All employers are required to display three federal postings visible to job applicants.
Are you missing a key component of posting compliance in your business?
Depending on how your company manages job applicants, you may be missing three required Federal labor law postings that must be accessible to job applicants:
- Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)
The ubiquitous requirement for “conspicuous location” comes into play here. If your labor law postings are in an area not accessible to job applicants, that location would not satisfy the conspicuous location requirement.
For example, many companies display workplace postings in break rooms or on bulletin boards next to time clocks, or in manager’s offices. But if an applicant never makes it past the reception area into area where posters are displayed, then the postings are not in a conspicuous location for applicants.
How to Meet Federal Requirements for Applicant Postings
- Determine where applicants typically fill in and/or submit job applications at a physical location.
- Determine if labor law posters are visible and accessible (in other words, “readable”) for job applicants.
- If not, display the three required postings.
GovDocs offers a convenient 3-on-1 laminated posters containing the required postings for applicants. Subscribers to this blog can save 20% on all compliance poster purchases, including the GovDocs Federal Applicant poster, using coupon code BLOG20.
Focus on EEO is the Law Posting for Job Applicants
For the EEO is the Law posting, employers are encouraged to post the electronic notice on their web sites in a conspicuous location. However, electronic posting does not fulfill the obligation to physically post the required information.
Additionally, physical versions must be visible and accessible to applicants and employees with disabilities that limit mobility.
E-Verify and Right-to-Work Applicant Posting Requirements
If not, display the three required postings. If your locations participate in the E-Verify program, your participating locations will have to display the E-Verify postings “in a location that is clearly visible to any employees and applicants who will have their employment eligibility verified with E-Verify.” The posting must be displayed in English and Spanish.
Where poster display is not feasible, the employer must provide all applicants with copies of the E-Verify notices in English and Spanish with application materials.
Want Even More Information About Federal Posting Requirements?
Download the free GovDocs Federal Posting Guide to learn more about Federal postings. The Guide describes each Federal posting’s content, for whom it’s required, and the posting requirements. The Federal Posting Guide includes guidance for:
- Postings Required for All Employers
- Postings for Applicants
- Federal Contractor Postings
- Federal Construction / Transportation Projects
- Postings by Industry / Worker Classification
A female worker with a disability was demoted for questioning why her male counterpart earned a higher hourly pay rate. Then the employer refused to provide reasonable accommodation.[wc_divider style=”dotted” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]
Eloisa Schlaff worked at Taprite for 15 years, moving from an assembly position to a Quality Control Inspector. Then one day she learned that at least one male counterpart made more than three dollars per hour more than she did for the same work.
She was not amused.
Schlaff asked her supervisor about the difference between her pay and the male coworkers’ pay.
After stating her concerns about gender-based pay discrimination to management, the company demoted her and lowered her pay!
Schlaff, who suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome, suddenly found herself in an assembly position that required repetitive tasks and strenuous physical movement that exacerbated her medical condition.
Did Eloisa Schlaff give up and go home?
She went to work in the assembly role where she experienced severe pain and swelling in her hands caused by the repetitive motion.
She informed her supervisor of her medical condition and requested to be reassigned to work she could perform as a reasonable accommodation, but the company refused her request.
After receiving Schlaff’s complaint, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), filed a gender, disability and retaliation-based discrimination lawsuit against Taprite.
The EEOC claimed that Taprite’s actions were unlawful and deprived Eloisa Schlaff of equal employment opportunities based on her disabilities (arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome), but it got messy in court.[wc_box color=”danger” text_align=”left”]
Lessons Learned from EEOC v. Taprite
- Audit pay rates by job function and classification to identify and correct disparities between workers performing comparable work.
- Avoid taking punitive action against workers after they have expressed concerns about workplace discrimination.
- Make a good-faith effort to understand workers’ requests for reasonable accommodation, and think creatively about solutions. Collaboration and cooperation go a long way with both employees and the EEOC.
- Train managers on EEOC requirements annually.
- Develop internal protocols for consistently addressing complaints of discrimination and requests for reasonable accommodation.
Monetary fine: $72,500
- Ensure that its employment policies conform with the law.
- Implement training to addresses sex and disability discrimination.
- Post EEO notices at the workplace.
Taprite denied wrongdoing, claiming they lacked “sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the factual allegations”. In other words, they were calling bull on Schlaff’s claims and didn’t believe Schlaff’s disability was legitimate.
The company slung some mud around, too, claiming Schlaff’s job performance was not satisfactory. They also denied refusing Schlaff’s request for reasonable accommodation. However, even one of Eloisa’s male coworkers could recommend the quality of her work:
“Eloisa has a great eye for inspection and a vast knowledge of Quality Control Procedures. She has a strong background in Lean Manufacturing and is a pleasure to work alongside of.”
In the end, the EEOC arm-wrestled Taprite into a settlement that avoided a judge’s ruling on the company’s culpability.[wc_box color=”secondary” text_align=”left”]
Why Do Employers Retaliate? READ MORE[/wc_box]
Eloisa Schlaff is a nominee for the GovDocs 2015 Workplace Hero Award for asserting her rights and resolving workplace challenges in a constructive manner. Do you know of someone who you consider to be a Workplace Hero? Nominate them here!
[wc_divider style=”solid” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]
Restaurant chain sued for gender discrimination against male employees’
[wc_divider style=”dotted” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]
Ruby Tuesday posted internal job announcements advertising summer bartender and server positions with company-provided housing, among their locations within a 9-state region (Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah). The postings stated that only females would be considered – allegedly because of concerns over housing employees of both genders together.
The company was charged with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.
Ruby Tuesday has agreed to a three-year consent decree in order to resolve the issue.
Monetary fine: $100,000
- Provide back pay to employees
- Prevent gender-based employment discrimination in temporary and permanent job assignments at all facilities located within 9-state region.
- Provide Title VII training to its employees, managers and supervisors
- Distribute its EEO policy to all employees (present & future) for the duration of the Consent Decree
- Maintain records of any complaints of gender-based discrimination
- Report annually to the EEOC
Lessons Learned from EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
Federal law protects both men and women from gender discrimination. Companies must consider qualified applicants for employment based on their qualifications – not their gender. Denying a qualified applicant a job because of his/her sex is unjust and unlawful, no matter if the discrimination results from a ‘concern’ about housing employees of both genders.[/wc_box] [wc_divider style=”solid” line=”single” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=””]