Notice: This post is accessible by using Windows 7 or higher.
The Obama Administration’s Affirmative-Action Initiatives in Employment
William M. Leiter
Prologue: Affirmative Action and Its Rebadging
Affirmative action differs from other antidiscrimination initiatives in that (1) it targets and seeks to remedy societal bias (as manifested in public and private illegal action), not individual malefactors; (2) it mandates race, ethnic, gender, disability-conscious remedies for the disproportionately-adverse effects -- the so-called disparate impact -- of societal discrimination on protected groups, whether or not specific discriminatory intent on the part of individual defendants can be isolated; (3) it seeks to integrate institutions by race, ethnicity, disabled condition, and sex. [1] These objectives have been actively pursued by the Obama Administration in the employment arena .
Affirmative action connotes remedial consideration of race, ethnicity, disability, or sex as a factor, among others, in decision-making about outreach, jobs, government contracting, K-12 student assignment, university admission, voting rights and housing. The goal of this process is to redress the disadvantage under which members of disparately-impacted groups are said to labor. The relative weight accorded to the race, national origin/ethnicity, or sex-factor varies from program to program. Thus, affirmative action remedies range from disseminating job information to preferential employment and admissions practices, classroom integration, the creation of majority-minority legislative districts, and court-ordered quotas in egregious discrimination cases.
Disparate-impact as the basis for affirmative action has been “rebadged” in large measure. The need for “diversity” in school and workplace populations—and the supposed difference in ideas and practices these groups bring-- has become a dominant rationale used to support the race/ethnic/sex/disability-conscious remedies typical of traditional affirmative action. Why the “retheorization”? Why the “paradigm shift”? For one, diversity theory does not require the demonstration of past or present forbidden discrimination required by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1989[2] as necessary constitutional support for disparate-impact affirmative action. Ideational diversity, as the theory has it, is required to spur productivity and intellectuality, irrespective of past or present discrimination. Alternatively, Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin has it that diversity rebadging was a self-preservation “cover” created by affirmative-action devotees in personnel departments casting about for a theory which could thwart the Reagan Administration’s efforts to reduce the undesired affirmative-action treatment afforded protected groups. Professor Dobbin finds a bridge between diversity and disparate-impact thinking in American political thought. To him, mainstream American thinking and disparate-impact theory have both subscribed to fair and equal treatment. Fair and equal treatment, to the advocates of affirmative action, would lead naturally to diverse populations at work and in education.[3]
The Federal Workforce
President Obama underscored his commitment to diversity theory in his Executive Order 13583 (August, 2011), titled, Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.[4] The Executive Order begins with commonplace diversity theory:
Our Nation derives strength from the diversity of its population and from its commitment to equal opportunity for all. We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges. A commitment to equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion is critical for the Federal Government as an employer. By law, the Federal Government's recruitment policies should "endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society." (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)). As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has a special obligation to lead by example. Attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service. Prior Executive Orders, including but not limited to those listed below, have taken a number of steps to address the leadership role and obligations of the Federal Government as an employer. For example, Executive Order 13171 of October 12, 2000 (Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government), directed executive departments and agencies to implement programs for recruitment and career development of Hispanic employees and established a mechanism for identifying best practices in doing so. Executive Order 13518 of November 9, 2009 (Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government), required the establishment of a Veterans Employment Initiative. Executive Order 13548 of July 26, 2010 (Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities), and its related predecessors, Executive Order 13163 of July 26, 2000 (Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals With Disabilities to be Employed in the Federal Government), and Executive Order 13078 of March 13, 1998 (Increasing Employment of Adults With Disabilities), sought to tap the skills of the millions of Americans living with disabilities. To realize more fully the goal of using the talents of all segments of society, the Federal Government must continue to challenge itself to enhance its ability to recruit, hire, promote, and retain a more diverse workforce. Further, the Federal Government must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential. Wherever possible, the Federal Government must also seek to consolidate compliance efforts established through related or overlapping statutory mandates, directions from Executive Orders, and regulatory requirements. By this order, I am directing executive departments and agencies (agencies) to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies. This approach should include a continuing effort to identify and adopt best practices, implemented in an integrated manner, to promote diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law.
