Federal Court Allows EEOC Disability Case to Proceed, Denying United Parcel Service’s Appeal
Decision Important to Issue of Identifying Victims of Discrimination in Class Cases, Federal Agency Says
CHICAGO - A federal district court has denied United Parcel Service's (UPS) motion to appeal an earlier ruling in favor of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The contested ruling allowed the Commission's disability discrimination case to proceed to the discovery phase. (EEOC, et al., v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 09-cv-05291 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013.)
In its suit, originally filed in 2009, the EEOC alleged that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by allowing only 12-month leaves of absence, failing to provide disabled employees with further reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, and firing them if they exceeded those parameters. UPS moved to dismiss the EEOC's complaint, arguing, in part, that the EEOC did not provide enough information about unidentified UPS employees for whom EEOC was seeking relief. The court initially agreed and dismissed the EEOC's complaint but allowed the EEOC to file an amended complaint.
The EEOC went on to file two amended complaints, both of which the court dismissed at UPS's request, finding that the EEOC still had not alleged adequate factual information with respect to the unidentified class members. The EEOC did not identify by name more than two of its class members in any of its complaints.
After the EEOC filed a motion to appeal the court's dismissal of its case, the court, on its own, reconsidered its earlier decisions and held that the most recent EEOC complaint indeed satisfied the legal requirements. UPS then filed its motion seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling.
Yesterday Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. denied the UPS motion to appeal, stating that an appeal would not "'materially advance the ultimate termination' of this litigation." Rather, the court found that immediate further litigation at the trial court level would speed up the proceedings. The court also said that it "remains confident of the correctness of its January 11 ruling" which allowed EEOC's case to proceed even though the Commission did not have complete information on all possible victims of discrimination at the time of filing its lawsuit.
According to EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John Hendrickson, the long-running proceedings have been closely watched by representatives of both employers and employees because of their impact upon how EEOC may litigate class cases challenging systemic discrimination in the work place. "Yesterday's decision affirms the court's prior ruling that the EEOC can pursue claims of employment discrimination on behalf of persons whose identities may not be known at the outset of the case," he said.
"For everyone who has been wondering about the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Iqbal v. Ashcroft and other decisions regarding EEOC class cases, Judge Dow's ruling will put a significant issue to rest-at least in this jurisdiction," Hendrickson added. "It is clear, once again, that EEOC need not specifically identify every single victim of discrimination for whom it may seek relief when it files a complaint in federal district court. That may sound like a mere technical point, but for those of us who litigate those cases-it makes a difference, it's important." In the Iqbal case, 129 S.Ct 1937 (2009), the Supreme Court held that complaints must have enough specificity to present a plausible case for relief.
According to its website, UPS, a multi-billion dollar corporation, is the world's largest package delivery company and a leading global provider of specialized transportation and logistics services.
In addition to Hendrickson, the EEOC attorneys working on the case are Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason and trial attorneys Aaron DeCamp, Deborah Hamilton, and Jeanne B. Szromba.
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
Scientists Find New Clues to Early Onset Alzheimer’s
Too much plaque-building protein produced in people with certain genes, study finds
WEDNESDAY, June 12 (HealthDay News) -- People with genetic mutations that lead to inherited, early onset Alzheimer's disease overproduce a longer, stickier form of amyloid beta, the protein fragment that clumps into plaques in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, a small new study has found.
Researchers found that these people make about 20 percent more of a type of amyloid beta -- amyloid beta 42 -- than family members who do not carry the Alzheimer's mutation, according to research published in the June 12 edition of Science Translational Medicine.
Further, researchers Rachel Potter at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and colleagues found that amyloid beta 42 disappears from cerebrospinal fluid much more quickly than other known forms of amyloid beta, possibly because it is being deposited on plaques in the brain.
Alzheimer's researchers have long believed that brain plaques created by amyloid beta cause the memory loss and thought impairment that comes with the disease.
This new study does not prove that amyloid plaques cause Alzheimer's, but it does provide more evidence regarding the way the disease develops and will guide future research into diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Judy Willis, a neurologist and spokesperson for the American Academy of Neurology.
The mutation occurs in the presenilin gene and has previously been linked to increased production of amyloid beta 42 over amyloid beta 38 and 40, the other types of amyloid beta found in cerebrospinal fluid, the study said.
