Similar efforts against federal contractors have been introduced by the OFCCP or Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

To cite just two examples, the EEOC recently announced a $2 million settlement with Les Schwab Tire Centers in a sex discrimination case. The company was accused of not hiring qualified females for its auto care stores in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, Montana and Utah since 2004.

In a separate case, Wal-Mart paid $11.7 million to settle a sex discrimination case involving applicants for warehouse jobs in the London, Kentucky distribution center. Hiring officials with the retail giant told female applicants that the positions were not suitable for women, and that most new hires were men between 18 and 25 years of age.

The EEOC defends the actions, saying they are more likely to impact a larger number of employees, rather than just investigating one incident.

This means that a single discrimination complaint by one employee or job candidate could result in a widespread investigation that examines every hiring or promotion decision over several years.

Employers need to maintain clear records of the objective reasons for hiring, promotions, lay offs and terminations.

In the past, each EEOC regional office handled its own cases, with little communication between them. With this change in priorities, however, better information flow means that if the agency receives a complaint from an employee in one state, they will investigate the company’s operations in other states as well.

The change in priorities has been supported because federal agencies including the EEOC have invested in computers and additional technology that makes it easy for them to share information and identify areas of concern. Many of these cases involve discrimination against individuals with disabilities, as well as claims of illegal discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, sex or pregnancy.

Employers should have data on the diversity of the workforce, broken down by job title. If there are not enough minority employees in certain positions, the employer should take a pro-active approach to recruiting them.

The EEOC has already put these tactics into action against major companies with operations across the nation, such as Wal-Mart, Walgreens and Target.

However, another test of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act in court is likely. The state Supreme Court may become involved to settle this dispute.

The 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state can enforce this portion of the Oklahoma immigration law. The Chamber of Commerce argued that only the federal government has the right to control immigration, and therefore the state law was unconstitutional. This argument failed, which is no surprise considering that at least a dozen states have immigration laws.

Although all three judges of the appellate court agreed on the ruling, they cited different reasons for doing so. Judge Kelly said that the court can reasonably assume that using the federal E-Verify does not conflict with the purpose of federal immigration law.

 Meanwhile, Judge Harris Hartz simply noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not the appropriate group to sue the state over this matter, since the Chamber could not show how they would suffer any harm from its enforcement. That ruling suggests that at least one judge might be inclined to rule differently, if a business owner sued the state over the immigration law. Judge Lucero disagreed, saying he thinks the E-Verify provision should be thrown out.

In a partial victory for the small business owners, the state is still prevented by the courts from enforcing a second provision of the Oklahoma immigration law, which would permit legal workers who were laid off to sue the employer for discrimination, if undocumented workers were still employed. Under a ruling from 2008, the courts found that provision to be unenforceable.

Federal law expressly prohibits civil penalties for immigration offenses when the employer is covered by the IRCA, the federal Immigration and Control Act.

Under the California Kin Care law implemented in 1999, employers that offer accrued sick leave to workers must allow employees to use up to half their annual total to care for a spouse, child, parent or domestic partner who is ill.

Then as now, there is no requirement under the law that any California employer must provide sick leave to employees. However, for employers who choose to offer this benefit, the law addresses how it may be used.

In a rare unanimous ruling, the court found that the California Kin Care law applies only when a company awards a specific amount of sick leave, and that sick leave can be accrued.

The trend among some larger companies is to offer employees unlimited sick leave, especially under certain collective bargaining agreements.

Applauding the victory for California employers, attorney Anthony Oncidi noted that the law was a “perfect example” of a well-meaning law that resulted in abuse by employees. He noted that many California companies had actually reduced or eliminated sick leave policies, due to the previous restrictions.

In the test case involving telephone company AT&T, Inc., the employer provided up to 5 days of paid sick leave for a legitimate illness in any 7-day period. The sick leave period reset each time the employee returned to work, under a collective bargaining agreement. Employees who were off more than one week were eligible for short term disability, and employees could be disciplined for excessive absenteeism.

The employer argued that since sick leave was basically unlimited, it was excessive to expect the company to grant half of the sick leave to an employee taking care of a sick relative. That would theoretically result in unlimited time off to care for relatives, under the law.

Initially, the trial court agreed with the employer, but that was overturned on appeal. The California Supreme Court again found for the employer. In the majority opinion, Justice Carolos Moreno noted that if the court did not limit the law, it would permit an employee to claim as kin care much more time off than the employee would be entitled to personally.

The agency schedules annual worker safety conferences. There are separate conferences for public and private employers. The conferences focus on worker safety and compliance including improving safety for teen workers. Initial findings show that fatal workplace accidents were down in 2009, due in part to increased safety awareness by employers, including those who attended conferences.

For private employers including businesses, the first 2010 Arkansas Safety and Health Conferences was held on February 25 in Little Rock. Additional conferences will be held in Pine Bluff on March 25, in Russellville on May 6 and in Ft. Smith on May 12.

For the summer, Arkansas Health Conferences are scheduled in West Memphis on June 10, El Dorado on July 22, Bentonville on August 12 and  in Ashdown on August 19.

Fall conferences are scheduled in Jonesboro on September 9, in Batesville on October 7, and in Hope on October 14. The final conference of the year for private employers is in Blytheville on October 28. Contact Judy Harwell at 501-682-9092 to register, or for more information on conferences for private employers.

For public employers including state and municipal government agencies, 10 Health Conferences are scheduled. They will take place in Johnson on March 10, in Hot Sprints on March 18, in West Memphis on March 22, in Dermott on April 8 and in Jonesboro on May 19.

Summer conferences for employers in the public sector will be held in Mena on June 17, and in Bella Vista on August 5. In the fall, conferences will be held in hope on September 9, in Forth Smith on September 22 and in North Little Rock on October 20.

Contact Kevin Looney at 501-682-4521 for information concerning the Public Sector Conferences.

The COBRA subsidy extension applies to employees who are involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and March 31, 2010.

Under a new provision of the COBRA subsidy, workers who are terminated involuntarily on or after March 2, 2010 are eligible if that termination follows a qualifying event that was a reduction of hours. The qualifying event must have occurred between September 2, 1008 and March 31, 2010. For example, if an employee’s hours were reduced in November 2009 and he is subsequently laid off after March 2, 2010, he will qualify for the COBRA premium reduction.

The current premium reduction lasts for 15 months and applies to employees who were laid off on or after February 17, 2009. Some of these employees have already had the COBRA subsidy for 9 months. For those employees, the new act allows for a 60-day “transition period” when the workers must be notified of the continued availability of benefits and given additional time to pay. Employers with questions about these requirements should consult the Frequently Asked Questions on the COBRA Premium Reduction Extension Provisions on the EBSA website at www.dol.gov/cobra.

Individuals who lost their subsidy and paid the full 100 percent premium for December 2009 should contact their plan administrator or employer sponsoring the plan to discuss a credit for future months of coverage or a reimbursement of the overpayment.

As with the previous COBRA premium reductions, employers must face a new round of worker notification.

Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, commonly called COBRA, employees with group health insurance can continue coverage during periods of unemployment. Usually employees must pay 102% of the total monthly premium for their group health insurance, including any amount previously paid by the employer.

However, the COBRA premium reduction permits eligible persons to pay just 35% of the total premium. The employer pays the remaining 65%, and is reimbursed by the federal government when filing quarterly payroll taxes.