Note the interminably cited –but yet to be proven--mantra of diversity theory highlighted in the Executive Order: “We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges.” [5] The forbiddingly complex “strategic” plan designed to implement Executive Order (EO) 13583 and published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management defined “diversity” as referring (but not restricted ) to race, color, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity.[6] This document continually referenced the Management Directive 715 (MD-715)[7] of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), a longtime central player in the implementation of traditional race/ethnic/gender affirmative action and its disparate-impact thesis, and an agency which, during the Obama Presidency, defined its gender antidiscrimination role as incorporating the protection of homosexuals and transgender persons (i.e., the LGBT grouping) against discrimination.[8] MD-715, operative since 2003, provides guidance to federal agencies on how to overcome the underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities, females, and the disabled in the federal workforce. As to racial/ethnic minorities and females, the Directive solicits agencies to annually determine how the races, ethnic groups, and females are represented at various salary levels and work categories.[9] “In conducting its self-assessment,” MD-715 continued “agencies shall compare their internal participation rates with corresponding participation rates in the relevant civilian labor force (CLF). Geographic areas of recruitment and hiring are integral factors in determining ‘relevant’ civilian labor force participation rates. EEOC will provide appropriate civilian labor force data for use by agencies.”[10]
Where an agency's self-assessment indicates that a racial, national origin or gender group may have been, or may currently be, denied equal access to employment opportunities, the agency must take steps to identify the potential barrier. Workplace barriers can take various forms and sometimes involve a policy or practice that is neutral on its face. Identifying and evaluating potential barriers requires an agency to examine all relevant policies, practices, procedures and conditions in the workplace. The process further requires each agency to eliminate or modify, where appropriate, any policy, practice or procedure that creates a barrier to equality of opportunity….
Where it is determined that an identified barrier serves no legitimate purpose with respect to the operation of an agency, this Directive requires that agencies take immediate steps to eliminate the barrier. Even where a policy or practice that poses a barrier can be justified on grounds of business necessity, agencies must investigate whether less exclusionary policies or practices can be used that serve the same business purpose. . . .
In addition to identifying and eliminating barriers, agencies may consider measures to enhance and maximize opportunities for all employees, such as:
· Identifying career enhancing opportunities such as details, developmental assignments, mentoring programs, etc. Structuring details or developmental assignments to expose a broad range of employees to a variety of positions within the agency.
· Assessing internal availability of candidates by identifying job-related skills, education, knowledge and abilities that may be obtained at lower levels in the same or similar occupational series.
· Conducting a skills-building inventory of agency employees, including but not limited to, current and potential gaps in skills and the distribution of skills. Developing an action plan to address these gaps.
· When appropriate, developing broad criteria for evaluating the knowledge, skills and abilities of applicants for particular positions that takes into account a range of experience and skills.[11]
President Obama’s above-cited EO 13583 on diversity and inclusion refers to the previous EO 13548 of July, 2010, Increasing Federal Employment for People With Disabilities .[12] Therein, the President noted that there were some 54 million disabled Americans, but that only some 5% of the 2.5 million federal workforce consisted of disabled persons. In the President’s view, the federal government has an important obligation to reduce the discrimination stigmatizing the disabled--discrimination which has the effect of producing an unemployment rate among the disabled which is far higher than that which exists among Americans without disabilities.
To increase the number of disabled in the federal workforce, EO 13548 committed the Obama Administration to increasing the disabled population in the national bureaucracy by 100,000 over the next five years.[13] EEOC’s MD-715 supplemented its racial/ethnic/gender affirmative-action guidance reviewed above with a similar emphasis on removing barriers to the employment of the disabled veterans.[14]
At the onset of 2012, the Director of the U.S. U.S.