Earlier studies of the human brain after death and using animal research have suggested that amyloid beta 42 is the most important contributor to Alzheimer's.
The new study confirms that connection and also quantifies overproduction of amyloid beta 42 in living human brains. The investigators also found that amyloid beta 42 is exchanged and recycled in the body, slowing its exit from the brain.
"The amyloid protein buildup has been hypothesized to correlate with the symptoms of Alzheimer's by causing neuronal damage, but we do not know what causes the abnormalities of amyloid overproduction and decreased removal," Willis said.
The findings from the new study "are supportive of abnormal turnover of amyloid occurring in people with the genetic mutation decades before the onset of their symptoms," she said.
Researchers conducted the study by comparing 11 carriers of mutated presenilin genes with family members who do not have the mutation. They used advanced scanning technology that can "tag" and then track newly created proteins in the body. With this technology, they tracked the production and clearance of amyloid beta 40 and 42 in the participants' cerebrospinal fluid.
This research gives clinicians a potential "marker" to check when evaluating the Alzheimer's risk of a person with this genetic mutation, Willis said.
"It's an earlier way to identify the first associations of Alzheimer's," she said. "It appears looking at the spinal fluid may be the first way to diagnose this disease."
Even though the research focused on a genetic abnormality faced by a very small percentage of early onset Alzheimer's patients, its new insights into the way amyloid beta is produced and exchanged in the body will help investigations into both early and late onset forms of the disease, said Dean Hartley, director of science initiatives for the Alzheimer's Association.
"The disease pathology is almost identical, when you look at early Alzheimer's compared with the more common sporadic forms of Alzheimer's," Hartley said. "The plaques and tangles that form are nearly identical."
The study also identifies amyloid beta 42 as a potential target for future drug trials, he added.
"One of the reasons we've not made a shot on goal for clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease is we need to understand more about the disease mechanism for Alzheimer's," he said. "There actually have been trials to look at drugs that inhibit [the enzyme that causes the formation of amyloid beta]. They have failed because this particular enzyme doesn't just work on beta amyloid but on other proteins in the body as well. It wasn't really a target-specific drug.
"We're not that far away from clinical trials," Hartley continued. "The question is whether this target is going to turn out to be a safe target."
SOURCES: Judy Willis, M.D., neurologist, and spokesperson, American Academy of Neurology; Dean M. Hartley, Ph.D., director of science initiatives, Alzheimer's Association; June 12, 2013, Science Translational Medicine
Jury Awards $500,000 in EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit Against Exel, Inc.
Jury Finds Employer Refused to Promote Employee Because She Was Female
ATLANTA - An Atlanta jury has awarded $500,000 against a Westerville, Ohio-based warehouse and distribution company for failing to promote a female to a supervisory position, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit (Case No. 1:10-CV-03132), filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Exel, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to promote Contrice Travis to an inventory supervisor position in 2008.
At the four-day trial, the EEOC presented evidence that male employees were routinely promoted after verbally requesting consideration for open positions, while Travis, who the EEOC said was indisputably recognized as the most knowledgeable in inventory control, was denied the inventory supervisor position recently vacated by her supervisor. Travis's former supervisor testified that when he recommended Travis for the position, the general manager informed him that he would never put a woman in that position.
The jury also heard evidence of the company's duplicity towards Travis -- for example, that while Travis was told the inventory supervisor position would not be filled, the male selected for the position was told by a management and human resources official that the position would be filled, but that he would be selected only if he kept it a secret. The selectee, Michel Pooler, testified that Travis was later required to train him because he had no inventory experience whatsoever.
The jury awarded Travis $25,000 in compensatory damages and $475,000 in punitive damages for Exel's conduct in this matter. The court will also award back pay to Travis.
"This verdict is a blow against sex discrimination and reaffirms that women should be allowed the full opportunity to advance in an organization based on merit," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "The EEOC will explore every opportunity to resolve a matter informally, but, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, we will try a case to verdict if necessary."
Robert Dawkins, regional attorney for the EEOC's Atlanta District Office, added, "The secrecy surrounding the job selection suggested that discrimination was afoot. There was no question Ms. Travis deserved to be promoted over the person who was selected."
