Why EEOC Claims Are On The Rise
There have been a number of good articles this week which reported the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's news that discrimination charges are on the rise. including the Workplace Prof Blog the Connecticut Employment Law Blog,and The Wall Street Journal. There's also some debate as what these new statistics mean.
These are the statistics:
- Overall discrimination charges are at a record high up 15%
- Age discrimination charges are at a record high up 29%
- Sex discrimination charges are up 14%
- Religious discrimination charges are up 14%
- National Origin discrimination charges are up 13%
- Race discrimination charges are up 11%
- Disability discrimination charges are up 10%
I think it's pretty obvious that discrimination is going to occur in a time of economic distress. When managers are given the opportunity to let people go, it is an opportunity to discriminate for:
- younger managers who don't like or who are uncomfortable with the "old timers" and replace them with younger cheaper workers
- men who think women should be at home instead of work
- whites who don't like blacks and other minorities
I wrote about this topic last week in an article about the hidden dangers of workforce reductions. My opinion comes from thirty years of representing employees in discrimination claims and both proving and winning those cases.
Not surprisingly, those who represent managers have a different perspective. I just read an article on Job-Bias Claims Soaring to Record Highs in 2008 which quoted a management lawyer with one of the top firms in the country. His opinion was that there really is very little discrimination and that people are just looking for money:
Someone who has lost his job is in a very tough situation and may be looking for a number of avenues where he can replace revenue, said Gerald Hathaway, and employment lawyer with Littler Mendelson in New York. But true victims of discrimination are rare. Most commonly, someone files a claim thinking he's a victim of discrimination, but is not.
I had lunch a couple of weeks ago with a very well regarded insurance executive who handles discrimination claims nationwide and she sincerely expressed a similar view.
Obviously, there is a real difference of opinion.
Those of us who represent employees and have done so over time have seen the patterns of a spike in discrimination claims when downsizing takes place. We have scrutinized the documentation, explanations, and business justifications for the decisions that have been made. Often times the objective support for the termination decision simply does not exist. In other cases we find that the particular manager has a history of racist, ageist, or sexist remarks, or that other minorities, women, or older workers were selected in disproportionate numbers by the same manager or management group.
Certainly there are some employees who believe that they were discriminated against when they were not. Many do not understand what the term means or how discrimination is proven. Many believe that they were treated unfairly, and perhaps they were, but an unfair decision is not necessarily a discriminatory one. There is no doubt that some of the charges filed with the EEOC have no merit.
On the other hand, there is real discrimination that takes place in the workplace. If these prejudices did not exist, there would be no need for civil rights laws to protect these groups. These claims do rise in times of economic distress when people are being singled out for termination or layoff.The news from the EEOC this week is no surprise.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. But it seems to me the belief that little discrimination occurs, or that most of the claims have no merit, or that people are just looking for money is a belief that may not fully appreciate the real prejudice which still exists and is patently manifested in times of economic distress.
Image: eeopreventionorpenalty.com
