|
This document was downloaded and archived from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission http://www.eeoc.gov/task/practice.html on May 25, 2001. |
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(Page numbers are retained for reference to the printed copy only)
Commission Employees Who Assisted the Task Force 2
A. Introduction and Procedure 3
B. Limitations 4
C. What is a "best" practice? 5
D. "Best" Practice Findings 6
E. Statutory, Regulatory, Policy, and Operational Changes 9
1. Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Considerations 9
2. Operational Considerations 10
a. EEOC Education, Technical Assistance, and Outreach Programs 10
b. Recommendations 11
A. Focus of the Task Force 15
B. Methodology 18
C. Organization of the Report 20
D. Acknowledgments 21
A. A "best" practice complies with the law. 25
B. A "best" practice promotes equal employment opportunity and addresses one or more barriers that adversely affect equal employment opportunity. 27
1. General Barriers that Inhibit Equal Employment Opportunity 27
a. The "Like Me" Syndrome 27
b. Stereotypes 28
c. Prejudice 29
d. Perception of Loss by Persons Threatened by Equal Employment Opportunity Practices 29
e. Ignorance 29
f. Other Barriers 29
2. More Specific Barriers 30
a. Barriers to Recruitment and Hiring 30
b. Barriers to Advancement and Promotion 30
c. Barriers in Terms and Conditions 31
d. Barriers in Termination and Downsizing 31
e. Barriers in Alternative Dispute Resolution 31
C. A "best" practice manifests management commitment and accountability. 31
D. A "best" practice ensures management and employee communication. 32
E. A "best" practice does not cause or result in unfairness. 32
F. A "best" practice produces noteworthy results. 33
G. Other Considerations 33
B.Comprehensive Programs Presented by Companies 37
THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. 39
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM) 47
PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP 55
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP 61
ROUSE COMPANY 65
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 71
C. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Recruitment and Hiring 77
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC 79
GTE TELEPHONE OPERATIONS 83
MITRE CORPORATION 85
MOTOROLA 89
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 91
TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 93
U.S. LONG DISTANCE WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATIONS 95
TABLE 1. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN RECRUITMENT AND HIRING 97
D. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Promotion and Career Advancement 105
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMITTEE 107
DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP 109
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 111
FANNIE MAE 113
INTEL CORPORATION 115
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 117
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 119
TABLE 2. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN PROMOTION AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT 121
E. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Terms and Conditions of Employment 129
AETNA, INC. 131
BAUSCH AND LOMB 135
FIRST TENNESSEE BANK 137
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 141
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION 143
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. 147
TABLE 3. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 151
F. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Termination and Downsizing 163
BANKBOSTON, N.A. 165
INTEL CORPORATION 167
OSRAM SYLVANIA 169
TABLE 4. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN TERMINATION AND DOWNSIZING 171
G. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Alternative Dispute Resolution 175
BARNETT BANKS, INC. 177
B E and K, INC. 179
TRW 183
TABLE 5. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 187
H. Other "Best" Practices Presented by Companies 193
FANNIE MAE 195
KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP 199
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 203
PPG 205
TABLE 6. OTHER "BEST" POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES 207
I. "Best" Practices Presented by Companies in Management Commitment and Accountability 213
DIAL CORPORATION 215
EASTMAN KODAK 217
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL 219
FANNIE MAE 221
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 223
PPG 227
PROCTER AND GAMBLE 229
TABLE 7. "BEST" PRACTICES PRESENTED BY COMPANIES IN MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 231
J. Partnership Programs 237
AMERICA WORKS 239
BRIDGES FROM SCHOOL-TO-WORK 241
FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION 245
MAINE MEDICAL CENTER 247
NATIONAL TRANSITION ALLIANCE 249
TALENT ALLIANCE 251
UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY 253
WOMEN EMPLOYED INSTITUTE'S KEYS TO SUCCESS 255
WORK/FAMILY DIRECTIONS, INC. 257
B. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Recruitment and Hiring 262
C. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Promotion and Advancement 263
D. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Terms and Conditions 264
E. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Termination and Downsizing 265
F. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Alternative Dispute Resolution 266
G. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Other Policies, Programs, and
Practices 267
H. "Best" Practice Ideas Applicable to Management Commitment and Accountability 268
1. Introduction 271
2. Procedural Guidance 271
3. Substantive Guidance 272
a. Commission Decisions 272
b. Regulations and Guidelines 273
c. Compliance Manual and Enforcement Guidances 274
4. Future Policy 275
5. Access to Commission Policy 275
6. Comments from the Commission's External and Internal Stakeholders 275
7. Recommendations 276
B. Operational Considerations 277
1. Introduction 277
2. Historical Overview of EEOC Education, Technical Assistance, and Outreach Programs 277
a. Legislative Background 277
b. White House Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity 278
c. The Commission's Early Education and Technical Assistance Program History 278
d. Office of Technical Assistance 278
e. Research and Employment Data Analyses and Support 280
f. Office of Voluntary Programs 280
g. A Renewed Emphasis on Education and Technical Assistance 280
h. The Voluntary Assistance Program 281
I. Expanded Presence in the Field 281
j. The Americans With Disabilities Act 282
3. The Current Education, Technical Assistance, and Outreach Programs 283
a. National and Local Enforcement Plans 283
b. The Revolving Fund 284
c. EEOC Participation in Conferences, Meetings, and Seminars 285
4. The Agency's Commitment to Education, Technical Assistance, and Outreach Programs Through the Year 2000 285
a. The Agency's Strategic Plan 285
b. The Fund or Fee-Paid Program and Strategy 286
c. Agency Reorganization 287
5. Comments from the Commission's External and Internal Stakeholders 288
a. The Fund 288
b. No-Fee Programs 289
c. Comments About Agency Enforcement and Best Practices 290
d. Comments About General Operational Matters 292
6. Recommendations 292
a. Assistance in Implementing Best Practices 293
b. Communications 295
c. Coordination 295
d. Settlement Agreements and/or Consent Decrees 296
B. Other Participating Companies 303
FACTS ABOUT RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION 305
Race-Related Characteristics and Conditions 305
Harassment 305
Segregation and Classification of Employees 306
Pre-Employment Inquiries 306
FACTS ABOUT NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION 307
Speak-English-Only Rule 307
Harassment 307
Immigration-Related Practices which may be Discriminatory 308
FACTS ABOUT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION 309
WAGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL PAY ACT AND TITLE VII 311
A. Equal Pay Act 311
B. Wage Discrimination under Title VII 312
FACTS ABOUT PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION 313
Hiring 313
Pregnancy and Maternity Leave 313
Health Insurance 313
Fringe Benefits 314
FACTS ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT 315
FACTS ABOUT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 317
Medical Examinations and Inquiries 317
Drug and Alcohol Abuse 318
EEOC Enforcement of the ADA 318
FACTS ABOUT AGE DISCRIMINATION 319
Apprenticeship Programs 319
Job Notices and Advertisements 319
Pre-Employment Inquiries 319
Benefits 320
Waivers of ADEA Rights 320
GLASS CEILING REPORT ON STEREOTYPES 321
HIRING 325
PROMOTION AND ADVANCEMENT 326
TERMINATIONS AND DOWNSIZING 326
The Task Force wishes to express its appreciation for the many Commission employees who provided invaluable assistance. Without their help, this report would not have been possible.
John Allmaier
Toni Barnes
Bernice Berry
Joan Bickers
Maria
Borrero
Paula R. Bruner
Donald P. Burris
Avelina Caballero
Phyllis
Castle
Walter D. Champe
Daniel Chang
Paula J. Choate
Stephanie
Christie
Michael P. Conley
Esterine Cosby
Sean Cunningham
Sharon
Duell
Ron Edwards
Harriet Joan Ehrlich
Denise Esterley
Wanda
Flowers
Pat Foley
Jay Friedman
Patricia J. Gonzales
W. S.
Grabon
Mary Grady
Valerie Greer
David Grinberg
Adam
Guasch-Melendez
Joe Harris
Frances M. Hart
John C.
