High Unemployment Helps Make 2010 Record For Workplace Discrimination Complaints, Resolutions

Persistently high unemployment levels and a brutal job market contributed to a record number of workplace discrimination complaints in 2010, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission reported Tuesday.

"I think when people are less likely to find a new job, they're more inclined to file a charge of discrimination," EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser told HuffPost. "Whereas in the past they might just walk off and go to another job, nowadays they can't really do that, because there are no jobs."

Lisser said the jump in discrimination complaints -- which totaled 99,922 in 2010, up from 93,277 the previous year -- was likely due to two factors besides the economy: the EEOC's new education and outreach efforts about discrimination, and a new law that took effect in September 2009 that makes it easier for people to prevail on claims of disability discrimination.

While race discrimination has historically been the most frequently filed charge, last year, for the first time ever, retaliation discrimination surpassed race as the top allegation. According to the EEOC, a person can file a retaliation complaint if he or she is fired or treated differently based on having made previous allegation of discrimination that was sincere and rational.

Lisser said the increase in discrimination charges was accompanied by a record number of merit resolutions, or charges that produce positive results for the plaintiff, suggesting that at least 20,000 of these nearly 100,000 complaints were deemed valid.

In 2010, the EEOC secured more than $404 million in monetary relief from employers -- the most money the commission has ever obtained through the administrative process.

"We are pleased to see that our rebuilding efforts are having an impact on how efficiently and effectively the Commission enforces the civil rights laws protecting the nation's workers," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Discrimination continues to be a substantial problem for too many job seekers and workers, and we must continue to build our capacity to enforce the laws that ensure that workplaces are free of unlawful bias."

Comments

[GoBlueinNYC]

09:06 PM on 01/12/2011

Just liberals crying as usual

[Figerre]

01:26 PM on 01/12/2011

That is because it is happening. ASU moved many of its over 55 employees from protected status into 'contract' status and then didn't renew the contract. No way to fight back. But surprising just how many of the people whose contracts were not renewed were over 55 women.

[getoffmedz]

01:00 PM on 01/12/2011

The number 1 employment discrimination is Age Discrimination. Over 55 and you are not a viable candidate for employment and if employed over 50 will be the first to go.

Some companies have lowered the bar to age 45.

[GravitonX]

04:04 PM on 01/12/2011

Actually, it's racial discrimination. It was the basis for employment discrimination laws.

[Carrie Krueger]

11:49 AM on 01/12/2011

There’s a lot of concern right now about age discrimination. Older workers have been particularly hard hit by the jobless crisis. Age discrimination is definitely real, and wrong. But often there are other factors impacting older workers and their ability to get hired. For example, they may have dated skills, an incompatible communication style or be unwilling to do certain jobs. I address the issue in this blog piece: http://blog.jobfully.com/2010/12/is-it-age-discrimination-or-something-else/ It’s critical for older workers to demonstrate their ability to fit in and do the job effectively. We can’t change our age, but we can control how we present ourselves and our abilities.

[FearlessLeader]

12:38 PM on 01/12/2011

The thing about age discrimination is that it's socially acceptable whereas racial discrimination is not. Based upon what I can see. If you choose not to hire someone because he is black and revealed that to other employees, they would be outraged that you did such a thing. However, if you confided that you didn't hire someone because he was too old, people would probably say, "yes, we're a young group. He wouldn't fit in". Another difference with racial discrimination is that it could be an older manager who decided he would rather hire a young person than a person the same age as himself.

[dc8s]

02:56 PM on 01/12/2011

So true. And so wrong.

[Carrie Krueger]

07:15 PM on 01/12/2011

Really? I don't think most people would directly say the no-hire decision was age related. For one thing, that's illegal, so even if that was the reason, I don't know if it would be spoken. But you hit right on the underlying reason, beyond age which is "He wouldn't fit in". That's the REAL issue. The older job seeker needs to prove he/she will fit in. In addition to qualifications, "fit" is critical and one of the reasons older workers are sometimes not considered a match.