The EEOC's lead attorney at trial, Steven Wagner, said, "The people who were supposed to protect Travis's rights failed her. The company's human resources department took the side of the wrongdoer over the victim by telling Travis to transfer rather than investigate her complaints of sex discrimination."
The Atlanta District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Georgia and portions of South Carolina. Further information about the EEOC is available on its
web site at www.eeoc.gov.
EEOC Demanda A Dos Empleadores Por Uso De Antecedentes Penales
BMW Despidió y Negó Trabajo a Clase de Empleados que Habían Trabajado con Éxito Durante Años; Dollar General Desproporcionadamente Excluyó a Afroamericanos de Empleo
WASHINGTON - Una fábrica de BMW en Carolina del Sur, y una compañía grande de descuento de los Estados Unidos violaron el Título VII de la Ley de Derechos Civiles al aplicar y utilizar políticas que usan antecedentes penales que resultaron que empleados sean despedidos y otros que fueran excluidos de empleo, la Comisión de Para la Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo de los EE.UU. alega en dos demandas presentadas hoy.
La Oficina de Distrito de Charlotte de la EEOC presentó una demanda en el Tribunal de los EE.UU. en Carolina del Sur, en la División del Distrito de Spartanburg contra BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, y una demanda separada fue presentada en Chicago contra Dolgencorp, que hace negocios como Dollar General.
En la demanda contra BMW, la EEOC alega que BMW descalificó desproporcionada a afroamericanos de puestos de trabajo, y que la política usada no está relacionada con el trabajo y de acuerdo con las necesidades del negocio. Los demandantes eran empleados de UTi Integrated Logistics, Inc. ("UTi"), que proporcionaba servicios de logística a la BMW en la planta de Carolina del Sur. Los servicios de logística incluían servicios de asistencia de almacenaje y distribución, transporte y apoyo de fabricación.
Desde 1994, BMW ha tenido una política del uso de condenas penales que niega acceso a las instalaciones de BMW a empleados y a empleados de contratistas con ciertas condenas penales. Sin embargo, cuando UTi asignó a los demandantes a trabajar en la planta de BMW, UTi verifico los antecedentes penales de acuerdo con la política de condena penal de UTi. La política de antecedentes penales de UTi limita al uso de condenas dentro de los últimos siete años. La política de BMW no tiene límite de tiempo con respecto a las condenas. La política es una exclusión general sin ningún tipo de evaluación individualizada de la información y gravedad de los delitos, el tiempo ocurrido en que sucedieron las convicciones o la razón y respectivas posiciones de los demandantes.
En 2008, UTi terminó su contrato con BMW. Durante un período transitorio, los empleados de UTi fueron informados de la necesidad de volver a aplicar con el nuevo contratista para conservar sus posiciones en el almacén de BMW. Como parte del proceso de solicitud, BMW dirigió al nuevo contratista que realizara nuevas verificaciones de antecedentes penales de todos los empleados actuales de UTi que aplicaron para la transición del empleo. El nuevo contratista posteriormente descubrió que varios empleados de la UTi tenían condenas criminales en violación de la política de condenas penales de BMW. Como resultado, se les dijo a los empleados que ya no cumplían los criterios para trabajar en las instalaciones de BMW y, posteriormente, fueron despedidos y se les negó volver a ser contratados como empleados de la nueva compañía contratista, a pesar de que muchos de los empleados habían trabajado en las instalaciones de BMW por años.
En Illinois, la oficina de Chicago de la EEOC presentó una demanda a nivel nacional a base de denuncias de discriminación presentadas por dos solicitantes afroamericanos rechazados de empleo. La demanda alega que Dollar General basa sus ofertas de empleo usando verificación de antecedentes penales, lo que se traduce en un impacto dispar contra personas afroamericanas. Dollar General opera 10,000 tiendas en 40 estados, además de 11 centros de distribución. El noventa por ciento de todos los empleados de Dollar General son empleados de las tiendas trabajando llenando estantes y como cajeros.
