ReportWire

Tag: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

  • Head of workplace rights agency urges white men to report discrimination

    [ad_1]

    By CLAIRE SAVAGE

    The head of the U.S. agency for enforcing workplace civil rights posted a social media call-out urging white men to come forward if they have experienced race or sex discrimination at work.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Workplace Discrimination Complaints Are Expected to Drop. Here’s Why

    [ad_1]

    Business owners face one less threat of falling afoul of federal regulations, though that might not be good news to all entrepreneurs. This week, the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) officially abandoned investigations of any discrimination complaints based on disparate impact liability, long viewed as an effective legal tool in those cases.

    What that means for employers is they no longer have to worry about being pursued by federal agencies for allegedly having policies or business practices that may unintentionally disadvantage certain groups of employees in hiring or promotion decisions. That’s the consequence of the EEOC now acting on an April executive order requiring all area, local, and district offices to cease pursuing worker complaints founded on disparate liability impact grounds, according to an internal memo reported by the Associated Press.

    For decades, that legal concept has allowed the EEOC and other agencies to investigate, and at times censure workplace procedures that upon first view may appear fair — but whose application are found to create discriminatory challenges or obstacles for certain workers. The order to cease use of disparate impact means that as of September 30, EEOC officials dropped all open inquiries based on that legal liability, and refuse to accept additional complaints citing it.

    The EEOC action comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate diversity, equality, and inclusion policies and equality opportunity practices by federal agencies — and encourage the spread of those prohibitions to the private sector. That’s happening through campaigns pressuring organizations and businesses to abandon a range of principles Trump and his supporters decry as “woke.” Disparate impact liability clearly falls into that category.

    “Disparate-impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability,” said Trump’s April 23 executive order, which the EEOC has now applied. “It not only undermines our national values, but also runs contrary to equal protection under the law and, therefore, violates our Constitution.”

    While constituting a main plank of his political platform, Trump’s efforts to eliminate so-called “woke” concepts or policies in federal agencies is being paired with his effort to spare employers the time and money required to comply with numerous regulations.

    In banning disparate impact liability as part of that drive to ease life for businesses, Trump’s order decries the legal concept for creating “near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination… even if there is no facially discriminatory policy or practice or discriminatory intent involved.”

    Most, if not all business owners, are likely to be relieved at no longer running the risk of being called out by the EEOC for well-intended policies that inadvertently produce discriminatory effects. But entrepreneurs who believe employers should be held accountable for both intentional and accidental bias against any employee may feel troubled by the disparate impact liability ban.

    That concern may be all the greater with the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in hiring, staff management, and promotion decisions that’s rapidly expanding across business.

    The reason? Evidence indicates that AI tools digest and act upon all the biases of humans overseeing their development and training. Meanwhile as AI platforms continue vacuuming up vast amounts of information to broaden their response capabilities, they also integrate partialities, or even prejudices from their data sources — including flawed internal employer practices.

    Indeed, Amazon stopped using an app that analyzed resumes sent in by higher-level recruits when the company realized the technology was favoring male candidates. In doing so, the automated AI agent apparently reflected conscious and unconscious biases in Amazon’s predominantly male tech workforce. By contrast, job post platform Indeed has developed an AI agent to help employers avoid unwanted biases in their decisions and policies.

    ‘Resegregate the workforce’

    As small business owners and corporate giants continue adopting AI tools in their businesses, worries are rising that the biases contained in the data that apps operate on will increase the number of discriminatory company policies.

    “As AI is becoming more and more popular, it’s particularly important that we have the disparate impact tools available to be able to police it and make sure it’s not being used to resegregate the workforce,” said civil rights and plaintiff-side employment attorney Christine Webber told the Associated Press.

    Despite Trump’s order and the EEOC’s new prohibition of disparate impact liability, companies would be wise to keep an eye open to any possibly unintentional discrimination results of their policies.

    As labor relations law firm Littler notes, even if the EEOC has abandoned disparate impact as grounds for investigating worker complaints, it remains an applicable discrimination charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That means that even though plaintiffs must first make what will now be a doomed disparate impact liability complaint to the EEOC, they can then file that as a suit in civil court once the federal agency rejects it.

    “Moreover, many states impose laws establishing disparate impact liability under their state non-discrimination laws,” a Littler blog post on the EEOC ban said. “Employers facing challenges to employment practices or charges of discrimination alleging disparate impact liability are advised to consult with counsel.”

    Meaning, even business owners who cheer the demise of disparate impact liability for the same reasons Trump banned it may still find themselves as concerned about its various consequences as less enthusiastic entrepreneurs worried it may result in increased workplace discrimination.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Fired executive to sue Alexandria-based United Way, claims retaliation after reporting sexual harassment – WTOP News

    Fired executive to sue Alexandria-based United Way, claims retaliation after reporting sexual harassment – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A former chief marketing officer at Alexandria, Virginia-based United Way Worldwide plans to file a $12 million lawsuit against the charity on Wednesday. The woman says she was retaliated against, and eventually fired, after reporting sexual harassment to management within the organization.

