Skip to main content

Changes Coming For EEOC This Summer


Earlier this week, a Board Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Victoria Lipnic, announced she would not seek another term when hers expires July 1.

Lipnic, one of the Republican Board Members, is currently in her second term with the EEOC.  As a result of her announcement, it is possible the EEOC will lose its quorum if a new nominee is not put forward soon.  (Recall that the EEOC has five Board Member positions.  The political party that has majority control, in this case Republicans, holds three seats; Democrats hold two seats.)  If there are less than three Board Members, the EEOC loses it quorum and in essence is extremely limited as to what it can do.  Currently, there are three EEOC Board Members:  two Republican appointed aboard Members and one Democratic appointed Board Member (with a quagmire of sorts to fill the other vacant Republican seat and vacant Democratic seat.)

Readers might be wondering what happens when Lipnic’s term expires this summer, assuming a new Board Member is not nominated, confirmed, and appointed before then.  If President Donald Trump nominates a new Board Member and that Board Member is not confirmed before July 1st, Lipnic can remain in her position at the EEOC until the end of the Congressional term.  If President Trump does not nominate a candidate before July 1st, Lipnic can stay on for 60 days after her term ends in July.  At this point, Lipnic has indicated she is intent to stay on (until a new nominee is confirmed), so that the EEOC does not lose its quorum.

Stay tuned.


For additional information:  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5e8048e6-e707-4a3e-8209-898ba96bb31e

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more