Overview: While there has been a good deal of debate over the future of affirmative action, some employers must still have a written AAP. These include:
It is important to note that not all affirmative action requirements involve minorities and women. Under federal regulations, employers with $10,000 in government contracts must take affirmative action for individuals with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Meanwhile, employers with such contracts of $25,000 or more must take affirmative action on behalf of veterans who served during the Vietnam Era.
An AAP should document the employer's equal employment opportunity (EEO) policy; explain why the plan is needed; avoid strict numerical quotas; and show how the plan will solve the problem of underutilization of protected groups without injuring the rights of majority employees. The employer also should designate a company officer who is responsible for reviewing, implementing and auditing the AAP.
The federal government oversees affirmative action planning through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which is a branch of the US Department of Labor. The OFCCP has the authority to provide remedies for affirmative action violations, including substantial cash settlements plus placing a ban on the receipt of federal funds.
Trends: A few states have prohibited the consideration of race in government hiring in recent years, but some of these bans are being challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court is considering a case, Fisher v. Texas, that could scale back the use of affirmative action plans by public colleges and universities.
David B. Weisenfeld, JD, Legal Editor
In-depth review of the spectrum of Utah employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to interviewing and selecting job candidates.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Massachusetts employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to affirmative action.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Michigan employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to eeo - affirmative action.
On March 25, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve another major affirmative action dispute, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. At issue is the legality of Michigan's voter-approved ban on using racial preferences in admissions to the state's public universities. The Court is expected to hear arguments in the case next fall.
In-depth review of the spectrum of New York employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to recruiting.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Louisiana employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to recruiting.
With the Supreme Court's first oral arguments of 2013 underway this week, there are several employment-related cases of note still awaiting decisions, including one that asks what makes someone a "supervisor" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The blockbuster gay marriage cases also are sure to have HR implications.
Federal contractors should be aware that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) recently released Directive 305, revising the FAAP approval process and eliminating some requirements. The Directive is effective December 17, 2012, through December 31, 2015.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a Michigan law that banned preferential treatment based on race, sex or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting. The ruling defeats the 2006 voter-approved affirmative action ban on the grounds that it violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Though voters approved a ban, there is an exception when affirmative action is already in place because of a court order or when it is necessary to secure federal funding.
HR guidance on legal requirements for affirmative action hiring plans.
Sorry, this feature is not yet available on the preview site