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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more