Hendrickson
Evelyn Idelson
Nicholas Inzeo
Frank L. Iske
Clementine
Jackson
Linda M. Jackson
Issie L. Jenkins
Shirley Johnson
Dianna
Johnston
Christopher Kuczynski
Gerald Letwin
Naomi Levin
Stephen
Llewellyn
Philip Lyons
Peggy Mastroianni
Mike McCarthy
Sherman
McDaniel, Jr.
Susan L. McDuffie
Cassandra Menoken
Carol Miaskoff
P.
Sharon Miller Mauney
J. Kenneth L. Morse
Deanna Moynihan
Joachim
Neckere
Pam O'Leary
Cynthia G. Pierre
Dorothy Porter
Jerome C.
Rose
Vicki Rovira-Gonzalez
John Rowe
Jim Sacher
Jocelyn
Samuels
Leo Sanchez
Jerome Scanlan
Thomas J. Schlageter
John
Schmelzer
Carol Sellman
Shirley Smith
Maria Soto
Susan L.P.
Starr
Gregory Stewart
Marie M. Tames
William Tamayo
Susan
Taylor
Emma Thornton
Marie M. Tomasso
Richard R. Trujillo
Ellen
Vargyas
Helen Walsh
C. Larry Watson
Reginald Welch
William J.
White
Michael Widomski
Bernadette Wilson
Commissioner Reginald E. Jones was appointed by Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas to head the Task Force to study "best" equal employment opportunity policies, programs, and practices of private sector employers. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission or EEOC) is the enforcement agency responsible for compliance with its statutory mandates, the Commission has an important role in facilitating voluntary compliance through education, training, outreach, and policy guidance. Indeed, the primary goal of the Task Force is to facilitate voluntary compliance in its examination of business policies, programs, and practices that will be useful to employers in structuring systems and policies that are consistent with their business priorities as well as with their equal employment opportunity (EEO) obligations and diversity objectives. The Task Force also has presented employers with the opportunity to showcase those policies, programs, and practices of which they are particularly proud.
Accordingly, the Task Force set out to look at noteworthy business practices by which employers are complying with their EEO obligations and diversity objectives, especially practices thought of as creative or innovative. The Task Force also set out to catalogue its findings in such a way that they will be useful to employers, especially smaller and medium-sized employers that are less likely to employ professional personnel and legal staffs. Additionally, ideas were solicited about how the Commission could better assist entities in developing best policies, programs, and practices. The Task Force thus examined what statutory, regulatory, policy or operational changes by the Commission may better facilitate the development of best policies, programs, and practices.
The Task Force divided its study of policies, programs, and practices into six major groupings: (1) recruitment and hiring; (2) promotion and career advancement; (3) terms and conditions; (4) termination and downsizing; (5) alternative dispute resolution; and (6) other. The focus of "recruitment and hiring" is on affirmative recruitment programs designed to create a diverse workforce, such as internships, recruitment strategies, and education and training programs used for hiring. The focus of "promotion and career advancement" is on programs that have eliminated barriers to the advancement of women, people from diverse ethnic and racial groups, persons with disabilities, and older workers (those forty or older). Such programs as mentoring, education and training for purposes of promotion, and career enhancement initiatives were considered in this group. The focus of "terms and conditions" is on disability and religious accommodation programs, and on sexual harassment, pay equity, insurance, employee benefits, and work-life and family-friendly policies and practices. The focus of the section on "termination and downsizing" is on such areas as retraining and placement programs for employees displaced by downsizing programs, nondiscriminatory early retirement programs, and insurance. "Alternative dispute resolution" focuses on early resolution of employment discrimination complaints and voluntary and effective alternative dispute resolution programs. The "other" category embraces any other policies, programs, or practices not readily identifiable in the previous five groups or where there was an overlap between or among groups.
Since management commitment and accountability are driving forces behind a company's EEO policies, programs, and practices, it was decided to devote a part of the discussion in the report to this factor as well, thus creating a seventh grouping of "management commitment and accountability." In terms of commitment, the Task Force looked at what management was saying and doing. In terms of accountability, the Task Force looked at tools such as performance appraisals, compensation incentives, and other evaluation measures to reflect a manager's ability to set high standards and demonstrate progress.
The Task Force also decided to discuss a group of companies that have EEO programs that are particularly noteworthy from a comprehensive perspective. These companies addressed most, if not all, of the elements delineated above and deserve comprehensive recognition for their programs. The Task Force, in addition, recognized various partnerships, involving companies and the facilitation of employment opportunities with other organizations and/or individuals.
The Task Force developed criteria setting forth what a "best practice" is and does, which will be discussed, infra. The best practices selected were generally viewed in terms of those criteria. The Task Force also focused on those submissions that were more detailed in terms of the description of the practice and how it worked, and that persuasively explained why the practice was of a noteworthy nature. Furthermore, the Task Force favored those practices that were presented with supporting data as to their effectiveness.
From the outset, submitting employers recognized that the information the Task Force was seeking went beyond simple compliance with the EEO laws enforced by the EEOC. When they received the Task Force request to hear about "Best Practices," they knew that this meant more than just complying with the minimum requirements of the law. No, this term inherently focuses on what a company is doing at the level of compliance and beyond.
Unfortunately, time and financial resources limited the scope of the group's work. The Task Force, as a whole, did not have the luxury of conducting site visits or validation studies of the submissions. Essentially, work was begun with an exhaustive review of the "best practices" literature. Thereafter, paper examinations were conducted relying on stakeholders' submissions at face value, although follow-up was done, where it was available and felt to be helpful. In sum, the Task Force essentially considered whether the practice complied with the law, whether it would likely promote effective equal employment opportunity strategies, considering the barrier or barriers it was designed to address, and its fairness. Of course, the additional element of demonstrable results was considered where available.
The recognition of best practices in this report is a qualified one. The Task Force believes, however, that if appropriately implemented, considering the factual circumstances surrounding the implementation, the cited practices will be reasonably likely to promote equal employment opportunity. Indeed, the Task Force takes as a given that in each instance the submitter believes the practice has been highly successful in the promotion of equal employment opportunity and/or diversity, and, thus, is deserving of recognition.
The Task Force wishes to stress that a best practice may not be universally replicable on a successful basis regardless of employer or industry. We think, however, that the recognition of the practices in this report can provide some of our stakeholders valuable ideas on what has worked for other stakeholders. Such practices may very well be the basis for replication, although individual tailoring to the requirements of the individual worksite may be necessary.
Moreover, the Task Force notes that citing an employer for a best practice does not mean that employer is necessarily a model equal employment opportunity employer generally. A cited practice involves only a specific area of equal employment opportunity. This is because it is possible, for example, that an employer may have an excellent sexual harassment program and policy, yet that same employer may not have an effective policy on the employment of people with disabilities. A model employer must necessarily do many things, involving a multitude of areas, in a commendable manner. We emphasize, however, that even those employers generally cited for recognition may not be immune from criticism, given the parameters and limitations of the Task Force's study.
In sum, since time and resource constraints made it impossible to validate the accuracy of the submissions, or to assess how they are being implemented, it is important to emphasize that the Commission is not endorsing any particular policy, program, or practice. Rather, the Commission's goal is to identify and disseminate information about practices currently being implemented by employers which are likely to promote voluntary compliance with the laws enforced by EEOC.
The report begins by identifying what the Task Force considers to be relevant in determining what a "best" practice involves. This was not an easy task. The Task Force recognizes that reasonable persons may differ on the question. Nevertheless, the Task Force concluded that most stakeholders should be able, at least generally, to agree with the framework.
In the view of the Task Force, a "best" practice comports with the requirements of the law, as manifested in the Commission's statutory mandates: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the applicable sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. A best practice promotes equal employment opportunity and addresses one or more barriers that adversely affect equal employment opportunity. Not only does a best practice present serious commitment from management to EEO objectives, but it also addresses management accountability for equal employment opportunity. Effective communication between management and the intended beneficiaries of the practice, as well as with all other employees, is another consistent best practice trait. A best practice embraces fairness to all employees. Finally, a best practice is implemented conscientiously and shows noteworthy results.