Blacks 17.8% 10.1%
Hispanics 8.1 13.6
Asian/Pacific Islanders 5.6 4.4
Native Americans 1.7 0.7
Non-Hispanic /Multi-racial 0.8 1.2
Whites 66 70
Minorities 34 30
Men 56.4 54
Women 43.6 46
The Obama Administration hiring of veterans has been a positive feature. As of late 2011, the federal bureaucracy had increased its employment of vets in almost every quarter since 2006. Thus, in 2011’s first quarter, 34% of all hires were veterans. A similar pattern existed for disabled vets.[22]
Private Employers
Major federal administrative units responsible for implementing affirmative action in private employment are the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Both have been particularly aggressive in advancing disparate-impact affirmative action during the Obama presidency, and both have plans to increase their potency during his second term. The OFCCP is the first focus here.
Every nonconstruction contractor and subcontractor who supplies goods or services to the federal government of at least $50,000 and has 50 or more employees is required to have an affirmative action plan. Some 140,000 businesses have such a contractual relationship.[23] The annual affirmative action plan[24] requires an analysis of the percentage of minorities[25] and women in each work group along with a comparison of the percentage of each minority group and females to
The percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in the
reasonable recruitment area. The reasonable recruitment area is defined as
the geographical area from which the contractor usually seeks or
reasonably could seek workers to fill the positions in question.[26]
Where minorities are underutilized relative to their availability, contractors are required—at the pain of losing their contractual relationship with the national government and other penalties—to undertake good faith efforts to resolve this underrepresentation. Good faith efforts require the establishment of goals. “Placement goals serve as objectives or targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort”[27] to overcome the underutilization of minorities and women. In 2011, OFCCP cited more businesses for affirmative-action violations than at any time in the preceding nine years. More than half of the violations concerned the failure to engage in appropriate affirmative action for the disabled and veterans.[28] While increasing its focus on disparate impact, OFCCP during the Obama years has acquired large conciliation settlements from businesses charged with violations, e.g., $3 million from FedEx; and $2million from Baldor Electric. A 2011 memo of understanding between the EEOC and OFCCP was designed to increase the capacity of both agencies to investigate affirmative-action violations.[29] OFCCP’s capacity alone has been augmented in that its full-time staff has grown from some 585 to 755 between 2009 and 2011, and its funding has increased about 25% during that same time period.[30] To the human- resources information systems director at St. Jude’s Medical Center Nashville
OFCCP affirmative-action regulations for veterans and the disabled are prescribed by different regulatory codes than that covering minorities and women and referenced[33] above. Veterans are covered by Title 41§ 60-250 et seq of the Code of Federal Regulations.[34] Under that Code, contractors and subcontractors (including those in construction) with U.S. contracts of at least $50,000 and 50 employees are required to have an affirmative-action plan requiring the taking of “positive steps to attract qualified veterans”[35] for available employment. This program is to include an active outreach effort covering organizations knowledgeable about veterans seeking jobs such as employment agencies and veterans’ societies; plans for hiring veterans; audits to determine effectiveness; and remedial plans to meet these objectives where they are not met. Penalities for contractor nonconformity include disbarment from contractual relations with the federal government.[36]
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41§60-741 et seq [37] governs the disabled persons affirmative-action responsibilities of federal contractors/subcontractors (construction or otherwise) holding contracts of $50,000 or more with 50 employees. These contractors are to engage in extensive outreach to attract the disabled defined as those who suffer from physical or mental limitations which substantially interfere with a major life activity.[38] Contractors are to reasonably accommodate the disabled when such accommodation is needed to qualify them to perform the required work.[39] Unlike the requirements for minorities, and females, OFCCP regulations do not require contractors to establish objectives or goals for the provision of employment opportunities for both veterans and the disabled. Consequently, OFCCP has proposed new regulations that require contractors to create goals for hiring vets, and the disabled which includes a 7% hiring objective for the latter.[40] Goals and targets have also been proposed by OFCCP for the construction industry which has been exempt from that requirement.[41] The proposed regulatory change covering goals for the hiring of the disabled has prompted strong protests from federal contractor representatives. For example, the head of an organization representing human resources specialists wrote a senior Obama official responsible for regulatory-rule reform as follows:
[The] H[uman]R[esources] Policy Association is writing to express its strong concern regarding the economic analysis conducted by Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on December 9, 2011, revising the regulations implementing the non-discrimination and affirmative action regulations of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RIN 1250-AA05). Specifically, we would like to bring to your attention a new report from Applied Economic Strategies (AES) that estimates the first year cost of the NPRM [calling for a 7% hiring goal for the disabled] to be at least $5.9 billion, significantly higher than the $81.1 million estimated by OFCCP, and well in excess of the $100 million threshold that triggers a more detailed review of the regulatory burdens and potential alternatives…. [W]e would ask that the enclosed study be considered …and that OMB [Office of Management and Budget] ensure that OFCCP has considered a range of alternatives that would minimize or avoid the substantial costs that would otherwise be incurred by federal contractors.[42]
