Purchase any WEBINAR and get
10% Off
CODE: SAVE10
T&C applicable, please referFAQ
Validity : 09th May'24 to 19th May'24
New EEOC Retaliation Enforcement Guidance: Avoiding Your #1 Employee Charge Risk
- EEOC suggested Anti-Retaliation 'Best Practices'
- Analyzing how 'Participation' Encompasses Internal Complaints
- Why the EEOC is out for Rejection of the 'Manager Rule'
- Protected Opposition Conduct
- The hidden trap of Employees talking Dollars, as the EEOC Insists
- Reviewing the EEOC's Broad View of 'Adverse Action'
- What it means when the EEOC Advocates for a 'Mosaic' Approach to 'But For' Causation
Overview of the webinar
The federal EEO statutes, such as Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, prohibit retaliation for engaging in a protected activity under those statutes. Protected activities are typically categorized as either (i) participating in an EEO process or (ii) opposing a practice made unlawful by one of the EEO statutes. Participation in an EEO process may include providing witness information, or otherwise assisting in an EEO or internal company investigation. Opposing a practice made unlawful by an EEO statute may include, for example, complaining to one's employer regarding alleged discrimination, resisting unwanted sexual advances, or refusing to obey managerial orders reasonably believed to be discriminatory.
The EEOC's draft updated Guidance greatly expands the scope of employee activity protected under the EEO statutes. For example, in the past, courts regularly held that an employee was not "participating" in an EEO process by contributing to an internal company investigation unless the investigation was in conjunction with a formal EEO charge. According to the updated Guidance, however, participation in an entirely internal company investigation, absent any formal EEO charge, would be considered protected activity.
Further, under the updated Guidance, an employee may allege retaliation against his or her employer where a family member working for the same employer suffers adverse employment action as a result of the employee's own protected activities.
Finally, the draft updated Guidance also interprets Title VII's definition of an employer's "adverse employment action" to reach beyond hiring, firing, and promotional decisions. According to the EEOC's proposals, an employee may justifiably assert a claim of retaliation under Title VII for more subtle adverse employment actions, such as reprimands, threats, transfers to less desirable work locations, negative evaluations, or assignment of less desirable work.
Who should attend?
- Human Resources Practitioners
- Office Managers
- Financial Officers
- In-House Counsel
- Affirmative Action/EEO Officers
- Federal Contractors
- Employee Relations Executives
- Chief Executive Officers
- Financial Executives
Why should you attend?
Perhaps the most instructive portion of the 73-page guidance comes at the end, where the EEOC recommends some "best practices" for employers to implement. While following the EEOC's suggestions will not eliminate the possibility that a retaliation claim will be lodged, taking heed of them would likely help reduce the likelihood that unlawful retaliation will occur, and strengthen an employer's position in the face of a complaint. An employer that fails to implement these "best practices" may be viewed with a jaundiced eye by EEOC staff during a complaint or compliance investigation.
Faculty - Miss.Cathleen Hampton
Cathleen Hampton has more than 25 years of experience as a human resources professional providing subject matter expertise and consulting services in areas of risk and compliance, work force planning, and human capital strategy. She has a unique ability to analyze operations for risk and help maneuver cultural practices and compliance enhancements that increase organizational outcomes. She is a well-known speaker noted for presenting best-in-practice solutions focused on talent retention and operational strategies that outpaced major completion through strong and decisive business leadership.