The second section of the report identifies the policies, programs, and practices that the Task Force believes reasonably likely to assist the employer community and related employees and employee groups in facilitating their equal employment opportunity programs. As indicated, the Task Force divided its study of policies, programs, and practices into seven factor groupings:
The second section begins with those companies found to be comprehensively noteworthy, and then identifies noteworthy companies in each of the seven major groupings, including management commitment and accountability. Finally, the Task Force discusses noteworthy partnership arrangements, or any type of collaborative effort involving employers and another group, to achieve EEO worksite objectives.
Ultimately, the most successful companies have figured out that it makes best economic sense to draw talent and ideas from all segments of the population. Inclusive hiring and promotion practices bring into the organization segments of the workforce that may well provide competitive advantage in the increasingly global economy. Systematic exclusion of these segments denies these resources to the organization and lessens the chances of eventual success. For these companies, pursuing diversity and equal employment opportunity is just as integral a business concept as increasing market share or maximizing profits. In this way, diversity and EEO become not just programs, nor even separate departments, but rather a way of life that is integral to all business activities of the company.
However, the EEOC Best Practices Task Force recognizes that often it is not a simple matter for employers to comply with their obligations under our civil rights and EEO laws. This can be complex legal terrain. The EEOC itself enforces five separate statutes, and employers are subject to a myriad of other federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations that also govern the employment arena. Thus, there is no substitute for strong commitment and hard work in this area.
The third section reviews "best" practice findings from a conceptual perspective. Leading companies responding to the Task Force seem to adopt what we call a "SPLENDID" approach to these issues. The acronym "SPLENDID" stands for a series of actions that conscientious employers can take to address EEO and diversity issues: STUDY, PLAN, LEAD, ENCOURAGE, NOTICE, DISCUSSION, INCLUSION, and DEDICATION. A further explanation of the concepts behind the letters of the acronym is summarized on the following page:
STUDY -- Since one cannot solve problems that one doesn't know exists, know the law, the standards that define one's obligations, and the various barriers to EEO and diversity. Assistance can be obtained from EEOC, professional consultants, associations or groups, etc.
PLAN -- Know one's own circumstances (workforce and demographics - locally, nationally, and globally). Define one's problem(s); propose solutions; and develop strategies for achieving them.
LEAD -- Senior, middle, and lower management must champion the cause of diversity as a business imperative, and provide leadership for successful attainment of the vision of a diverse workforce at all levels of management.
ENCOURAGE -- Companies should encourage the attainment of diversity by all managers, supervisors, and employees, and structure their business practices and reward systems to reinforce those corporate objectives. Link pay and performance not only for technical competencies, but also for how employees interact, support and respect each other.
NOTICE --Take notice of the impact of your practices, after monitoring and assessing company progress. Self-analysis is a key part of this process. Ensure that a corrective strategy does not cause or result in unfairness.
DISCUSSION -- Communicate and reinforce the message that diversity is a business asset and a key element of business success in a national and global market.
INCLUSION -- Bring everyone into this process, including white males. Help them understand that EEO initiatives are good for the company and, thus, good for everyone in the company. Include them in the analysis, planning, and implementation.
DEDICATION -- Stay persistent in your quest. Long term gains from these practices may cost in the short term. Invest the needed human and capital resources.
The suggestions above are just a small sampling of the characteristics that seem to be common in most of the companies that operate their EEO compliance procedures above and beyond the minimum basic legal requirements. Additional ideas are set forth in each of the seven "best" practice areas studied. Since these ideas are rather extensive, they are not discussed here.
The fourth section considers what Commission statutory, regulatory, and policy changes may be necessary to facilitate best practices. This section also considers what the Commission might do operationally to facilitate best practices.
A Task Force committee was assigned to address Chairman Casellas' request for a review of all statutory, regulatory, and procedural guidance for their impact on the development or implementation of best practices, including, if needed, recommendations for changes. After reviewing the comments received from stakeholders and conducting our own assessment of the statutes the Commission enforces, as well as the substantive and procedural guidance documents issued by the Commission, the Task Force concludes that none of the Commission's current regulations or policy guidance hinder the development or implementation of employer best practices.
In addition, based on the input from external and internal stakeholders, the Task Force concludes that no recommendations to Congress for changes in the statutes enforced by the Commission are warranted at this time. While Congressional action to promote voluntary compliance with EEO laws and/or to facilitate employer adoption of best practices may be possible, the Task Force received no specific comments, suggestions, or recommendations in this area.
Finally, the EEOC has been and continues to be committed to providing guidance to the public about the laws we enforce. That commitment includes obtaining input from internal and external stakeholders about the type and kind of policy guidance we should issue. The Office of Legal Counsel, which is primarily responsible for development of policy for consideration by the Commission, regularly meets with a broad range of external stakeholders, including personnel from other federal agencies, to seek input on policy issues. The development of policy is also driven by the types of issues that are reflected in our charge inventory and litigation docket, and by input from investigators and attorneys in the field. The Task Force believes that the Commission should continue to facilitate accessibility and responsiveness on policy issues, and continue to welcome advice and comment from stakeholders on how it may better serve the public interest.
A summary of the Task Force's recommendations is as follows:
One of the key factors in implementing best practices is for those affected by EEO laws to be well informed about their rights and responsibilities under those laws. This section of the Best Practices Task Force Report assesses what the Commission can do operationally to facilitate the development and implementation of best equal employment opportunity policies, programs, and practices. A Task Force committee was assigned to address this area.
This part of the Task Force report begins with the history of the Commission's education, technical assistance, and outreach programs designed to inform stakeholders about the statutes and changes in the law. It illustrates the Commission's longstanding and continuing commitment to education, technical assistance, and outreach. From the nationwide voluntary action program begun by the agency in 1966, to the Office of Technical Assistance, created in 1967 and which grew into a twenty-one person office by 1970, to the 1972 creation of the Office of Voluntary Programs that continued operations through the 1970s, the Commission constantly maintained a dual focus with law enforcement on the one hand, and education, outreach, and technical assistance efforts on the other.
Toward the end of the 1970s, the Commission's primary emphasis was on the reduction of its charge backlog. As a consequence, Commission technical assistance and education programs were de-emphasized, with resources being redirected to law enforcement programs and activities. In 1982, Chairman Clarence Thomas, reaffirming the need for active voluntary assistance to complement EEOC's enforcement efforts, required renewed managerial attention to education and outreach activities. Other such efforts initiated during this time were the Office of Special Projects (established to conduct special analyses and make recommendations of operational changes to increase the agency's effectiveness), the Office of Voluntary Assistance (which was designed to provide education and assistance to small employers, unions and individuals), and the Expanded Presence Program (designed to increase the accessibility of EEOC staff to underserved areas).
With the passage of the Gramm-Rudman Act, the EEOC was required to reevaluate its spending on voluntary assistance and education programs. Early in FY 1986, the agency concluded that it could not fully renew its budget allotments for these programs, and funding was steadily squeezed off thereafter. By 1990, our technical assistance activities were largely confined to participation as invited speakers in workshops, seminars, and conferences sponsored by other groups and organizations.
President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act on July 26, 1990, and on July 26, 1992, the Commission began enforcing Title I of the ADA. In that two-year period, the Commission developed regulations and policy guidance, developed broad technical assistance programs, developed training programs for EEOC staff, as well as plans for providing training to the disability community and employers. These and subsequent ADA implementation activities were performed by the Office of Legal Counsel.
The current EEOC education, technical assistance, and outreach program consists of Commission activities in three areas: (1) national and local enforcement plans [NEP & LEP] (which pledge the Commission to education, outreach, and voluntary resolution as tools to eliminate workplace discrimination); (2) the revolving fund (which produces the agency's fee-paid technical assistance program seminars [TAPS] across the country); and (3) participation of headquarters and field office personnel in thousands of nationwide conferences, meetings, and seminars annually.
