1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Proposed Changes To EEO-1 Reporting Impact All Employers With 100 or More Employees

Proposed Changes To EEO-1 Reporting Impact All Employers With 100 or More Employees

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.17.05

On November 16, 2005 the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC") voted to approve significant changes to the EEO-1 Report that all employers with 100 or more employees (and most government contractors with 50 or more employees) are required to submit on an annual basis. The long-awaited changes to the EEO-1 Report establish a multi-racial "two or more races" category, separate Asians from Pacific Islanders, and divide the "Officials and Managers" EEO-1 category into "Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers" and "First/Mid-Level Officials and Managers."

The changes will likely require employers to re-survey their workforces to gather updated race/ethnicity information, and perhaps to reconfigure their data management systems to accurately collect and maintain the new data. As a result of the division of the Officials and Managers category into two categories, employers will also be required to revise their classification schemes for managerial employees. This change, driven in part by an Agency desire to better assess "glass ceiling" issues, is not simply administrative. Employers should systematically assess the jobs within their managerial ranks to make the appropriate classification decisions.

If approved by the OMB, as expected, the new EEO-1 Report will be effective for the 2007 reporting cycle.

For the EEOC press release announcing the changes see http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-16-05.html

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26

Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices....

View All Insights