicit information about a disability”.[1] EEOC Notice, 915.002. 7/27/00. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Disability. Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Guided by the EEOC’s interpretation of protected disability.related inquiries, the Second Circuit found that an employer’s request for a general diagnosis upon the employee’s return to work constituted a prohibited medical inquiry since it “may tend to reveal ” a disability in violation of § 12112(d) (4)(A). Conroy v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 333 F.3d 88, 95 (2nd Cir. 2003) General diagnoses, as the Conroy court explains, can subject employees to employer stereotypes or give the perception of a disability which can lead to discrimination based on a perceived disability, itself a violation of the ADA. Id. at 96. In Conroy, an employee with asthma and pulmonary obstructive disease who had in the past requested a reasonable accommodation challenged a sick leave policy mandating that employees provide a general diagnosis “sufficiently informative as to allow [the employer] to make a determination concerning the employee's entitlement to leave or to evaluate the need to have an employee examined by [employer’s doctor Health Service] prior to returning to duty”. Id. at 92. The Second Circuit found the general diagnosis directive a disability.related inquiry subject to the restrictions of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) and that it was prohibited under the ADA.
The Second Circuit in Conroy held that inquiries of individual employees as well as generally applicable policies to a class of employees must receive the same scrutiny as to whether the inquiry is consistent with business necessity. The Court was concerned that an employer, by adopting a generally applicable policy of inquiry, may try to escape scrutiny as to whether that policy is consistent with business necessity. However, a recent decision in the 6th Circuit applying § 12112(d)(4)(A) to the Rehabilitation Act appears to support that very proposition – that generalized inquiries cannot be prohibited inquiries since they apply to both disabled and non. disabled employees. Lee v. City of Columbus, Ohio, 2011 WL 611904 (C.A. 6 (Ohio)), No. 09.3899. 6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011. This decision should be distinguished from the line of ADA cases interpreting § 12112(d)(4) (A) prohibited medical inquiries.
In the Lee case, all employees of the Division of Police of the City of Columbus, pursuant to Directive 3.07 § III(H)(1)(c) (“the Directive”), were required upon returning to regular duty to provide physician’s note to their immediate supervisor detailing the nature of the illness if they had used more than three days of sick leave or more than two days due to an illness of an immediate family member for which the employee was required to care. The Directive also required the same note detailing the nature of the illness if so mandated by a commanding officer.
In applying § 12112(d)(4)(A) of the ADA to the Rehabilitation Act (“the Act”), the Sixth Circuit attached an intent requirement since the Act, unlike the ADA, requires proof that an employer is discriminating solely on the basis of disability. Therefore, whether an inquiry was a prohibited inquiry depended upon whether the inquiry “intended to reveal or necessitates revealing a disability, rather than whether the inquiry may merely tend to reveal a disability.” Id. at 8. Once the Sixth Circuit had attached an intent requirement to its interpretation of § 12112(d)(4)(A) prohibited medical inquiries, it was foreseeable that it would find no violation for generalized and uniform inquiries since a general policy is applied to both disabled and non.disabled employees. However, the Lee court failed to understand that a generally applicable policy – though it is applied to disabled and non.disabled alike .. can still negatively impact disabled employees. This lack of scrutiny for generally applicable policies was precisely what concerned the Conroy court and what should concern the EEOC.
The Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Lee, and certainly its dicta, can potentially form the basis for future rulings that depart from Conroy and established case law interpreting § 12112(d)(4)(A) prohibited medical inquiries.
Attached is a letter from Helen Darling, President and CEO of the National Business Group on Health requesting that, as part of its review, EEOC clarify that offering financial incentives for wellness programs that comply with HIPAA nondiscrimination requirements and EEOC’s regulations on Title II of GINA also comply with ADA requirements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Since the EEOC is planning to begin a new, periodic retrospective review of its existing significant regulations, and have requested public comments in order to make the EEOC’s regulatory program more effective and/or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives, I would like to make a few suggestions.
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s current or past credit record; or
(2) to limit or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s current or past credit record.
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s current unemployment; or
(2) to limit or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s unemployment. National security
Attached on behalf of the Administrative Judges Association [AJA] are our comments in response to the request for Input on EEOC’s Plan for Retrospective Review of its Significant Regulations.
I have two suggestions for the regulation review committee to improve regulation of the existing nondiscrimination employment laws. The regulation that cases substantiating employment discrimination by local and state employees be referred to that state’s Attorney General is ineffective and a conflict of interest and should be repealed. This would lower the temptation of government corruption, deter further acts of discrimination and increase revenues for the EEOC. If not repealed a government employee should have the right to an attorney at the expense of the state or the EEOC. As a matter of fact in some cases the regulation review committee should consider providing the charging party(s) some form of legal advocacy; otherwise the anti discrimination laws are useless. Criminals and/or criminal suspects are entitled to an attorney. Anti discrimination employment laws are useless if the victim does not have legal representation and/or someone to advocate on their behalf. The federal government is funding numerous nonprofit agencies, state and local governments, however a charging party has no one to turn to if they cannot afford and attorney or if the respondent party is part of the government or associated with powerful and influential members of society.
Subject: Make EEO-1 Data public - Input on EEOC’s Plan for Retrospective Review of its Significant Regulations