The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was created by the 1964 Civil Rights Act[43] to implement the prohibition against racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination in employment opportunities in the private sector. The Commission, with 2539 employees, later acquired that antidiscrimination responsibility in connection with disabled persons, among other responsibilities which now include—according to a 2011 Commission interpretation—an extension of the prohibition against sex discrimination to cover the LGBT group.[44] Title 29 § 1608 et seq delineates the EEOC’s affirmative-action guidance for minorities and women in the private arena.[45] Private employers are encouraged to engage in a self-analysis to determine whether minorities and women are statistically underrepresented relative to their availability in the appropriate labor market. If such underutilization is discovered, employers are urged to exercise good faith by
“initiat[ing] affirmative steps to remedy the situation” through the creation of long and short-term goals and timetables accompanied by, among other things: “[a] recruitment program designed to attract qualified members of the group in question; [and a]systematic effort to organize work and re-design jobs in ways that provide opportunities for persons lacking ‘journeyman’ level knowledge or skills to enter and, with appropriate training, to progress in a career field….”[46] Goals and timetables for the utilization of the disabled are not required by the EEOC. Nonetheless, that agency requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” (unless unduly burdened) the disabled by providing such things as accessibility and special work tools. The reasonable accommodation mandate is an affirmative-action vehicle incorporated in the American With Disabilities Act to help grapple with the systemic, disparate-impact discrimination against the disabled which Congress found to exist. [47]
Commentators have underscored the increased EEOC antidiscrimination zealotry in the Obama years. The number of disparate-impact investigations has increased four-fold, and if these are not settled—and typically they are not—courtroom litigation on these matters will increase significantly in 2013-2014.[48] Under the EEOC’s 2012-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan the reduction of disparate-impact discrimination affecting minorities, immigrants, females, LGBT people will be emphasized.[49] It is estimated that the disparate-impact suits will account for some one-fourth of all of EEOC antidiscrimination court filings. EEOC recorded record high monetary recoveries in 2012 for discrimination victims with $36.2 million funneled to some 3,813 disparate-impact victims.[50] Overcoming the gender pay gap is reportedly of great concern both to the President and the leaders of EEOC and OFCCP. More activism in this disparate-impact area can be expected in the Obama second term.[51] Importantly, too, given the large number of minorities with criminal records, EEOC has insisted that employers be capable of the difficult task of demonstrating that past criminal activity would clearly interfere with work ability before applicants are rejected on criminal records alone.[52]
Yesterday’s Truths Spurned
Justice Holmes was fond of Henrik Ibsen’s assertion that “truths” had a lifespan of some twenty years.[53] Gospel truth to the liberally trained in the immediate postwar years was that race, color, and ethnicity were to be disregarded in connection with individual evaluation. Of course, race/ethnic consciousness is of central consequence to affirmative action, and affirmative action has been pushed by the Obama Administration in the areas cited above. Additional Administration support has included: advocacy in the courts (e.g., see the U.S. amicus brief in Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)[54]; the exercise of the President’s clemency power (see the reprieve of the young illegal immigrants); the use of the “bully pulpit” urging citizenship for illegal immigrants[55]; and the extension of affirmative action to new areas in the military ( e.g., the abolition of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and the elimination of formal gender barriers to combat duty[56]). The President had this to say in his Second Inaugural Address:
Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional -- what makes us American -- is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [57]
According to the truths of the “old religion,” skin color and the origin of our names was not to be taken into account, particularly by government. But new “truths” prevail. Affirmative action as practiced by the Obama Administration is very much committed to race and ethnic consciousness. Shortly after gaining a second term, when asked about the diversity of his appointments at a press conference, the President said:
I’m very proud that in the first four years we had as diverse, if not more diverse, a White House and a Cabinet than any in history. And I intend to continue that, because it turns out that when you look for the very best people, given the incredible diversity of this country, you’re going to end up with a diverse staff and a diverse team. And that very diversity helps to create more effective policymaking and better decision-making for me, because it brings different perspectives to the table. …We’re not going backwards, we’re going forward.[58]
The case for such diversity consciousness—and the race and ethnic attentiveness associated with it-- is strong, but very much contested as is its emphasis on affirmative action for females. The President has not attempted to fully explain and support his diversity commitment to the public. Is this political malpractice?