In its discussions with field office staffs and external stakeholders, the Task Force received many comments and suggestions about what EEOC can do to improve both its fee paid and no-fee education and technical assistance programs in advancing the development of best practices, and the role of agency enforcement activities and general operations in helping employers develop best practices. All of these comments and suggestions were considered by the Task Force and many of them have merit. However, in times when Commission resources are limited and demands placed upon those resources are heavy, policy choices placing new stress on those resources are difficult to make. Thus, suggestions entailing large new cost outlays were generally not adopted. Moreover, some of the comments did not appear to be relevant to Task Force issues, or bore significant implications beyond the scope of this report. The Task Force has sought to address the concerns of all stakeholders, and these concerns played a key role in the formulation of its recommendations.
The Task Force's recommendations fall into four primary areas. First, the Task Force recommends that the Commission be more involved in providing employers assistance in implementing best practices. This includes providing technical assistance on-site, where possible, collecting best practices information and models, establishing industry liaison groups, providing more materials, and providing easier and more frequent access to Commission programs. Second, the Task Force recommends that the Commission engage in various communications initiatives. This includes encouraging employers to give their evaluations of Commission activities in education, technical assistance, and outreach, so that the Commission can be even more responsive to employer needs. Third, the Task Force recommends certain coordination initiatives in order to facilitate greater effectiveness and efficiency in the planning and delivery of the Commission's programs. Fourth, the Task Force has made recommendations concerning the use of its settlement agreements and/or consent decrees. A summary of the Task Force's recommendations is as follows:
programs. The report should include an evaluation and presentation of best practices.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This report should be thought of, not as a blueprint, but more as an idea bank that can be drawn upon broadly by one and all. The Task Force report's findings and recommendations are not meant to require employers to adopt certain practices or policies to comply with any of the laws enforced by EEOC.
Commissioner Reginald E. Jones was appointed by Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas to head the Task Force to study best equal employment opportunity policies, programs, and practices of private sector employers. While the Commission is responsible for enforcing a variety of statutes, it also has an important role in facilitating voluntary compliance through education and training, outreach, and policy guidance.
EEOC is pleased to present this report of "best" practices in private sector equal employment opportunity compliance. The Task Force hopes that the information contained herein will be an important resource for employers in meeting their EEO responsibilities.
The primary goal of the Task Force is to facilitate voluntary equal employment opportunity compliance. Accordingly, the Task Force collected information about noteworthy business practices by which employers are complying with their EEO obligations and civil rights responsibilities, especially practices thought of as creative or innovative. The Task Force then catalogued its findings in a user friendly format.
Additionally, ideas were solicited about how the EEOC could better assist employers in developing "best" policies, programs, and practices, including any statutory, regulatory, policy or operational changes to promote such development.
In the view of the Task Force, a best practice must comport with the requirements of the law, as manifested in the EEOC's statutory mandates:
A best practice should promote equal employment opportunity and address one or more barriers that adversely impact equal employment opportunity. Not only must there be a serious commitment from management to EEO objectives, but additionally, management accountability for equal employment opportunity is a necessary component of any worthy program. There must also be effective communication between management and the intended beneficiaries of the practice. The practice must necessarily embrace fairness to all employees. Finally, the practice must be implemented conscientiously and should show noteworthy results.
Initially the Task Force divided its study of policies, programs, and practices into six major groupings:
However, since Management Commitment and Accountability emerged from the companies' submittals as an important factor in the success of their EEO compliance efforts, it was decided to add a seventh grouping.
The focus of "recruitment and hiring" is on affirmative recruitment programs and strategies designed to create a diverse workforce, such as internships, work/study, and other education and training programs used for hiring.
The focus of "promotion and career advancement" is on programs that have eliminated barriers to the advancement of women, people from diverse ethnic and racial groups, persons with disabilities, and older workers. Such programs as mentoring, education and training for purposes of promotion, and career enhancement initiatives were considered in this group.
The focus of "terms and conditions" includes disability and religious accommodation programs, such as effective mechanisms for addressing reasonable accommodation requests. The focus also includes sexual harassment, pay equity, insurance, and employee benefits. Additionally, many companies cited their numerous work-life and family-friendly policies and practices as very supportive of their diversity and equal employment opportunity objectives. The companies have been able to help their employees realize that these programs are not just for married employees or pregnant women. Employees and dependents with disabilities, as well as men also have benefitted greatly from these programs. Most importantly, these programs have enabled the companies to retain the top quality employees that they've worked so hard to recruit and hire, including minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. Some companies also stressed that work-life and family-friendly programs are an integral part of their diversity, equal employment, and affirmative action efforts.
The focus of "termination and downsizing" is on such areas as retraining and placement programs for employees displaced by downsizing programs, and nondiscriminatory early retirement programs.
"Alternative dispute resolution" focuses on early resolution of employment discrimination complaints, and voluntary and effective alternative dispute resolution programs.
The focus of "other" embraces any other policies, programs, or practices not readily identifiable in the previous five groups or where there is an overlap between or among groups.
Since "management commitment and accountability" are driving forces behind a company's EEO policies, programs, and practices, it was decided to devote a section of the report to management commitment and accountability. Management commitment focuses on what management is doing to facilitate equal employment opportunities. Accountability focuses on the mechanisms in evaluating management's performance involving equal employment opportunity programs. The Task Force looked at such tools as performance appraisals, compensation incentives, and other evaluation measures to reflect a manager's ability to set high standards and demonstrate progress.
Many stakeholders submitted information about employers' innovative or special efforts. The practices selected by the Task Force were generally viewed in terms of the criteria set forth in our discussion above of what a "best" practice exemplifies. The Task Force focused on those practices that were explained in detail, and that were accompanied by an explanation as to why the practice is of a noteworthy nature. Furthermore, the Task Force favored those practices that were presented with data that demonstrated their effectiveness.
Unfortunately, time and financial resources limited the scope of the group's work. The Task Force, as a whole, did not have the luxury of conducting on-site visits or validation studies. The Task Force's work began, and continued on an on-going basis, with an exhaustive review of the "best practices" literature. This was followed by an extensive effort to contact companies that might be willing to submit information on a policy or program that they considered a "best" EEO practice. Thereafter, paper examinations were conducted relying on submissions at face value, although follow up was done, where it was available and felt to be helpful. The Task Force examined the submissions to see how the policy or practice was implemented, who was accountable for success of the policy or practice, how was the policy or practice communicated, and what was the employer's commitment to the policy or practice. The Task Force generally accepted as accurate whatever commitment, communication, accountability, and implementation factors were reported by the companies, as well as the results. In sum, the Task Force's review considered whether the practice was in compliance with the law, whether it would "likely" promote effective equal employment opportunity strategies, and whether the practice was fair.
The Task Force's recognition of best practices in this report is a qualified one. However, the Task Force believes, that if appropriately implemented, considering the factual circumstances surrounding the implementation, the cited practices would be reasonably likely to promote equal employment opportunity. Indeed, the Task Force recognizes that the companies submitting the policies and practices believe they have been highly successful in the promotion of equal employment opportunity and, thus, are deserving of recognition.
The Task Force wishes to stress that a best practice may not necessarily be universally replicable on a successful basis regardless of employer or industry. We think, however, that the recognition of the practices in this report can give employers valuable ideas on what has worked for other employers, and stimulate development of new approaches to old problems. Such practices may very well be the basis for replication, although individual tailoring of the practice to the requirements of the individual employer or worksite may be necessary.
Finally, the citation of an employer for a best practice does not necessarily mean that it is a problem-free model equal employment opportunity employer. A cited practice may involve only a specific area of equal employment opportunity. For example, an employer may have an excellent sexual harassment policy and program, but may not have an effective policy on the employment of people with disabilities. A model employer must necessarily do many things, involving a multitude of areas, in a commendable manner. We emphasize, however, that like most employers, those employers found to be comprehensively noteworthy in this report are not necessarily immune from criticism, given the parameters and limitations of the Task Force's review of submitted material.
The Task Force had numerous meetings. At the outset, these meetings focused on the process of gathering the required information - primarily in the form of answering the questions of how, what, and to whom to communicate the Task Force's interest in best equal employment opportunity compliance efforts. Initially, the Task Force sent letters directly to all employers with 25,000 or more employees, a total of some 231 companies, informing the employers of the creation of the Task Force and its mission. These companies employ 30% of the employees covered by the Commission's EEO-1 reports, and were felt to represent a statistically significant slice of all American workplaces.
