EEOC Releases Enforcement Data

EEOC Releases 2019 Enforcement Data: Retaliation Charges Lead the Way

By Brian McGinnis on January 31, 2020

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has released its annual enforcement and litigation statistics for fiscal year 2019.  For fiscal year 2019, retaliation,  disability discrimination, race discrimination, and sex discrimination charges continue to constitute the most frequently filed types of charges.

One key takeaway:  the EEOC received 39,110 charges alleging retaliation, which represented 53.8% of all filed charges. This reality is critical for employers to note in setting workplace standards and investigating workplace complaints, as charges of discrimination or harassment frequently include retaliation allegations as well.

Notably, the EEOC received 7,514 charges of sexual harassment/hostile work environment in fiscal year 2019, which represented slightly over 10% of all filed charges. Although this was a 1.2% decrease from the prior fiscal year, sexual harassment charges still make up a significant proportion of the EEOC’s caseload.

Another continuing trend: the number of EEOC charges filed alleging LGBTQ-based sex discrimination increased again to 1,868 charges in fiscal year 2019, from 1,811 the prior year. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this year about whether these kinds of claims are viable under Title VII’s statutory framework.

On the litigation side, the EEOC’s enforcement numbers took a slight dip, with 157 lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2019, in comparison to 217 filed in fiscal year 2018.  Similarly, the EEOC’s recovery on behalf of complainants dipped from $53.6 million in fiscal year 2018 to $39.1 million in fiscal year 2019.

Despite these decreased numbers, the remaining data show that enforcement activity at the EEOC continues at a strong pace, and employers should bear that in mind when considering workplace training and management practices. Click here for more information.

New law in New York Prohibits Discrimination based on Reproductive Choices

On November 8, 2019, the Governor signed a bill into law, sponsored by New York State Senator Jen Metzger (42nd District), adding Section 203-e to New York Labor Law. The new law prohibits employment decisions against an employee based on the employee's or a dependent's reproductive health decisions. Under this law, employers are also prohibited from gaining access to information about an employee or a dependent's reproductive health decisions, including the decision to use or access a particular drug, device or medical service without the employee's prior written consent.

An employee can bring a legal action under this new section. If he or she prevails, the Court may award damages in the form of backpay, attorney's fees and costs, reinstatement to the position. A court may also impose liquidated damages equal to one hundred percent of the award for damages, unless the employer presents evidence of a good faith basis to believe its decision was lawful. There are separate civil penalties provided in the law, if an employee is retaliated against for complaining, testifying , or otherwise exercising the right to oppose discriminatory practices.

Employers are also required to include a notice in employee handbooks of employee rights and remedies under this section.

This bill does not define the term "dependent" so how that term is defined will need to be drawn from other federal and state laws, but usually encompasses spouses and minor children.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. 

© 2019 Law Office of Laura Wong-Pan PLLC

Sexual harassment case allowed to proceed against Westchester hospital

Westchester Medical Center's motion to dismiss was denied, allowing sexual harassment claims to go forward, in the case of Doe v. MidHudson Regional Hospital of the Westchester Medical Center, et al., 53972/2019.

In that case, the hospital lost its argument that Jane Doe (proceeding under a pseudonym) was required to serve a notice of claim within ninety days of the harassment, and sexual assault, or else she was foreclosed from suing under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), against Westchester County Health Care Corporation. The Court disagreed.

In the October 29, 2019 decision, Westchester Supreme Court followed Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 24 N.Y.3d 721 (2015) in which the New York Court of Appeals held that “a notice of claim need not be filed for a Human Rights Law claim against a municipality” under GML §50-I, which is limited to torts and wrongful death actions.

Since 2015, several courts have refused to extend Margerum to actions brought against counties, holding that the notice of claim requirement under County Law §52 is broader than GML §50-I, and thus applies to statutory claims. For instance, in Sager v. County of Sullivan, 145 A.D.3d 1175, (3d Dept. 2016), leave to appeal denied 29 N.Y.3d 902 (2017), a whistleblower action was dismissed for failure to serve a notice of claim on the County of Sullivan under County Law 52.

However, there has not been a prior decision interpreting Public Authorities Law §3316, the notice of claim statute that applies to Westchester County Health Care Corporation, which operates Westchester Medical Center and its affiliates.

This case is significant because, for the first time, it determines that Public Authorities Law §3316 is similar to GML §50-I in that a notice of claim is only required for torts, and discrimination actions brought under NYSHRL are not torts - so no notice of claim is needed before filing a complaint in State or Federal Court. Westchester Medical Center’s argument that a notice of claim was required was rejected and its Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Plaintiff Jane Doe is represented by the Law Office of Laura Wong-Pan PLLC.

The information on this site is for general informational purposes only.  The information presented in this site is not legal advice or a legal opinion, and it may not necessarily reflect the most current legal developments.  You should seek the advice of legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this site.