Copyright 2013 © by William M. Leiter. All rights reserved.
[1] Here, "discrimination" means invidious (i.e., unfair or unjust) treatment of people. "Societal (systemic, disparate-impact) discrimination" means societally-rooted invidious treatment of people on account of group membership or affiliation. "Protected group" means the racial and ethnic (national origin/ancestral) groups, sexuality groups, and disabled people covered by anti-discrimination laws and regulations. "Minorities" are the racial and ethnic groups so covered. "Affirmative action" means the general policy for treating societal discrimination. There are many specific policies for implementing this general policy.
[3] Frank Dobbin, Inventing Equal Opportunity (Princeton & Oxford, 2009), 101-160. The concepts “rebadging” and “retheorization” are from this volume.
[4] Federal Register, Vol 76, No 163, Part III, August 23, 2011 .
[5] Id at 52847.
[6] U.S.
[8] Mia Macy v. Eric Holder, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Opinion, ATF 2011-00751 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=AT+2011-00751&gbv=2&oq=AT+2011-00751&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...3859.18844.0.25641.13.13.0.0.0.0.250.2017.1j10j2.13.0...0.0...1c.1.aIWACYlWKag ; Crystal Proxmire, EEOC Seeks Solid LGBT Discrimination Cases, Between the Lines, Janruary 17, 2013.http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=57954
[9] U.S.
[10] Id at Part A II-Agency Self-Assessment.
[11] Id at Part A III and IV—Barriers to Equal Employment Opportunity ; Barrier Evaluation.
[12] Federal Register, Vol 75, No 146, 45039.
[13] Id.
[14] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Agency, Management Directive—715, Model Agency and Rehabilitation Act Programs, See Part I Introduction (Hyperlinked at note 7).
[15] Joe Davidson, Diversity is Among OPM Chief’s Top Goals, Washington Post, January 11, 2012 , Metro B4.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] U.S.
[19] Joe Davidson, Diversity is Among OPM Chief’s Top Goals, Washington Post, January 11, 2012 , Metro B4.
[20] Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report for fiscal year (FY) 2011, Submission message from the Director (cited and hyperlinked in note 19).
[21] Id at 8.
[22] Joe Davidson, More Veterans Finding a Place in the Government, Washington
[23] Kathleen Miller, Uncle Sam Wants You to Hire More Vets, Women, and Minorities, Bloomberg’s Business Week, July 19, 2012 .
[24] The requirements of the affirmative action plan are delineated in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41§60-2 et seq. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41
[25] Defined as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders/American Indians/Alaskan Natives.
[26] CFR Title 41 §60-2.14 (c) (1).
[27] Id at § 60-2.16(a).
[28] Kathleen Miller, Uncle Sam Wants You to Hire More Vets, Women and Minorities, Bloomberg’s Business Week, July 19, 2012 .
[29] Tara M. Kennedy, Beware of Increased OFCCP Activity, Warner Norcross & Judd LLP—Attorneys at Law, September 9 2012 . http://www.wnj.com/Publications/Beware-of-Increased-OFCCP-Activity
[30] Miller, Uncle Sam Wants You to Hire More Vets, Women and Minorities, Bloomberg’s Business Week, July 19, 2012 (cited and hyperlinked in note 29).