The Task Force also sent more than 100 letters informing a wide variety of
associations representing employers, employees, and civil rights groups about the Task Force and its mission. The hope was that the organizations would further spread word of the Task Force and its mission to their members.
Further, the Task Force prepared and sent a survey questionnaire to nine organizations (limited to nine in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act) selected to represent a broad cross-section of our stakeholders. These included:
The Task Force sent letters to each member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce informing them of our mission. These letters stressed that we would welcome Congressional input on all matters under Task Force consideration. A subsequent letter to the chairmen and ranking members of these committees added a further specific inquiry as to whether National Labor Relations Act standards on employer-employee committees impede formulation of employer best practices in the area of EEO compliance or diversity efforts.
We carefully reviewed the existing "best practices" literature and searched assiduously for reports by the news media for employers cited by others or self-proclaiming best EEO practices. The Task Force also set forth its purpose and interest in best equal employment opportunity practices on the Internet with a link to the EEOC World Wide Web home page. Members of the Task Force explored company home pages on the World Wide Web for interesting equal employment opportunity policies, programs, or practices. As a result of these efforts, we contacted numerous employers about their illustrative equal employment policies, programs, or practices. Indeed, we responded to any individual or group that expressed interest in the Task Force.
Letters also were sent to all Commission employees seeking their input, both in terms of employers with best practices and Commission facilitation of best practices. Finally, we contacted the Commission's Office of Legal Counsel and Office of General Counsel for their views.
The Task Force met with representatives of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to discuss their views on best equal employment practices involving employers subject to the jurisdiction of that office. Their experience and contacts generated from the Secretary's Opportunity 2000 and Exemplary Voluntary Efforts (EVE) Award programs proved invaluable to our efforts to uncover best EEO practices.
Commissioner Jones held roundtable meetings with groups of employers in Albuquerque, NM, Chicago, IL, Cleveland, OH, Houston, TX, Philadelphia, PA, and San Francisco, CA. In his Houston trip, he spoke at an awards dinner hosted by the Governor of Texas, George Bush, Jr., the Mayor of Houston, Robert Lanier, and their respective committees on the employment of persons with disabilities, honoring individuals and companies for their meritorious service in this area. Further, Commissioner Jones made site visits to several companies. Specifically, these visits were with Intel Corporation in Albuquerque, NM, Pacific Telesis in San Ramon, CA, and International Business Machines in North Tarrytown, NY.
The Task Force received materials from more than seventy organizations, employers, and individuals, not including input from Commission employees. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of materials were received directly from employers in a wide range of industries and across all business sectors.
Please note that colored paper is used in the second section to assist the reader in comprehending the underlying organization of the material, and to aid in quick identification of the sub-parts. The buff-colored pages have summaries of the companies' submittals that are being featured. The blue-colored pages contain even briefer summaries of all of the company submittals for each of the seven major groupings identified above. They are intended to help the reader see at a glance, by each major group, the wide variety of approaches that the companies have submitted.
Section III sets forth the Task Force's "Best" Practice Findings. The Task Force approaches its findings from two perspectives. First, it gives a general perspective, in macro terms, for approaching a noteworthy EEO and diversity program. Second, it gives a more specific perspective correlated to each of the seven groupings or areas.
Section IV considers possible Commission regulatory, policy, and operational changes, as well as any statutory changes that may be necessary to facilitate best practices. The Task Force reviewed the statutes enforced by the Commission, as well as its regulations, policies, and operations to determine whether changes made or recommended by the Commission might facilitate the development of best policies, programs, and practices. This section sets forth the Task Force's recommendations.
Section V includes the index of companies participating in the Task Force study.
Some of the Commission's guidelines on the law are included in the Appendices.
Finally, the Task Force wishes to make it abundantly clear that the Task Force is not telling employers how they must comply with the law. Rather, it is the hope that this report will help and guide employers in complying with the law, and more.
A number of agencies, organizations, and institutions provided invaluable assistance to the Task Force by sharing their resource information about companies. These are listed below:
Services;
A substantial number of submissions were received by the Task Force representing a collection of high quality ideas on diversity and EEO. It is noteworthy that the rate of return (number of submissions versus number of solicitations) experienced by the Task Force compares favorably with the experiences of other private and public efforts to solicit best practices submissions from the business community.
The reasons for any reluctance on the part of employers are probably as many and varied as their numbers and operations. Certainly, many employers may have had conflicting demands such that they simply could not afford the time required to prepare a submission. Many employers also may have had an unduly modest perception of their policies, programs, and practices. In addition, a number of employers expressed reservations about divulging information to the EEOC because of a concern that such information might come into play in some subsequent EEOC enforcement action against them. Since the Task Force obviously could not guarantee immunity to any employer making a submission, this concern may have held back employers who otherwise would have participated in our effort. Indeed, a few "best" practices were submitted anonymously.
Several employers also indicated proprietary and confidentiality constraints on revealing the details of their programs. It appears that some outside consultants uniformly impose such constraints where they have devised programs for employers. At least one employer also expressed a reluctance to release information because of competitive concerns about other companies raiding its employees. Finally, one employer expressed an interest in an EEOC awards program, indicating that existence of such a program could induce it to make a submission. Here, the Task Force could only respond that the Commission had not instituted an awards program and, at least in the short term, was unlikely to do so. Nevertheless, the Task Force consistently expressed its interest in seeing whatever EEO, affirmative action or diversity policies, programs, and practices that the employers were proud of themselves.
The Task Force considered a number of factors in addressing the concept of what is a "best" practice:
The Task Force recognizes that these factors can be interrelated. Thus, for example, compliance with the laws will often promote equal employment opportunity and address one or more barriers that adversely affect EEO. In order to promote equal employment opportunity and address barriers to EEO, strong management commitment is necessary. Management commitment must be evidenced, in part, by communication with employees. Management accountability is an indicia of management commitment and is necessary for a practice to be implemented and monitored. The law is based on fairness. In order to produce results, all of the above factors are going to be involved in some way.
The Commission enforces five statutes that prohibit job discrimination by private sector employers: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), and certain sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that amended provisions of Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA.[2]
Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color, sex, religion, or national origin; the ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against persons forty years of age and older; and the ADA prohibits employment discrimination based on disability. Employers are prohibited from discriminating in the hiring; promotion; discharge; compensation; terms, conditions and privileges of employment; and in the classifying, limiting or segregating of individuals for employment. Employers are also prohibited from printing or publishing discriminatory advertisements, and from retaliating against any individual for opposing a discriminatory practice, filing a charge, or participating in the EEO process. In addition, Title VII and the ADA explicitly prohibit discrimination by joint labor-management committees in the admission or employment of individuals in any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.
The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities. A qualified individual with a disability is a person who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position. The ADA also prohibits --
The EPA prohibits sex discrimination in the payment of wages (including fringe benefits) to men and women performing substantially equal work under similar working conditions in the same establishment.
As indicated, a "best" practice should comport with the requirements of the law. While this certainly is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient one. For example, the Task Force recognizes that certain courts have found that employer-imposed, pre-dispute, mandatory, binding arbitration complies with the law. The Commission, however, has taken the position that such systems are inappropriate and unlawful to the extent that they deny charging parties access to the statutorily prescribed avenues of relief (both administrative and judicial). Accordingly, as a Task Force of the Commission, we viewed the issue of best practices from the Commission's perspective, and regarded Commission policy and interpretative guidance as a threshold benchmark. Furthermore, we suggest that mere compliance with the law is not especially noteworthy since all employers must meet that standard. In other words, a "best" practice is not accomplished by minimal compliance with the law.
We will first discuss those barriers that affect equal employment opportunity in a general manner, as distinguished from barriers that are specific to the particular type of employment action. The general barriers also tend to be socially counterproductive, while the specific barriers are more indigenous to the employer. Finally, the barriers, general or specific, can serve to discriminate against minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and older workers and accordingly serve to deny them equal employment opportunity. We do not attempt to delineate a comprehensive list of these barriers. Rather, what follows is for illustrative purposes.