De acuerdo con la EEOC, una de las solicitantes que presentó una acusación ante la EEOC fue presentada con una oferta de empleo condicional, a pesar de que había revelado una condena de seis años de edad, por posesión de una sustancia controlada. Su aplicación también mostró que había trabajado anteriormente para otra compañía minorista de descuento como cajera y rellenado estantes por cuatro años. Sin embargo, su oferta de empleo fue revocada porque la práctica de Dollar General es de utilizar ese tipo de condena como un factor de descalificación por 10 años.
Otra solicitante que presentó una queja a la EEOC fue despedida por Dollar General, aunque, de acuerdo con la EEOC, los expedientes de condenas de ella estaban incorrectos - y no tenía una convicción de felonía como se le atribuye. La EEOC dijo que a pesar de que informó al gerente de la tienda Dollar General del error en el informe, la empresa no revirtió su decisión y su despido quedo en pie.
"Título VII del Acta de Derechos Civiles de 1964 prohíbe la discriminación contra los solicitantes de empleo y empleados a causa de su raza," dijo la Presidenta de la EEOC Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Desde la emisión de su primera orientación política escrita en la década de 1980 con respecto al uso de registros de detención y la condena en las decisiones de empleo, la EEOC ha asesorado a empleadores que, en determinadas circunstancias, el uso de esa información para negar oportunidades de empleo podría estar en desacuerdo con el Título VII."
"La Comisión se compromete a utilizar la educación pública y la resolución informal para combatir las prácticas discriminatorias en la contratación," dijo David López, Abogado General de la EEOC. "Cuando estos métodos no tienen éxito, la Comisión, si es necesario, pide reparación a los tribunales federales y para garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades para todos. Este es el último de una serie de casos sistémicos que la Comisión ha presentado para combatir las prácticas de contratación ilegales."
Ambas demandas fueron presentadas bajo el Título VII del Acta de Derechos Civiles de 1964, que prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza y origen nacional, así como represalias. La EEOC hace valer quejas de impacto dispar, en ambos casos, en contra de afroamericanos. La EEOC presentó una demanda en cada caso, después de intentar resolver el asunto a través de la conciliación. En total, la Comisión tratará de recuperar salarios perdidos, así como medidas cautelares para evitar en el futuro la discriminación de los empleados y los solicitantes.
La eliminación de las barreras en el reclutamiento y la contratación, sobre todo basada en la clase de reclutamiento y contratación de las prácticas que discriminan a los grupos raciales, étnicos y religiosos, trabajadores mayores, mujeres y personas con discapacidad, es una de las seis prioridades nacionales identificadas por el Plan de Aplicación Estrategico de la Comisión (SEP).
El 25 de abril de 2012, la EEOC emitió guías actualizadas sobre el uso de archivos de detención y expedientes de condenas. La EEOC es miembro del Consejo de Reingreso federal interinstitucional, un grupo interinstitucional a nivel de gabinete convocada para examinar todos los aspectos de reinserción de las personas con antecedentes penales. Entre otras cuestiones, el Consejo de Reingreso está trabajando para reducir las barreras al empleo, por lo que las personas que han participado en actos criminales en el pasado - después de que hayan tenido que rendir cuentas y pagar sus deudas a la sociedad- pueden competir por las oportunidades de trabajo adecuadas con el fin de mantenerse a sí mismos y a sus familias, pagar sus impuestos, y contribuir a la economía.
La EEOC hace cumplir las leyes federales que prohíben la discriminación en el empleo. Más información sobre el EEOC está disponible en su página web, www.eeoc.gov y en su página de Twitter @EEOCespanol.
EEOC Files Suit Against Two Employers for Use of Criminal Background Checks
BMW Fired and Denied Hire to Class of Employees Who Worked Successfully for Years; Dollar General Disproportionately Excluded African Americans From Hire
WASHINGTON - A BMW manufacturing facility in South Carolina, and the largest small-box discount retailer in the United States violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by implementing and utilizing a criminal background policy that resulted in employees being fired and others being screened out for employment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in two lawsuits filed today.
The EEOC's Charlotte district office filed suit in U.S. District Court of South Carolina, Spartanburg Division against BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, and a separate suit was filed in Chicago against Dolgencorp, doing business as Dollar General.