[czs5056]

11:27 AM on 01/12/2011

One thing about inflated unemployment is that it allows employers to discriminate in the hiring process because they're are are so many applicants for the dame position they can pick and choose who they want

[April22]

10:43 AM on 01/12/2011

Justine Isser perhaps has not taken into consideration that there are hundreds of people applying for the same job at a time. When this occurs,an employer more often than not is going to hire a younger applicant over an older and especially if benefits are included. The chances of an older employee getting sick or hurt increases and so will that employer's health insurance and workman's compensation payments increase.

Many employers have asked me to fill out forms indicating my race and age, for some unknown or vague, to me, reason. Doesn't that give an employer an edge as to who will be hired? What if that employer has an adversion to a particular race? Does not particularly want to work with an older person? Would prefer females over males?

I feel Ms. Isser is defending something of which she has no first hand knowledge, and perhaps would be better off giving some people the benefit of the doubt.

[jharris344]

12:08 PM on 01/12/2011

"Many employers have asked me to fill out forms indicating my race and age, for some unknown or vague, to me, reason."

Unless it's used for statistical analysis, I thought this practice was illegal!

[Marturia]

12:23 PM on 01/12/2011

"The chances of an older employee getting sick or hurt increases"
Not necessarily. I have a 67 year old family member who works 10 hour shifts at a local company. He has not had a sick day for almost five years. The younger employees are sick all the time and they 'lay out' (often to party). He says that the main reason an older person would need time off is because they often have to cover for irresponsible younger employees who just don't show up.

[fumes]

10:40 AM on 01/12/2011

discrimination is VERY american..

we teach it in our schools!

[MrsGreebers]

10:23 AM on 01/12/2011

Or maybe companies are freer to indulge their bigotry when they have their pick of applicants.

[den1953]

10:03 AM on 01/12/2011

Oh great looking forward to reading about all the working class people going postal in the up coming months!

[Middle Blue]

09:45 AM on 01/12/2011

If there is no penalty for a false accusation, but money available for success, no wonder it is flooded.

[J0E1]

10:41 AM on 01/12/2011

Bingo.

[freedomthrutruth]

10:58 AM on 01/12/2011

Simple childishness can sometimes lead us to believe employers in this country are inclined to hire the best possible applicants. My experience shows that nothing could be further from the truth. Employers like sycophants and go-along-to-get-along types, not human beings who ask questions and protest when authority figures display immoral.

[bgnthree]

09:42 AM on 01/12/2011

Is this any surprise? They always use this for a crutch anyway, so it should be no surprise that its higher now

[jharris344]

12:11 PM on 01/12/2011

Yeah, right. Discrimination in the workplace does not exist, LOL!

[bgnthree]

01:00 PM on 01/12/2011

It exists all right. But the number of cases that are legitimate, pale in comparison to the number of cases that are bogus

[Adey Jarvis]

09:42 AM on 01/12/2011

I go to a bar where they refuse entry to a man in a wheelchair. He went to the press and squealed all over review sites that he was discriminated against - based on legal requirements for disability access. The bar responded 'we refuse many people. mainly because they aren't the customers we want. we have many disabled customers who we are very happy to serve'. In the same vain, I question the real reason many of these people don't have jobs and whether discrimination is really to blame?

[Neapolitan]

09:20 AM on 01/12/2011

I live in an area with very high unemployment, and I can tell you without hesitation that discrimination of all types exists. In my case, I meet up with age discrimination all the time. "You're overqualified," I'm told, though that almost always happens during or after the interview; no one ever tells me that based on my resume alone. It seems that employers want a 20-something who'll work for peanuts, who won't ask for time off, who will never complain, and who will put in 80 hours for 40 hours' pay because he has nothing else to do.

Oy, vey... ;-)

[Middle Blue]

09:43 AM on 01/12/2011

Yes, all the time. I taught project managers, but somehow, well, hmmmmmmmmmm........ nah, hire a kid. Cheaper. The idea that productivity matters is gone. Besides, what boss would want someone sharp who -could- call "bs" around? What boss wants smarter/faster people around these days, when management just cuts as quickly as it can?