It is an axiom of human nature that people often like to associate with other people who are like themselves. This enhances a comfort level in working relationships. Such "like me" bias may be conscious or unconscious. Nevertheless, the "like me" syndrome can lead to a tendency to employ and work with people like oneself in terms of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, and disability. Thus, it can lead to a bias and an unwillingness to employ people unlike oneself. For example, women have justifiably complained that the old boy network, with business deals and decisions being made, and professional relationships and alliances being formed in conjunction with male bonding activities, creates a glass ceiling limiting the advancement of women. Perceived cultural differences and ethnocentrism can also feed on the "like me" syndrome and may result in the denial of equal employment opportunities.[3]
The "like me" syndrome can also influence an employer's assessment on the norms of performance. Thus, there may be the perception that someone "different" is less able to do the job and that someone "like me" is more able to do the job. This can further adversely affect equal employment opportunity for minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and older workers.
People may have stereotypes of other individuals based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and age. Many times these stereotypes are negative and erroneous, and thus adversely affect the targeted employees.[4] Such stereotypes can breed subtle racism, sexism, prejudice, and discomfort. Stereotypes must be addressed in the EEO context because they may be used as "factual" bases for employment decisions.[5]
On the other hand, people may have stereotypes of what makes a good employee or successful executive (e.g., that young white males generally are positive role models of excellent employees or of good citizens, while African American males are not; or that Asian Americans are "model minorities," but not fully accepted "Americans;" or that women are too soft, caring, or concerned about human relations to be strong, decisive managers, etc.). Such stereotypes, especially if they are the underlying beliefs and attitudes that form the bases of employment decisions, can also adversely affect other individuals who are members or non-members of any of the numerous diverse groups in our society or in the workplace.
It cannot be denied that there may be instances of outright bigotry on the part of an employer or its management for or against a targeted group. Hopefully, thirty years after the enactment of Title VII, such cases of outright prejudice in the area of equal employment opportunity should be rare. But experience tells us that this most basic type of discrimination still exists. [6]
For example, as the workplace becomes more diverse, and special voluntary efforts are made by companies to recruit and hire from all groups, based on selection standards of hiring or promoting the best qualified individual for the position, some white males, or any other groups who traditionally have been the predominant employees of a particular workforce or occupation, may grow anxious and view themselves as losing employment control and opportunity. As they perceive a direct threat to their own equal employment opportunities, they may feel that they need to overzealously protect their own prospects, by impeding the prospects of others.[7]
Employers, especially smaller entities, may just not be well-versed in the requirements of equal employment opportunity. Acts of discrimination committed in this context may be the result of ignorance. Employers may not know how the law applies because they have received poor or inaccurate advice. Even the largest employers may have managers who are not well-versed in the EEO laws. To a large degree, stereotyping feeds on ignorance, but the repercussions of ignorance go much farther than stereotyping.
Management must have a positive and unequivocal commitment to equal employment opportunity. Without commitment from top-level management to front-line supervisors, nothing can reasonably be expected to be done. Management commitment must be a driving force.
This commitment may be evidenced, in part, by management directives, mandating equal employment opportunity policies. Management should communicate throughout the organization that it is committed to equal employment opportunity and will not tolerate unlawful discrimination in any form. EEO should be integrated into all aspects of an employer's policies and practices, including the identification of those aspects of the organization's culture and environment that are barriers to equal employment opportunity.
This commitment must, however, also include the will to act as required and as appropriate, especially in addressing the barriers to equal employment opportunity specific to the organization's culture and work environment. Management must also monitor the results of its efforts and decisions. Management should support interested advisory and support groups. Management should also provide employee groups with access to high-level management.
Without accountability, there is a lack of responsibility. Accountability goes hand-in-hand with commitment.
Management should participate and interact with employees and employee groups. It should encourage ongoing discussions about diversity issues. Communication should be encouraged from the "top-down" and "bottom-up", including CEO speeches to employees and letters from employees to management. Information about equal employment policies, programs, and practices should be distributed to all employees, informing everyone of management's positions on the various aspects of equal employment opportunity. Employers should continually communicate career opportunities to all employees, including competencies, skills, and abilities required. With communication, management and employees are able to understand equal employment opportunity programs and their goals, ascertain to what extent the goals are being met, and work together to make programs better.
The issue of fairness most often comes into play when considering affirmative action programs. The Commission supports affirmative action programs that are consistent with the law.[8] The Commission views such programs as a limited, but important, tool in the fight to eradicate discrimination. An employer can adopt a voluntary affirmative action plan if it identifies a manifest imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories. A voluntary affirmative action plan cannot unnecessarily trammel the rights of non-targeted groups, usually non-minorities or men.
The plan must be designed to break down patterns of segregation and to open employment opportunities for the targeted groups, usually minorities, women, or persons with disabilities in jobs from which they have traditionally been barred. For example, such a plan cannot require the discharge of non-targeted employees and their replacement with targeted employees, nor can it create an absolute bar to the advancement of non-targeted employees. Applicable law also requires that an individual who benefits from affirmative action must be qualified for the job at issue, although that individual need not be the most qualified individual.
Affirmative action, when properly designed and implemented, does not allow for the use of quotas - the inflexible reliance solely on numbers that ignore qualifications. A voluntary affirmative action plan must be temporary and flexible, and it cannot be used to maintain a balanced workforce. A voluntary plan should be regularly reviewed to ensure that goals and timetables are justified and flexible and that the rights of non-targeted groups are not unduly burdened.[9]
A practice may look great on paper, but without implementation and results, its value is subject to conjecture and in any event, unrealized. Simply put, actions speak louder than words. With implementation and evaluation, one can see what has worked and how well it has worked. It goes without saying that results are relevant in assessing whether a practice may be deserving of commendation or imitation. Significant and impressive results of practices to enhance equal employment opportunity give greater credence to those practices.
The Task Force also looked at the innovative aspects of the practices submitted for consideration. However, innovation was not necessarily a prerequisite to being a "best" practice. Rather, the paramount consideration was the evidence that the practice worked well within the context of the criteria just discussed. Finally, the Task Force also checked to ensure that there were no indications, based on Commission compliance reviews, of substantial noncompliance by the employer with any civil rights laws under the Commission's jurisdiction.
The Task Force recognizes that a "best" practice must be viewed in terms of the specific facts and circumstances of the employer. A "best" practice may, but not necessarily, vary from industry to industry or from employer to employer. The Task Force hopes, however, that this report will help employers, especially smaller and medium-sized entities, who may not have the financial resources to obtain sufficient legal and other professional advice in their efforts to achieve full EEO compliance.
Time and financial resources limited the scope of the Task Force's work. The Task Force had approximately seven months to compile the information, including follow up, thoroughly review the submissions by stakeholders, engage in discussions with stakeholders in roundtable and focus group settings, engage in dialogue within the Task Force, and write the report. Because of budgetary constraints, the Task Force was limited in the amount of outreach that could be done in preparing this report.
Accordingly, the Task Force, as a whole, did not conduct site visits or do validation studies of the submissions. Essentially, the Task Force process consisted of paper examinations relying on employer submissions at face value, although follow up was done, where it was felt to be helpful.
The Task Force essentially considered whether the practice complied with the law, whether it would promote equal employment opportunity and remove the barrier or barriers it was designed to address, and its fairness. Even with these three factors, the Task Force could not make definitively final and ultimate conclusions, because specific factual circumstances could come into play that could vitiate these factors.
Nevertheless, the Task Force considered the employer's belief that its practice was a commendable one. Of course, such a belief by the employer does not by that fact alone make the practice a best practice. The Task Force thus evaluated whether the employer's belief was reasonable within the framework of the above factors, keeping in mind that definitively final and ultimate conclusions could not be made given the limits of the Task Force's evaluation. Even with these limitations, the Task Force believes that much can be gained from an examination of the "best" practices reviewed in this report.
In conclusion, the Task Force's recognition of best practices in this report is a qualified one. The Task Force believes, however, that if appropriately implemented, considering the factual circumstances surrounding the implementation, the cited practices would be reasonably likely to promote equal employment opportunity.
