I recently had the privilege of attending the 6th Annual Forum on Defending Employment Discrimination Litigation hosted by the American Conference Institute in New York, New York (I spoke on defense strategies for defending high stakes, multi-party age discrimination lawsuits).
Constance Barker, one of the five commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, gave the keynote address at the program. Her presentation was fascinating, and focused largely on the swirling controversy relative to the EEOC’s recent issuance of new enforcement guidance on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (which we blogged on previously here). Commissioner Barker made public statements about the PDA Guidance—immediately after the EEOC posted the Guidance on its website—questioning the wisdom of the EEOC’s action on procedural and substantive grounds. She asserted that in adopting the new Guidance, the commission sought to legislate changes to, rather than interpret, Title VII (her written comments dated July 14, 2014, are here.
In broader terms, this squarely raises the issue of the proper role and responsibility of the EEOC. Should it enforce the law or expand the law to maximize the reach and public policies within employment discrimination prohibitions? Many critics of the EEOC have cited the new Guidance as further evidence that the commission is an activist agency that is result-oriented and willing to do whatever it takes to pursue litigation enforcement strategies it deems appropriate.
In response to questions from the floor at the program in New York, Commission Barker agreed that there is some truth to the criticism that the EEOC has sought to use its enforcement power and enforcement litigation to, in a sense, “legislate” behavior in the employer community. She agreed that while societal goals and aspirations might counsel that a law like the PDA should be interpreted in the manner the new Guidance advocates, the role of the EEOC is not to engage in “social engineering.” Instead, the role of the EEOC is to enforce the law as written, and leave policy decisions about the expansion of the law to Congress. In this respect, she reiterated her position that the new PDA Guidance represented an effort by the commission to “jump ahead” of Congress and the courts in fashioning the contours of employer obligations and employee rights under the law.
Commissioner Barker predicted that the EEOC’s action may become “an embarrassment” for the commission depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicates certain issues in Young v. United Parcel Serv. (4th Cir. 2013), in its next term (and may well grant the new Guidance no deference or criticize how the EEOC went about issuing the Guidance).
The issue is sure to heat up further. Stay tuned.
This blog was previously posted on the Seyfarth Shaw website. You can find it here.