30 | EEOC-INITIATED LITIGATION: 2023 EDITION ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP of discrimination involved, which the EEOC has been diligently pursuing in recent years. In subsection B, we report on the aftermath of the Bostock decision and in particular, the religious liberties implications that have come to light following that ruling. The proposed FY 2023-2027 SEP leaves one priority largely unchanged from the prior SEP: qualification standards and inflexible policies or practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities will remain an area of focus. The EEOC has dropped two priorities that appeared in this section of the prior SEP. These include protecting LGBT people from discrimination, and clarifying the application of workplace civil rights protections in complex employment relationships and structures. However, those priorities have not fallen completely by the wayside and do appear in other areas of the proposed SEP. This is likely just an acknowledgment that these issues are no longer “emerging” areas, but rather have been fully embraced in the EEO universe. The proposed SEP elaborates on statements from the earlier document related to pregnancy discrimination to include protection for those affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions and disabilities, as well as requests for reasonable accommodations related to same. Prior versions of the SEP have discussed “backlash” discrimination, but the new proposed SEP goes further. The EEOC has noted that discrimination against some groups can arise as a backlash in response to local, national, or global events. The EEOC identifies some groups facing such discrimination now, including African Americans; individuals of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Asian decent; Jews; Muslims; and Sikhs, but also notes that the groups at issue, and the practices they are subjected to, can be expected to change over time and in response to current events. The proposed SEP also calls out discrimination and stereotyping related to COVID-19, noting in particular that persons of Asian descent, older workers, and persons with disabilities have been targeted. This enforcement priority also extends to requests for accommodation by those with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs; unlawful medical inquiries and direct threat determinations; and mistreatment based on actual or perceived disabilities, including those associated with long COVID. The final topic under this priority is “technology-related employment discrimination.” Here, the EEOC is interested in particular in employment decisions based on algorithmic decision-making; as well as automated recruitment, selection, production, and performance management tools. Ensuring Equal Pay Protection For All Workers. The fourth strategic priority is ensuring equal protections for all workers. The EEOC’s primary focus has been combating discrimination in pay based on sex. We cover the key focus areas relative to this strategic priority in subsection C. The proposed FY 2023-2027 SEP revises this priority to make more clear that it intends to focus on pay discrimination based on any protected category. (This prior version was more focused on sex-based differences in pay.) The proposal departs from prior versions in two other notable ways. First, it includes a statement that the EEOC will not depend on charges from members of the public, but will use its authority to initiate directed investigations and Commissioner’s charges in order to investigate pay differences. Second, the EEOC states its intent to challenge practices that it perceives to contribute to pay disparities, including employer policies and practices that encourage secrecy around pay, reliance on past salary history to set pay, and requiring applicants to disclose expected pay rates during the application stage. Preserving Access To The Legal System. The fifth strategic priority is preserving access to the legal system. The focus within this priority is on practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights, including, according to the EEOC, “overly broad waivers, releases, and mandatory arbitration provisions,” failure to maintain applicant and employee data, and retaliatory practices that dissuade employees from exercising their rights. This objective has historically been reflected in the EEOC’s aggressive
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4