The Task Force is most appreciative of those stakeholders who took the time and effort to share their best practices with us. However, the Task Force stresses that a best practice may not necessarily be universally replicable regardless of employer or industry. We think, nevertheless, that the recognition of the practices in this report can give employers valuable ideas on what has worked for other employers. The Task Force hopes that at least many of the examples of best practices can act as a framework or prototype by which other employers can develop similar programs and/or policies. However, employers may need to tailor the practices to their own needs and circumstances.
The Task Force has tried to faithfully and accurately describe the policies, programs, and practices for which the companies are recognized. The Task Force has relied to the utmost on the companies' submissions, and regrets any misstatements that might inadvertently occur in the description of the companies' policies, programs, and practices.
Finally, since time and resource constraints made it impossible to validate the accuracy of the submissions, or to assess how they are being implemented, it is important to emphasize that the Commission is not endorsing any particular policy, program, or practice. Rather, the Commission's goal is to identify and disseminate information about practices currently being implemented by employers which are likely to promote voluntary compliance with the laws enforced by EEOC.
At the outset, the goal of the Task Force was to examine individual best EEO practices within certain discrete categories: the original six of recruitment and hiring; promotion and career advancement
However, as work progressed on the submissions made by various companies, it became clear that a number of them had done outstanding work in formulating comprehensive EEO and diversity strategies. Further, these companies impressed the Task Force with their ability to integrate workplace EEO and diversity into their basic business plans. The latter concept, i.e., that in a diverse nation and in a diverse world, having a diverse workforce is, at least, a business asset and, more likely, a business necessity, is the primary revelation of the work done by the Task Force.
Accordingly, the Task Force decided to select a number of companies, that it thought presented noteworthy comprehensive EEO programs, addressing most, if not all, of the specific areas set forth for discussion. To view a company's set of programs, as a whole, instead of piecemeal, has the advantage of allowing the reader to see how the company integrates its programs into various operations of the company.This is not to say that these companies are exemplary in all of the discussed areas. Rather, the selected companies were chosen for the comprehensiveness of their programs. In addition, we concluded, based on the materials presented by the companies, that the programs went above and beyond the requirements of the law, addressed many barriers to equal employment opportunity, and did not cause or result in unfairness.
The selected companies are discussed in alphabetical order.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA), is a publishing company based in Washington, DC. All of the stock in the company is held by its employees and retirees. It is the oldest fully employee-owned company in the United States, this year celebrating fifty years of employee ownership. There are no special stock options or bonus plans for executives and managers; and the company's top executives hold less than ten percent of all outstanding shares. Employee-shareholders vote each spring for the board of directors, twelve of whom are BNA employees or retirees. There are three outside directors who do not work for BNA nor own any company stock.
BNA produces over 200 highly technical, specialized information services in print and electronic formats. These services are intended to provide accurate, comprehensive information on all major developments in labor, legal, tax, economic, environmental, safety, and health activities of the nation. The more than 1,600 employees (500 of whom are reporters and editors) are represented by the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. A subsidiary company, BNA Communications, produces a line of products focusing on EEO and diversity issues.
BNA indicates it makes every effort to recruit qualified minorities and women to its professional level positions. Representatives attend a number of job fairs sponsored by minority associations, and also some that are sponsored by minority universities. When the company goes outside of the company to fill open positions, BNA posts notices on the job hot lines and in the publications of the Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American Journalists Associations.
BNA recently established a scholarship program which awards scholarships of $3,500 to students at three area minority universities, who are working toward degrees in law, information systems, and marketing. In addition, BNA provides those students with opportunities to participate in summer internship programs. Included in its opportunities for traineeships, BNA has a minority editorial traineeship, which allows the person to begin work at BNA at a grade that is just below the experienced reporter level. After a one-year traineeship, the trainee is eligible to bid on positions that have been posted internally in the same manner as other employees. Eventually, the trainee is moved into a position as an experienced employee.
For the last three years, BNA has been involved in initiatives aimed at providing skills and job opportunities to residents of the District of Columbia (DC). One program, Summerworks
The second program, Do The Write Thing
BNA's Human Resources Training and Development Group has put together a number of programs which provide employees the opportunity to develop professionally and personally. Managing Personal Growth provides employees with tools to enter into a development discussion with their supervisors. The Human Resources Training and Development Group staff also has developed specific training curricula in a number of areas, and has established an Individual Learning Center
where employees can take advantage of a number of learning aids and work at their own pace.BNA has developed a Temporary Transfer Program, where managers can use temporary vacancies as a way to allow employees to move into other positions, where there is a need for temporary help and the employees gain new skills that might be beneficial in moving to a permanent job at a later date. BNA gives the example of one young woman who used the temporary transfer program to gain new skills in the editorial arena, and was hired into a full-time position in the Editorial Department of BNA.
The BNA-Guild Traineeship Committee helps otherwise capable employees overcome obstacles to upward mobility. Several employees have moved from clerical/support positions to professional level positions. The traineeship committee takes long term employees who otherwise lack the necessary skills and places them in traineeship positions that eventually lead to permanent jobs. The EEO career development subcommittee, with the assistance of the Human Resources department, started an informal mentoring program.
BNA's tuition aid program gives employees an opportunity to take classes that will help them complete an undergraduate degree, pursue a graduate degree in their professional field, or otherwise prepare for jobs in the company. The program provides up to $9,000 a year in tuition reimbursement.
A management succession committee, consisting of the three outside board directors and one inside director, works with department heads on succession planning matters. In a questionnaire to be submitted to the committee, department heads must identify staff members with the capacity to become members of the senior management team, paying particular attention to qualified minorities and women. The questionnaire also requests that department heads identify assignments, course work, and other development opportunities that should be made available to these individuals.
The president of a major subsidiary, Tax Management, Inc., is a woman who started working at BNA as a reporter over twenty years ago and rose through the ranks to her current position. This year, she was named Vice Chair of the BNA Board of Directors. The Vice President of Human Resources is a woman who was appointed to her position in July 1994, after ten years of service at BNA, mostly as Director of Labor and Employee Relations. One Vice President and Editor-in-Chief is a woman who, in over twenty years at BNA, rose from the level of reporter, managing editor, and associate editor, to her current position. Currently, half of the executive editors in the Editorial department are women.
Two of BNA's eight Vice Presidents are minorities. The Vice President and General Counsel is an Asian American woman, and the Vice President of Information Technology is an African American male. Several minorities manage one or more BNA publications, and there also are minorities in managerial and professional level positions in other departments in the company. Six of the fifteen members of the current board of directors are women, and one director is an African American male.
BNA has several subsidiary companies, all of which have their own boards of directors. The company appoints members to serve on these boards. Service on these boards has been identified as an excellent developmental opportunity for employees, especially minorities and women.
BNA makes an effort to adapt working schedules to child care and other family needs where possible, recognizing that in some working units the demands of the business leave little room for flexible schedules. There have been several alternative work pattern arrangements in different units at BNA, including a formal telecommuting program in the Indexing Department.
The BNA-Guild Work & Family Committee informs employees on work and family opportunities. Family services include child care and elder care referral services through the employee assistance plan, subsidized emergency back-up child care at a nearby day care center, and providing for priority placement at a child care center in Shady Grove, MD. BNA contracts with the Capital Kids to provide emergency care for children of BNA employees; contributes $8,000 per year to the operation of the center; and contributes more than half of the cost of care (per child) for each day that the center is used by BNA employees.
Employees earn thirteen days of sick leave a year, and there is no limit to the amount of sick leave that may be carried over from year to year. Employees may use their sick leave to care for a sick child. In addition to sick leave, employees are credited with three days of personal leave that they may use during the course of the year. Employees earn up to five weeks of annual leave a year, and may use their personal or annual leave for whatever purposes they choose, including opportunities to participate in religious observances.
BNA feels that its health insurance coverage is among the best in the U.S. There are no employee contributions for coverage under BNA's health plan for employees or their dependents. In addition, employees may register domestic partners as their eligible dependents under one of the health plans offered by BNA. The company also has both medical care and dependent care spending accounts that enable participants to pay for dependent care with pre-tax dollars.