    A former chief marketing officer at Alexandria, Virginia-based United Way Worldwide plans to file a $12 million lawsuit against the charity on Wednesday.

    Lisa Bowman says she was retaliated against, and eventually fired, after reporting sexual harassment to management within the organization, which calls itself “America’s favorite charity.”

    WTOP has learned from sources familiar with the impending suit that attorneys for Bowman will claim, in the Circuit Court of Alexandria, that Bowman was harassed, subjected to a hostile work environment because of her gender, and later retaliated against for complaining about the unlawful conduct, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    From November 2015 to February 2020, Bowman was employed by United Way as executive vice president and chief marketing and communications officer, reporting directly to the charity’s president and chief executive officer, Brian Gallagher.

    In late 2020, approximately three years after the #MeToo movement gained prominence, Bowman and two other female executives told their stories to HuffPo — previously the Huffington Post — saying leadership ignored their reports of harassment, and that each filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that investigates civil rights claims in workplaces.

    In the soon-to-be-filed suit in the Circuit Court of Alexandria, Bowman’s attorneys Maureen Carr and Allison Riddle are expected to detail Bowman’s interactions with a male colleague, who she told human resources repeatedly leered at her and made inappropriate comments about her appearance.

    Bowman said her interactions with the male colleague began in October 2017, when Gallagher asked her to interview the man for a new role.

    Bowman has said when the colleague arrived, he stood very close to her, within what she considered her personal space. She recalls the man told her she was intimidating.

    When the man told Bowman they would no doubt tangle, Bowman said if they had a disagreement, it would be solved professionally behind closed doors. The male colleague said he would enjoy that scenario.

    The suit is expected to include that Bowman voiced her concerns about the interviewee’s behavior and commentary to Gallagher, but her boss soon hired the man for the new role anyway.

    Bowman said she attempted to speak privately with the man about improving their working relationship, after repeated comments about her appearance and an invitation to stay with the man at an Airbnb during a business trip.

    She’s expected to say he had a pattern of pacing back and forth outside her office, several times a day, even though they worked on different floors and her office wasn’t near an office the male colleague would have reason to visit. Bowman said her employees took notice of his presence.

    By February 2019, Bowman said the male colleague had, on several occasions, blatantly scanned her body up and down several times, while making comments about her clothes and body. Over time, she began taking precautions to not be alone with the male colleague.

    When Bowman spoke to Gallagher about the male colleague’s behavior, she said she was told she needed to learn to get along with him. Bowman claims she told Gallagher the issue wasn’t about getting along, but was instead about unacceptable behavior that put United Way Worldwide at risk.

    In October 2019, Bowman said she made her final attempt to resolve work issues with the male colleague privately, but he became passive-aggressive and bullied Bowman by yelling at her, dismissing her concerns, and insulting her.

    After reporting the unsettling interactions to at least three female members of management, Bowman says human resources took no meaningful action, and her previous standing and responsibilities with the charity started to wither.

    Employees who had been assigned to her team were moved to the male colleague’s team. At approximately the same time, as Bowman was being pushed aside, her alleged harasser was promoted.

    During a meeting on Jan. 9, 2020, Gallagher told Bowman, “I don’t need you,” and said a newly hired executive would be the charity’s top marketing person.

    While human resources agreed that Bowman’s last day with the charity would be Feb. 21, 2020, she was abruptly fired on Feb. 6.

    Bowman is expected to state she’s been unable to find comparable employment and has suffered significant financial losses.

    In addition, she’ll claim that because of United Way’s actions she’s suffered and continues to suffer from pain, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, stress and anxiety.

    In March 2020, Bowman filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on sex, resulting in harassment and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation, under Title VII.

    In February 2021, Gallagher resigned from United Way Worldwide, three days after a law firm hired by the nonprofit concluded United Way had demonstrated no “actionable” sexual bias.

    Nearly four years later, on March 7, 2024, the EEOC notified Bowman and United Way Worldwide that it was closing its investigation and providing a Notice of Right to Sue, which allowed Bowman 90 days to file a lawsuit.

    WTOP is seeking comment from United Way Worldwide.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Neal Augenstein

    Source link

  • First major attempts to regulate AI face headwinds from all sides

    First major attempts to regulate AI face headwinds from all sides

    [ad_1]

    DENVER (AP) — Artificial intelligence is helping decide which Americans get the job interview, the apartment, even medical care, but the first major proposals to reign in bias in AI decision making are facing headwinds from every direction.