In the suit against BMW, the EEOC alleges that BMW disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs, and that the policy is not job related and consistent with business necessity. The claimants were employees of UTi Integrated Logistics, Inc. ("UTi"), which provided logistic services to BMW at the South Carolina facility. The logistics services included warehouse and distribution assistance, transportation services and manufacturing support.
Since 1994, BMW has had a criminal conviction policy that denies facility access to BMW employees and employees of contractors with certain criminal convictions. However, when UTi assigned the claimants to work at the BMW facility, UTi screened the employees according to UTi's criminal conviction policy. UTi's criminal background check limited review to convictions within the prior seven years. BMW's policy has no time limit with regard to convictions. The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants' respective positions.
In 2008, UTi ended its contract with BMW. During a transitional period, UTi employees were informed of the need to re-apply with the new contractor to retain their positions in the BMW warehouse. As part of the application process, BMW directed the new contractor to perform new criminal background checks on every current UTi employee applying for transition of employment. The new contractor subsequently discovered that several UTi employees had criminal convictions in violation of BMW's criminal conviction policy. As a result, those employees were told that they no longer met the criteria for working at the BMW facility and were subsequently terminated and denied rehire as employees of the new contractor, despite the fact that many of the employees had worked at the BMW facility for years.
In Illinois, the Chicago office of the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit based on discrimination charges filed by two rejected black applicants. That lawsuit charges that Dollar General conditions all of its job offers on criminal background checks, which results in a disparate impact against blacks. Dollar General operates 10,000 stores in 40 states, plus 11 distribution centers. Ninety percent of all Dollar General employees are store clerks who are both stockers and cashiers at the stores.
According to the EEOC, one of the applicants who had filed a charge with EEOC was given a conditional employment offer, although she had disclosed a six-year-old conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Her application also showed that she had previously worked for another discount retailer as a cashier-stocker for four years. Nevertheless, her job offer was allegedly revoked because Dollar General's practice was to use her type of conviction as a disqualification factor for 10 years.
The other applicant who filed an EEOC charge was fired by Dollar General although, according to the EEOC, the conviction records check report about her was wrong - she did not have the felony conviction attributed to her. The EEOC said that although she advised the Dollar General store manager of the mistake in the report, the company did not reverse its decision and her firing stood.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against job applicants and employees on account of their race," said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. "Since issuing its first written policy guidance in the 1980s regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions, the EEOC has advised employers that under certain circumstances, their use of that information to deny employment opportunities could be at odds with Title VII."
"The Commission is committed to using public education and informal resolution to address discriminatory hiring practices," said David Lopez, EEOC General Counsel. "When these methods are unsuccessful, the Commission will, if necessary, seek redress from the federal courts and ensure equal opportunity for all. This is the latest in a series of systemic cases the Commission has filed to challenge unlawful hiring practices."
Both lawsuits were brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and national origin as well as retaliation. The EEOC will assert claims of disparate impact, in both cases, against African Americans. The EEOC filed suit in each instance after attempting to resolve the matter through settlement. In all, the Commission will seek back pay, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination of employees and applicants.
Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, especially class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious groups, older workers, women, and people with disabilities, is one of six national priorities identified by the Commission's Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).
On April 25, 2012, the EEOC issued updated enforcement guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records. The EEOC is a member of the federal interagency Reentry Council, a Cabinet-level interagency group convened to examine all aspects of reentry of individuals with criminal records. Among other issues, the Reentry Council is working to reduce barriers to employment, so that people with past criminal involvement - after they have been held accountable and paid their dues - can compete for appropriate work opportunities in order to support themselves and their families, pay their taxes, and contribute to the economy.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information about the EEOC is available on its website, www.eeoc.gov.
MOOCs workshop with European flavor next week
The European MOOCs in Global Context Workshop, a free event, will be held June 19-20 at the Wisconsin Idea Room inside the School of Education Building. This workshop is designed to engender discussion and debate about the MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) phenomenon from a European perspective, as well as about the implications of the MOOCs juggernaut for European universities and students.
The workshop kicks off with a 5 p.m. keynote talk June 19 by George Siemens, who developed the first-ever MOOC in 2008 and is one of the world’s leading experts on MOOCs, online learning and learning analytics. He is also the co-founder of the newly established MOOC Research Initiative (MRI). The title of Siemens’ keynote talk is "Disruptor, Saviour, or Distractor: MOOCs and their role in higher education." An opening reception on the Education Building’s rooftop terrace will follow.
