EEOC Takes Aggressive Position On Severance Agreements

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently filed a lawsuit against one of the nation’s largest pharmacy chains, CVS, claiming its separation agreements violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This action by the EEOC is surprising and significant, since the targeted provisions are ones that are commonly found in severance agreements. According to the lawsuit, the EEOC claims that CVS conditioned payment of severance benefits on execution of severance agreements that contained overly broad, misleading, and unenforceable language that unlawfully prevents employees from communicating with the agency or filing discrimination claims. In its lawsuit, the EEOC claims the following provisions of the agreement violate Title VII:

• A cooperation clause requiring employees to notify the company of contacts relating to legal proceedings;
• A non-disparagement clause;
• A non-disclosure of confidential information clause; and 
• A general release and covenant not to sue clause.
  

The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting CVS from restricting the rights of former employees to file charges or participate in agency proceedings, reformation of CVS’s separation agreement, and for CVS to provide 300 additional days for any former employee who signed the agreement to file administrative charges.

The EEOC claims that being able to bring charges and communicate with employees plays a critical role in the EEOC’s enforcement policy because it informs the agency of employer practices that may be unlawful. An employee’s right to communicate with the EEOC is protected under federal law, and therefore, the EEOC claims that when employers have language similar to that found in CVS’s severance agreements, it has the effect of buying an employee’s silence regarding discriminatory practices.

The EEOC’s claims are a departure from its prior position in which it previously determined similar language was in compliance with Title VII. In fact, CVS modeled its severance agreements with language the EEOC previously found compliant in an earlier lawsuit. This can be rightly viewed as an overreach by the EEOC to strike down provisions of severance agreements that are used almost universally by employers and have been previously approved by the agency.

If the EEOC is successful in this lawsuit, employers will need to revisit their severance agreements and make any necessary changes to comply with the court’s decision. However, unless the court strikes down the provisions in the case, or another court acts otherwise, we are not currently recommending a drastic departure from our prior severance agreements based on this lawsuit. While we believe it is unlikely that the EEOC will be successful on all of its claims against all provisions of CVS’s agreements, this new aggressive stance by the agency is a good reminder to employers to always revisit severance agreements to ensure they are legally compliant, and consider taking steps to avoid similar claims.

Nick Johnson is an attorney with Washington, DCbusiness law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at njohnson@BerenzweigLaw.com. 

EEOC’s Policy On Employee Criminal Records Scrutinized

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced last year a new enforcement guidance under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to employers regarding the use of arrest and convictionrecords in employment decisions. Though there is no federal law prohibiting an employer from asking about arrest and/or conviction records, this recent guidance informed employers that even a neutral and uniformly applied “policy (e.g., excluding applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct) may disproportionately impact some minority groups protected under Title VII, and may violate the law if not job related and consistent with business necessity.” If a background check is in fact necessary, the EEOC recommended that the policy at least consider “the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then provide an opportunity for an individualized assessment for people excluded.”

This guidance left employers in quite a dilemma, as on one hand if employers continued to uniformly use neutral background checks on all employees, they may run the risk of being subject to a disparate impact lawsuit. On the other hand, refusing to conduct background checks may be problematic as they have played a vital role in enabling employers to comprehend employees’ criminal history in an effort to avoid liability for criminal or fraudulent acts committed by employees and/or avoiding claims of negligent retention.

Faced with this predicament, a recent federal court in Baltimore cast serious doubt on the EEOC’s background check guidance. In the case, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a corporate events provider that had a uniformly applied policy of running background checks on all prospective employees prior to commencing employment. The EEOC challenged this policy claiming that it had a disproportionate effect on minorities due to the higher statistical incarceration rates for minorities. The court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of the company due to the unreliability of the EEOC’s witnesses; however, the judge went out of his way to state his strong disdain for the EEOC’s guidance. Specifically, the judge noted that the EEOC’s guidance places employers in an unworkable position due to the inherent risks that can come from ignoring criminal history checks and employers should not have to second guess their decision to obtain fundamental information on their potential workers.

Although this opinion casts doubt on the EEOC’s enforcement of background checks, this opinion does not affect the guidance itself and best practices suggested by the EEOC. Unfortunately, there is no bright line rule governing background checks and companies should be sure to consult with an attorney before implementing a background check policy that could include criminal history or credit checks.

Nick Johnson is an associate attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, a DC regional business law firm. He can be reached at njohnson@BerenzweigLaw.com.