    Lawmakers working on these bills, in states including Colorado, Connecticut and Texas, came together Thursday to argue the case for their proposals as civil rights-oriented groups and the industry play tug-of-war with core components of the legislation.

    “Every bill we run is going to end the world as we know it. That’s a common thread you hear when you run policies,” Colorado’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez said Thursday. “We’re here with a policy that’s not been done anywhere to the extent that we’ve done it, and it’s a glass ceiling we’re breaking trying to do good policy.”

    Organizations including labor unions and consumer advocacy groups are pulling for more transparency from companies and greater legal recourse for citizens to sue over AI discrimination. The industry is offering tentative support but digging in its heels over those accountability measures.

    The group of bipartisan lawmakers caught in the middle — including those from Alaska, Georgia and Virginia — has been working on AI legislation together in the face of federal inaction. On Thursday, they highlighted their work across states and stakeholders, emphasizing the need for AI legislation and reinforcing the importance for collaboration and compromise to avoid regulatory inconsistencies across state lines. They also argued the bills are a first step that can be built on going forward.

    “It’s a new frontier and in a way, a bit of a wild, wild West,” Alaska’s Republican Sen. Shelley Hughes said at the news conference. “But it is a good reminder that legislation that passed, it’s not in stone, it can be tweaked over time.”

    While over 400 AI-related bills are being debated this year in statehouses nationwide, most target one industry or just a piece of the technology — such as deepfakes used in elections or to make pornographic images.

    The biggest bills this team of lawmakers has put forward offer a broad framework for oversight, particularly around one of the technology’s most perverse dilemmas: AI discrimination. Examples include an AI that failed to accurately assess Black medical patients and another that downgraded women’s resumes as it filtered job applications.

    Still, up to 83% of employers use algorithms to help in hiring, according to estimates from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    If nothing is done, there will almost always be bias in these AI systems, explained Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Brown University computer and data science professor who’s teaching a class on mitigating bias in the design of these algorithms.

    “You have to do something explicit to not be biased in the first place,” he said.

    These proposals, mainly in Colorado and Connecticut, are complex, but the core thrust is that companies would be required to perform “impact assessments” for AI systems that play a large role in making decisions for those in the U.S. Those reports would include descriptions of how AI figures into a decision, the data collected and an analysis of the risks of discrimination, along with an explanation of the company’s safeguards.

    Requiring greater access to information on the AI systems means more accountability and safety for the public. But companies worry it also raises the risk of lawsuits and the revelation of trade secrets.

    David Edmonson, of TechNet, a bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that lobbies on AI bills, said in a statement that the organization works with lawmakers to “ensure any legislation addresses AI’s risk while allowing innovation to flourish.”

    Under bills in Colorado and Connecticut, companies that use AI wouldn’t have to routinely submit impact assessments to the government. Instead, they would be required to disclose to the attorney general if they found discrimination — a government or independent organization wouldn’t be testing these AI systems for bias.

    Labor unions and academics worry that over reliance on companies self-reporting imperils the public or government’s ability to catch AI discrimination before it’s done harm.

    “It’s already hard when you have these huge companies with billions of dollars,” said Kjersten Forseth, who represents the Colorado’s AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions that opposes Colorado’s bill. “Essentially you are giving them an extra boot to push down on a worker or consumer.”

    The California Chamber of Commerce opposes that state’s bill, concerned that impact assessments could be made public in litigation.

    Another contentious component of the bills is who can file a lawsuit under the legislation, which the bills generally limit to state attorney generals and other public attorneys — not citizens.

    After a provision in California’s bill that allowed citizens to sue was stripped out, Workday, a finance and HR software company, endorsed the proposal. Workday argues that civil actions from citizens would leave the decisions up to judges, many of whom are not tech experts, and could result in an inconsistent approach to regulation.

    Sorelle Friedler, a professor who focuses on AI bias at Haverford College, pushes back.

    “That’s generally how American society asserts our rights, is by suing,” said Friedler.

    Connecticut’s Democratic state Sen. James Maroney said there’s been pushback in articles that claim he and Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Texas, have been “pedaling industry-written bills” despite all of the money being spent by the industry to lobby against the legislation.

    Maroney pointed out one industry group, Consumer Technology Association, has taken out ads and built a website, urging lawmakers to defeat the legislation.

    “I believe that we are on the right path. We’ve worked together with people from industry, from academia, from civil society,” he said.

    “Everyone wants to feel safe, and we’re creating regulations that will allow for safe and trustworthy AI,” he added.

    _____

    Associated Press reporters Trân Nguyễn contributed from Sacramento, California, Becky Bohrer contributed from Juneau, Alaska, Susan Haigh contributed from Hartford, Connecticut.

    ___

    Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    Denver 7+ Colorado News Latest Headlines | April 19, 7am

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link