With layoffs and job abolishments on the rise, threats to cut employee benefits, recent controversial United States Supreme Court decisions, and the current economic state of our nation and Ohio in particular, it may come as no surprise that allegations of age discrimination are on the rise. On July 15, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a hearing in Washington, D.C. to address the growing number of age discrimination claims filed with the EEOC. According to EEOC Chairman Stuart Ishimaru, age discrimination claims are up 29% since 2008, and one-quarter of EEOC charges include an age discrimination component.¹

When a jury awards compensatory damages to a successful discrimination plaintiff, should the plaintiff have to pay federal tax on that income? How big of a tax bite should the IRS get when an employee successfully sues his employer and is awarded several years of back pay. These issues about the tax consequences of payments received to resolve discrimination complaints are the subject of proposed new federal laws and a recent decision from a federal appeals court.

Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a technical assistance document, “Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities.”  The best practices document supplements an EEOC guidance document from 2007, “Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities” that examines how federal anti-discrimination laws apply to workers with caregiving responsibilities.  Although the concepts of “caregivers” and workers with “caregiving responsibilities” are not specifically protected classifications under Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Rehabilitation Act or other federal employment discrimination laws, the EEOC contends that certain gender, racial or other stereotypes in the workplace can result in practices that adversely impact employees with caregiving responsibilities.

Supervisors and employees, alike, may dread the annual evaluation process. The apprehension and resistance associated with completing evaluations manifests in the numbers. The Human Resources Division of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (ODAS) tracks the completion of evaluations from 23 state agencies on a quarterly basis. Roughly 83 percent of evaluations were completed last quarter, although only 63 percent were completed on time. Yet the Ohio Administrative Code requires the evaluation of classified employees.¹ Even setting the Code aside, these numbers are troubling because evaluations are not only a key management tool, they are extremely helpful, if done correctly, in litigation.

Currently, neither Ohio nor federal statutory law expressly prohibits employment discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. Most are aware that state and federal laws prohibit discrimination “because of,” for example, one’s sex, religion, or race.¹ Bills now before the Ohio General Assembly and Congress would extend that protection specifically on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.