EEOC Labor Laws and Management Compliance Practices

Introduction to EEOC Protections and Retaliation Laws

Federal labor laws covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contain fundamental information that managers must understand and actively employ. The labor laws address workplace issues that may seem straightforward on the surface, but they are by no means intuitively understood. Many conditions and situations determine how the laws are applied and to whom they apply. Management must ensure that employees with supervisory capacity receive thorough training in the laws enforced by the EEOC.

Additionally, management must create a company culture that embraces federal labor laws and ensures that managers will work in good faith to achieve benefits for both the company and employees. Employers cannot retaliate against workers for supporting a union or attempting to attend union meetings or participating in a strike (EEOC, 2014). Nor can employers intimidate workers to discourage them from backing or joining a union (EEOC, 2014). Federal law forbids retaliation across all aspects of employment. The law is interpreted broadly and includes job assignment and promotions, compensation, scheduling, hiring and firing, layoff, training, fringe benefits, union organizing activities, and "any other term or condition of employment" (EEOC, 2014).

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that "All of the laws we enforce make it illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise 'retaliate' against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination, because they complained to their employer or other covered entity about discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit)" (EEOC, 2014).

The Walmart Case Study: Illegal Labor Practices

A critical caveat exists: certain attributes of a company determine whether the firm is covered by the laws enforced by the EEOC. Notably, the number of employees in a company is pivotal to EEOC coverage eligibility. Other stipulations vary according to the type of employer and the kind of discrimination alleged. The laws vary somewhat depending on whether an employer is an employment agency, a federal agency, a labor union, a private company, or a state or local government agency (EEOC, 2014). Additionally, discrimination claims can be based on age (40 or older), color of skin, disability, gender, genetic information, national origin, pregnancy, race, and religion.

Discrimination claims are generally considered difficult to prove, with the burden falling squarely on the employee or job candidate. However, blatant discrimination, particularly in the form of retaliation or intimidation, often provides a clearer case for employees to bring. One company with a deserved reputation for blatant discrimination is Walmart. A discussion of Walmart practices is relevant here because it illustrates how a culture of disregard for employees, organized labor, and federal laws can become so embedded in a company that a sense of being above the law becomes the operating principle of the employer.

In January 2014, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board charged Walmart with committing illegal activities in 14 states. The ruling resulted from the NLRB's finding that roughly 70 Walmart workers were unlawfully disciplined and 20 of those workers were also fired—all following their participation in strikes and protests associated with "Our Walmart," a group backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union (though not itself a union). Our Walmart has organized a series of protests against Walmart over the past several years. On Black Friday 2013, Our Walmart sponsored protests at more than 1,000 Walmart stores across the country. The organized workers protested for more full-time jobs, a base wage of $15 per hour, and an end to what they characterized as illegal intimidation and dismissals (Greenhouse, 2014).

During the week of December 8, 2014, National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge Geoffrey Carter decided against Walmart managers in California, citing that they had unlawfully disciplined six employees at a Richmond, California store for going on strike. The managers told striking workers that they would be looking for a new job when they returned after the one-day strike. Additionally, Walmart managers illegally threatened to close the store to keep workers from earning wages if any employees joined a group demanding higher wages (Greenhouse, 2014). The disciplined managers apparently felt free to say whatever came to mind when intimidating employees.

Private Employers and EEOC Coverage Requirements

Walmart workers quoted their managers in complaints, saying remarks included: "If it were up to me, I'd shoot the union." Moreover, one Walmart worker who was wearing a rope around his waist to pull a heavy load was told by his manager: "If it was up to me, I would put that rope around your neck." Regarding a milder incident, Judge Carter determined that Walmart's dress code was overly broad in that it did not prohibit an employee from wearing a shirt with "Free Hugs" written on it. However, Walmart unlawfully forbade employees from wearing clothing with "Our Walmart" printed or embroidered on it. Judge Carter ruled that the Walmart dress code "unduly restricted associates' rights to wear union insignia" (Greenhouse, 2014).

Judge Carter ordered Walmart to remove any written disciplinary notes or references to the disciplinary actions from the personnel files of the six unlawfully intimidated employees. This case demonstrates how systematic disregard for labor law and employee rights can manifest in workplace culture. The behavior documented in the NLRB proceedings was not isolated; rather, it reflected a pattern of intimidation and retaliation that violated federal labor law at multiple locations and across numerous employees.

Private employers must be particularly alert to situations covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The law states that private employers with 15 or more employees working for the employer for at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or previous year are covered by EEOC laws. Regarding general coverage, complaints can be brought against a business for discrimination involving race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, disability, national origin, and genetic information. Additional laws focused on age discrimination cover businesses with 20 or more employees who worked for the business for at least 20 calendar weeks in the current or previous year. Virtually every employee is covered by the Equal Pay Act (EPA), which forbids payment of different wages to men and women if they perform substantially equal work in the same workplace.

Management Practices for Legal Compliance

The process of determining whether a private employer is covered by EEOC laws is complicated. Employers with doubts about the terms, conditions, and parameters of their coverage should contact an EEOC representative in a field office without delay so that an appropriate determination can be made. Moreover, private employers should be advised that even when not covered by EEOC-enforced laws, local or state anti-discrimination laws may still apply. If this is found to be the case, the private employer will be referred to the appropriate state or local agency that oversees compliance and enforces relevant laws.

The complexity of determining labor law applicability serves as a reminder that confusion about compliance must not persist. It is critical that management provides timely and pertinent training to middle managers, supervisors, shift leads, and other employees in positions to interact with workers in ways that potentially conflict with EEOC laws. Moreover, it is prudent for a company to make appropriate supervisory behaviors explicit and ensure they are clearly conveyed and reflected in the performance reviews of managers and supervisors. Establishing solid working relationships with organized labor can help ensure that employee rights are respected and that management practices align with negotiating agreements and existing employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act (Sachs, 2010).

Questionable employment practices can have costly outcomes that extend beyond fines and compensatory payments to wronged employees. Bad press can substantively damage a company's reputation, especially since the internet has become an accessible means of communication. Loss of goodwill can also impact stock prices, making shareholders unhappy.

One of the most important management practices for heading off difficulties with employees is the year-end performance review. An effective change to this important tool is to transition from a year-end review to a performance review that is continuously refreshed throughout the year rather than depending on a single annual event that attempts to capture a year's worth of effort. Important practices for management to use in providing fair and appropriate feedback to employees are listed below (Bloom, 2010):

Conclusion

These practices serve as a bridge between EEOC laws and desirable management practices that are compliant with both the letter and spirit of the law. The focus on performance review processes is just one of many tools management can utilize to ensure company compliance with regulations and establish a culture designed to encourage workers to perform optimally (Sachs, 2010).

With the right attitude and a healthy regard for employees—recognizing them as important company resources—an employer can avoid the most egregious labor and management mistakes. Proper and comprehensive management training programs that incorporate principles of continuous improvement serve to prevent many problems. The practice of aligning desirable management practices with performance reviews of managers is a way to make a clear and emphatic statement about the importance of upholding standards delineated by the company and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.