Compliance Stuff

  On February 5, 2025, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking to codify the recently revoked Executive Order 11246. Quick Hits The U.S. House of Representatives is considering H.R. 989, legislation that would codify the provisions of recently revoked Executive Order 11246. H.R. 989 has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Representatives Shontel Brown (D-OH) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) introduced  H.R. 989 , “To codify Executive Order 11246 titled ‘Equal Employment Opportunity,’” which, as of February 18, 2025, had forty-seven cosponsors (all Democrats) representing twenty-five states and the District of Columbia. After being introduced in the House, the bill was immediately referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. H.R. 989 appears to be a direct response to  Executive Order 14173  (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”), which on January 21, 2025, revoked E...

  Learn from a real employer's mistakes. Imagine this scenario: You are advertising for an open position. You get three applicants: Applicant 1 meets or exceeds all of your requirements. Applicant 2 fails to meet your minimum requirements. Applicant 3 meets some of your minimum requirements, but not all.  You interview all three, and what do you do? Oooooh, Robin, pick me! Pick me! Make an offer to #1! I said to "imagine" this scenario, but it's a real-life scenario from a real-life lawsuit. Rather than extend an offer to Applicant 1, the employer in this case offered the job to  both  Applicant 2 and Applicant 3. In other words, it hired two people even though only one position was vacant, and even though Applicant 1 was far more qualified than the others. (Applicant 2 was later moved into a different position for which she was presumably qualified.) "UMM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE IN A YOUNGER, LESS-DISABLED -- ER, I MEAN DIFFERENT -- DIRECTION."  Allow me to i...