[31] Id.
[32] Id.
[33] Code of Federal Regulations Title 41 §60-2 et seq (hyperlinked in note 25).
[34] U.S.
[35] Id at §60-250.44 et seq.
[36] Id at § 60-250.66 et seq.
[37] U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 41§60-741 et seq. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e0c0f81d1bfd863065fd2cacd8728001&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.11&idno=41
[40] Kathleen Miller, Uncle Sam Wants You to Hire More Vets, Women and Minorities, Bloomberg’s Business , July 19, 2012 .
[41] Kinsley Cooper, DOL lists Imminent Action on Persuader, OFCCP Affirmative Action Rule, Association of Builders and Contractors, January 9, 2013 . http://www.abc.org/NewsMedia/Newsline/tabid/143/entryid/441/DOL-Agenda-Lists-Imminent-Actions-on-Persuader-OFCCP-Affirmative-Action-Rules.aspx
[42] Letter from Daniel Yager, President and General Counsel HR Policy Association, to Cass Sunstein, Office of Management and Budget, July 24, 2012. http://www.hrpolicy.org/downloads/2012/OMB_Ltr_on_AES_Cost_Study.pdf
[43]42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.
[44] Mia Macy v. Eric Holder, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Opinion, ATF 2011-00751http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=AT+2011-00751&gbv=2&oq=AT+2011-00751&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...3859.18844.0.25641.13.13.0.0.0.0.250.2017.1j10j2.13.0...0.0...1c.1.aIWACYlWKag ; Crystal Proxmire, EEOC Seeks Solid LGBT Discrimination Cases, Between the Lines, Janruary 17, 2013.http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=57954
[45] U.S.
[46] U.S.
[47] 42 USC §§12101; 12112 (2013).
[48] Sue Reisinger, EEOC 2012 Report Shows Fewer Discrimination Suits, More Investigations, Corporate Counsel, November, 30, 2012 . http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202579787314&EEOC_2012_Report_Shows_Fewer_Discrimination_Suits_More_Investigations&slreturn=20130029202032
[49] Chai Felblum, 3 Take-Aways From the EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan, Corporate Law Report, January 9, 2013 .http://corporatelaw.jdsupra.com/post/3-take-aways-from-the-eeocs-strategic-enforcement-plan; and Gary Siniscalo, Lauri A. Damrell, Stephanie Albrecht, EEOC Releases Its Strategic Enforcement Plan, Orrick Employment Law and Litigation Blog, January 9, 2012. http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eeoc-releases-its-strategic-enforcement-20677/
[50] Teresa Anderson, EEOC Announces Record Recoveries, Security Management, November 26, 2012 .
[51] Timothy Long and Lauri Damrell, Dealing With Complex Gender-Discrimination Issues in the Workplace, Law.com, November 28, 2012 . http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202579488303&Dealing_with_Complex_GenderDiscrimination_Issues_in_the_Workplace&slreturn=20130029221125
[52] Catherine M. DAdalino, Mike Farnam, and Jessica Milko, Hired & Fired: How Employer Can Avoid Liability, Risk Management, August 20, 2012 . ccchttresident Up://rmmagazine.com/2012/08/30/hired-fired-how-employers-can-avoid-liability/
[53] C. Vann Woodward, Thinking Back: The Perils of Writing History (Louisiana State University Press, 1986), 3.
[54] 129 S.Ct 2658. The U.S.
[55] Mark Landler, President Urges Speed on Immigration Plan, But Exposes Conflicts, The New York Times, January 30, 2013 , 1.
[56] Theda Skocpol et al, Obama and America’s Political Future (Harvard University Press, 2012), 75; U.S. Department of Defense, Obama Praises DOD for Removing Women’s Combat Exclusion, American Forces Press Service, January 24, 2013.
[57] U.S. January 21, 2013 . http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama
[58] U.S. January 14, 2013 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/01/14/president-obama-holds-news-conference#transcript
No comments:
Post a Comment