On the heels of the exemption for Hurricane Harvey contractors, and given the additional widespread destruction caused by Hurricane Irma, the federal government has extended a deadline affecting federal contractors and subcontractors.

VETS-4212

The VETS-4212 report, which contractors must file annually between August 1 and September 30, has been extended this year for all contractors, regardless of location.  The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service posted on its website that contractors and subcontractors who file their VETS-4212 reports by November 15 will be considered timely.  This one-time, 45-day extension is due to the needs of those affected by the recent hurricanes.

HURRICANE IRMA NATIONAL INTEREST EXEMPTION FOR NEW CONTRACTS

As it did for Hurricane Harvey contractors previously, on September 7, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a another National Interest Exemption Memorandum providing a three-month exemption on preparing written affirmative action plans for a very specific group of contractors and subcontractors.

According to the FAQs, the exemption applies only to contractors who have signed or will sign a new supply and service or construction contract between September 1 and December 1, 2017, solely for the “specific purpose of providing Hurricane Irma relief” and who do not otherwise have to comply with the regulations.

Does this apply to everyone who has a contract to provide hurricane relief? 

No. The exemption applies only to those companies that become covered contractors by virtue of a new contract aimed solely at providing Irma relief.

Who is not covered?

Any contractor that is required to comply with the regulations based on a non-Irma relief contract (whether that contract be old or new).

Laboratory Corporation of America has agreed to pay approximately $200,000 to resolve a matter with Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. According to the Conciliation Agreement between the parties, the OFCCP

 found statistically significant adverse impact against females in the selection process for Lab Assistant and that Asians were paid less than similarly situated non-Asian White employees in the Lab Assistant position.

The alleged hiring discrimination resulted in a shortfall of only two females, and the amount of statistical significance was redacted from the Conciliation Agreement posted online by the OFCCP.  To resolve this claim, LabCorp will distribute more than $51,000 to the affected class of female applicants. In addition, the company agreed to revise its selection process, “including the criteria used in each step of the hiring process, any application screens, interviews, tests, credit checks, review of criminal history, reference checks, testing, or other selection procedure;” to review and revise the job description for Lab Assistant “to minimize the potential for gender stereotyping”; and to list the minimum requirements for the Lab Assistant position on all job postings.

To resolve the allegations of compensation discrimination, LabCorp will pay almost $150,000 to Asian Lab Assistants who were allegedly paid less than their White counterparts, even after controlling for legitimate, non-discriminatory factors. In addition, the company must conduct its own regression analysis in six months, and if it reveals statistically significant adverse impact against Asians, LabCorp has agreed to increase their salaries.

Of course, LabCorp’s settlement with the agency is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Based on a recent Senate appropriations bill, it appears that the Trump Administration’s plan to merge the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has stalled. The

 Senate bill would fund the OFCCP for Fiscal Year 2018 at approximately $103.5 million, which is more than the House’s proposed funding of $94.5 million. Congress would not be proposing funds for the agency if it planned to eliminate it.

This legislative action follows a letter from Acting OFCCP Director Thomas Dowd to the Institute for Workplace Equality on August 24, “acknowledg[ing] that the consolidation proposal includes several challenging transition issues.” Although Mr. Dowd did not expressly state that merger plans were on ice, he noted that any consolidation was unlikely to occur until Fiscal Year 2019 and that the agency would focus on “contemporaneous opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency.”

Perhaps Congress is listening to its constituents. The proposed merger was opposed by both civil rights advocacy groups and employer organizations, and my colleague Angelique Lyons cogently summarized the pros and cons here.

We will continue to monitor this issue for further developments.

Image Credit: From flickr, Creative Commons license, by frankie leon.

Louise Davies is an Affirmative Action Paralegal in Constangy’s Winston-Salem, North Carolina, office. For more than 15 years, she has helped employers develop affirmative action plans and respond to audits and on-site investigations by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. She also conducts diversity training for employers. Louise is a graduate of Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia.

In February 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs filed an administrative complaint against B&H Foto, the largest non-chain photo and video equipment store in the United States. The Complaint alleged that B&H had discriminated against female, black, and Asian jobseekers by hiring only Hispanic men for entry-level positions.  The OFCCP also alleged that Hispanic employees were harassed, paid less than similarly situated workers, and denied promotions because of their ethnicity.

The agency and the company recently entered into a consent decree, in which B&H agreed to pay $3.22 million in back wages to more than 1,300 affected class members. The company has also agreed to hire a workplace consultant to address its employment practices and workplace conduct. In addition, the company must provide its managers with annual training on EEO principles and on workplace harassment.

By agreeing to the consent decree, the company did not admit any guilt or wrongdoing. The company released a statement denying all of the allegations, but recognizing that litigation would be costly and resolution would allow it to return to business “as usual” with the government.

An article by Lauren Weber and Rachel Feintzeig in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal caught a lot of attention -- it was about companies that have made the decision to do without a Human Resources function.

The idea drew some positive response on Twitter:

HR stifles innovation and bogs down businesses with inefficient policies and processes. http://t.co/5cGRIwHaxR

— Mike Brice ...

All right, kiddies. My posts over the last few weeks have been juicy and entertaining. (Or as juicy and entertaining as employment law can get.) But summer is over, and it's time to buckle down.

"I h8 school!"

The Supreme Court of the United States (aka "SCOTUS") began its new term this past Monday, and it will be reviewing at least four employment cases, as well as two non-employment cases ...

How many readers knew it was illegal to discriminate against white people . . . or guys?

The reason I ask is that we had a decision this week from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts in the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. A majority-African-American school board was found by a jury to have ...

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently held a meeting with "a battery of experts" on disparate treatment in hiring. According to the EEOC, hiring discrimination continues to run rampant.

Time for a grain of salt here: According to the EEOC's press release, most of the experts were from the EEOC, or were individuals who had been denied jobs and claimed they were ...

The U.S. Department of Labor is planning to impose new “affirmative action” requirements on employers, requiring them to develop “plans” to address workplace safety, equal employment opportunity, and wage and hour/employee classification issues.

For the most part, these requirements – called “Plan/Prevent/Protect” – will not be limited to federal ...