Acta Igualdad De Paga Firmada 50 Años Hoy
A Pesar de 50 años de Progreso, Brecha Salarial Entre Hombres y Mujeres Sigue Existiendo, La Discriminación de Paga a Base de Genero es Prioridad Para la EEOC
WASHINGTON- En los 50 años desde que el presidente John F. Kennedy firmó El Acta de Igualdad Salarial, el salario de las mujeres ha aumentado significativamente, pero aún queda por detrás de los hombres, por lo que la eliminación de la discriminación salarial por razón de género en una prioridad para la Comisión Para la Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo de los EE.UU. (EEOC), la agencia reafirmó hoy. La EEOC se hizo cargo de la ejecución de El Acta de Igualdad Salarial remplazando al Ministerio de Trabajo en 1978.
"A pesar que los avances de los últimos 50 años son innegables, la discriminación salarial sigue siendo un problema acuciante para las mujeres en Estados Unidos," dijo la Presidenta de la EEOC Jacqueline A. Berrien en un comunicado publicado hoy. "En 2012, las mujeres generalmente obtuvieron el 77 por ciento de los salarios de los hombres y para las mujeres latinas y afroamericanas, el número es aún menor. A la velocidad en que estamos progresando, la brecha salarial de género no se cerrará hasta el 2057."
Hacer cumplir las leyes de igualdad salarial una de las seis prioridades de la EEOC en su Plan de Aplicación Estratégico que presenta las prioridades de la agencia para los años fiscales 2013-2016. La EEOC es también un miembro clave del Grupo de Trabajo Nacional de Procuración de Igualdad Salarial, puesto en marcha por el Presidente Obama para "mejorar el cumplimiento, la educación pública y el cumplimiento de las leyes de igualdad salarial." Como parte del Grupo de Trabajo, la EEOC trabaja para mejorar la inter-coordinación y fortalecer la aplicación de leyes contra la discriminación salarial, y para aumentar la difusión, educación y sensibilización sobre la discriminación de compensación del público.
Como parte de sus esfuerzos, el Grupo de Trabajo de la Casa Blanca dio a conocer un documento hoy, Cincuenta Años Después de El Acta de Igualdad Salarial. Además, la Casa Blanca lanzó un sitio web con información sobre la igualdad salarial y los enlaces a las páginas web de la EEOC y otras agencias del gobierno con autoridad de aplicación de las leyes sobre igualdad salarial de nuestro país.
Desde la creación de la Unidad Especial de Control de Igualdad Salarial Nacional en enero de 2010 hasta finales de marzo de 2013, la EEOC obtuvo más de $78 millones en ayuda monetaria para las víctimas de la discriminación salarial por razón de sexo. Durante el mismo período, la EEOC recibió casi 20,000 denuncias de discriminación salarial en general, de las cuales 9,000, o el 45 por ciento alegaron la discriminación salarial por razón de sexo. Estos números, sin embargo, no reflejan más probable plenamente el alcance del problema de la discriminación de pago en los lugares de trabajo de Estados Unidos. Muy pocas personas son conscientes de lo que sus compañeros de trabajo ganan, y por lo tanto la mayoría de la gente no sabe cuando se les paga de manera discriminatoria. Esta es la razón por la que la EEOC utiliza su autoridad de investigación dirigida por El Acta de Igualdad Salarial de conseguir la evidencia de la discriminación salarial, según corresponda.
La EEOC ha presentado una serie de demandas desafiando la discriminación salarial. Algunos ejemplos incluyen: EEOC v. Forrest City Grocery (resuelto en 2011 por $125,000); EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) (resuelto en $171,483 por 2011); EEOC v. Hyundai Ideal Electric Company (resuelto en $188,000 por 2011); and EEOC v. Texas Department of Rural Affairs (acción conjunta con el Departamento de Justicia, por $175,000 en 2012).
La EEOC hace cumplir las leyes nacionales de discriminación en el empleo. Más información acerca de la EEOC se puede encontrar en www.eeoc.gov y en su página de Twitter @EEOCespanol.