[GravitonX]

11:00 AM on 01/12/2011

The chief concern with older workers is the health care exposure. They are also often far more expensive, in that, they are typically the primary breadwinner with a family, household, mortgage to support. I don't typically hire college grads because of the nature of our operation, but I can tell you that outsourcing to India has been our core focus, because they are, to put it bluntly, cheaper and usually more competent (because India has a committment to building their country into a software powerhouse via massive training in virtually every technology) than American workers.

[J0E1]

10:45 AM on 01/12/2011

"You're overqualif­ied," I'm told, though that almost always happens during or after the interview; no one ever tells me that based on my resume alone.
 
An employer can EASILY tell from your resume alone how old you are and whether you are "overqualified".  Sounds to me like the interview is the problem.
 
Another thing to take into account before you jump on age discrimination is are you really overqualified for a job?  ie.  Are you desperately applying to a $50k/yr job when you were just laid off from a $90k one.  In that case, what employer wants to hire an employee they know is just going to leave the second they find that 80+k job?  I wouldn't.

[Carrie Krueger]

11:48 AM on 01/12/2011

I agree. "Overqualified" is almost always a label put on other concerns such as "Will you be happy working for a manager with far less experience?" or "Will you leave quickly when something better comes along?" or "Will you be bored?" It's not so much about age as it is about willingness to fit in, do the job well, have a great attitude and stick with the company. Identifying and dealing with these issues, in this blog piece: http://blog.jobfully.com/2010/08/youre-overqualified-what-are-they-really-saying/

[GrtAmerican]

09:07 AM on 01/12/2011

Yet another reason employers are sending jobs overseas; liberal employment laws are making it impossible to fire unproductive workers. Watch out employers, don't try to fire anyone for any reason or you'll get sued; better yet, just don't hire Americans until the business climate is less hostile.

[GravitonX]

09:23 AM on 01/12/2011

Actually, the opposite. In Europe, where worker's rights are the strongest in the Western World, employers are loath to outsource jobs because workers would have none of it. Rampant, unchecked disrimination is symptomatic of the weak American worker.

[dc8s]

03:00 PM on 01/12/2011

I completely agree.

[Powderfinger]

09:45 AM on 01/12/2011

Employers are cutting their own throats, since unemployed people can't afford to buy anything.

Henry Ford had his faults, but he was smart enough to double his workers' pay, enabling them to buy the cars they were building.

[GravitonX]

09:06 AM on 01/12/2011

Racial discrimination tops all other forms of discrimination by far.

[Middle Blue]

09:49 AM on 01/12/2011

In the F500, race/gender assure you of a position for life, in general, and immunity from poor reviews. As evidence, I cite the now standard performance appraisal system -- 50/50 what/how. That translates into 50% goal attainment, 50% manager's judgment about 'how' you did that work. So, there is forced ranking, you can bet your a(s that every minority gets 'perfect' on 'how' and very soft dings on 'what' every single time, because if you so much as say one negative thing, they flip, call the EEOC and HR has a mess. As for the EU, yeah, I have been there, and the full employment/protection policy would be nice, but America is owned by the rich, so, no way in the USA.

[GravitonX]

10:50 AM on 01/12/2011

That is simply not true. I happen to be a manager at a F10 financial company. The review process is a company's way of shielding itself from any liability and protecting itself from the indiscretions of lower management, not a means to correct it. In fact, our HR engagement training, typically offered by independent consultants who bill themselves as experts in dealing with discrimination laws and it's circumvention, we are trained in the process of how to deal with "troublesome" employees. There is no training in investigating the validity of their claims, much less the course of action to take henceforth; only how to deal, i.e. mitigate the liability of the company, with the "troublesome" employee, which is entirely subject to our perceptions and prejudices, via compliance to corporate policy. This is because most companies get slammed in court when they can be shown to deviate from their own corporate policy, which, of course, is a joke and entirely self-serving in and of itself. In the worst case, it comes like foxes guarding the hen house.