BNA indicates that it goes far beyond compliance with the provisions of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows employees to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for childbirth, adoption, or a serious medical condition. At BNA, a woman may take six to eight weeks of accumulated sick leave after the birth of a baby. In addition, male and female employees can take three weeks of accumulated sick leave called Parental Leave; and this is available to either parent during the first ninety days after birth or adoption. Employees also can be advanced sick leave, if a doctor designates a medical need, up to the amount of accumulated annual leave. They also can use all accumulated annual leave, three days of personal leave, and six months or more of leave without pay.
BNA reports that it contributes $2,000 in adoption expenses when an employee adopts a child. It also has a transportation subsidy program that provides employees up to $600 a year to pay for the costs of coming to work.
BNA indicates that it is committed to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and makes every reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, including employees, applicants, and visitors to their buildings.
The BNA-Guild Sabbaticals Committee receives and reviews applications for sabbaticals, interviews applicants for sabbaticals, and makes selections. The Committee may award two sabbaticals each year that run for a period of up to six months at full pay.
To avoid layoffs that may result from current jobs becoming obsolete, BNA began a workforce planning initiative four years ago, which takes an early look at technological changes that would impact on the workforce, determines the skills and competencies that BNA employees will need, and provides the necessary training for the employees. Approximately two thirds of the more than 1,600 employees at BNA have at least five years of service. BNA attributes this to employee ownership and to the family-friendly policies and benefits.
BNA has done very little downsizing. However, in those rare instances when reductions in force have occurred, the company has provided employees with the option of being placed on its rehire list for a two-year period, and almost all of those employees have found other jobs within BNA. As a result, the employees were able to maintain their years of service for the purpose of calculating pensions and other benefits.
BNA has multiple avenues available to resolve discrimination complaints. Under the internal EEO complaint process, any person alleging a discriminatory or harassing practice may initiate a complaint and forward it to the EEO Office. Management is asked to respond to the complaint and the EEO Office conducts an investigation. Throughout the investigation, management and the complainant are kept informed of the status of the investigation. The complaint may be dismissed if the EEO Office's investigation indicates that it has no merit. The EEO Office will conduct and coordinate conciliation efforts by conferring with the parties in an attempt to secure a reasonable settlement of the dispute. If the complaint cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the Director of EEO will document the efforts made to resolve the complaint and provide a written explanation of the reasons to BNA's General Counsel.
A second resource available to employees is the union. Employees, who are represented by the union, are free to seek the union for assistance in resolving work-related problems. The union contract provides represented employees with the right to file a grievance against a manager if the employee feels that the manager's actions are unfair and in violation of the provisions of the bargaining agreement.
In addition, employees who are not represented by the union are free to seek assistance and counsel from representatives in the Human Resources Department. BNA does not state or imply that any of its internal alternative dispute resolution mechanisms affect, limit, or modify employees' rights to pursue administrative or judicial relief outside the company.
Many committees have been established in cooperation with the union that represents BNA employees - The Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. Several of these committees have been mentioned above under the relevant topic. The joint BNA-Guild EEO Committee makes recommendations to the company with regard to recruitment, training, testing, and career development. One such recommendation was that BNA's senior management attend a workforce diversity training seminar. As a result, a training program was developed for all managers at BNA. Another recommendation was the development of the career management booklet. That was done, and the booklet focuses on careers within each department, explaining what is needed in terms of performance, technical skills, and education level. Subcommittees of the joint BNA-Guild EEO Committee established BNA's scholarship program.
BNA employees also celebrate Black History Month, Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, National American Indian Heritage Month, and Bi/Gay/Lesbian Month with a variety of educational brown-bag lunchtime discussions and other activities.
Brown-bag lunches to discuss diversity issues were started over five years ago by a group of BNA employees. These lunches give all BNA employees an opportunity to come together to informally discuss issues concerning diversity in the workplace and the community outside of BNA. These lunches resulted in the development of a community project for BNA employees. For two years, a rotating group of BNA employees participated in a program sponsored by So Others Might Eat (S.O.M.E.). Employees volunteered their lunch hours to serve lunch to the homeless at a local S.O.M.E. shelter.
BNA indicates it is committed to achieving cultural diversity at all levels of the company. The president of BNA has issued formal policy statements on affirmative action and equal employment opportunity and on sexual harassment. The text of these statements appear in the BNA Handbook, and they also are posted on bulletin boards throughout the company. BNA states that its managers are held accountable for their EEO performance and are trained to understand and utilize the special strengths of a culturally diverse workforce. An important part of the orientation for new employees is a briefing by BNA's EEO Officer on the company's anti-discrimination and affirmative action policies and complaint procedures.
BNA says that it is committed to being a leader in the fair treatment of all and in innovative programs to maximize the potential of all; and the company pledges to ensure the fairness of its promotional system. BNA further indicates that it makes a substantial effort to assure that equal opportunities exist for its employees and to recognize the needs of its diverse workforce. The diversity programs at BNA are not clustered under a diversity management banner, but they represent the company's recognition of the needs of its diverse workforce. According to BNA, some of the programs and policies are intended to specifically address issues of concern to minority employees. BNA suggests that other programs and policies focus more generally on career development and work-family matters, and thereby greatly benefit all employees, which is the intent of any initiative to manage diversity.
Anthony A. Harris
Director of Employment & Diversity, Human Resources
Department
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
1231 Twenty-Fifth Street,
Northwest
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: 202-452-4200 Telex: 285656 BNAI
WSH
The International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), which began in 1914, does business in almost every nation on earth. The corporation is headquartered in Armonk, NY, and, in 1996, had 125,618 regular and complementary employees in the U.S.
IBM is a culturally diverse organization which introduced practices and policies that encouraged workforce diversity many years before required by law. Inclusion has been an integral part of its corporate culture for more than eighty years. The first and last of eight fundamental operating principles - the marketplace is the driving force behind everything that IBM does; and the company is sensitive to the needs of all employees and to the communities in which it operates - underscore the company's long time commitment to diversity.
One aspect of IBM's recruitment program is Project View, which is a national effort to reach outstanding young people, who have potential for challenging and fulfilling careers. It is a diversity recruitment program that affords collegians an inside glimpse of corporate life. Project View is open to African American, Hispanic, and Native American graduating BS, MS, and Ph.D. students in such academic areas as computer science; electrical, computer, and chemical engineering; computer and management information systems; technical marketing and sales; finance; and business administration. The program provides students the opportunity to meet with managers, one-on-one, to discuss entry level positions at IBM facilities throughout the U.S.
IBM states that its Project View, which originated in the early 1970s, has become one of the most successful programs for minorities in the country, particularly since 1988. A call for student applications to the program is sent out to publications, minority professional associations, colleges, and to IBM's campus recruiting managers. A determination is made of which IBM jobs need to be filled, which managers will be participating in the Project View sessions, and what kind of qualifications those managers are looking for. From among the applications, which number among the thousands each year, IBM looks for a good match of skills and interests, and also for academic excellence; and qualified applicants are paired with the jobs that need to be filled.
The program's three-day format is a combination of networking, career fair, and interviewing. Eight sessions - beginning in September and running through February - are held annually at various sites around the country. During each session, the students get plenty of opportunities to talk with managers about specific job openings. Approximately thirty-five IBM managers conduct individual interviews with about seventy-five students at each of the eight three-day sessions. Students are evaluated on their overall college and university achievements: GPA; co-op/internship or summer work experience; and demonstrated leadership skills. During the last academic year (1996 - 1997), IBM hosted some 600 students who were to graduate between August 1996 and August 1997. About 40% of the interviews resulted in on-the-spot job offers.
The percentage of minority employees at IBM has increased substantially in the past thirty years. In 1962, IBM was one of the first companies to join the federal government's "Plans for Progress" - a voluntary effort to aggressively promote and implement equal employment opportunity. At that time, IBM's minority population totaled 1,250, or 1.5% of its U.S. workforce. By the end of 1996, minorities had increased to more than 22,000 regular employees, or 19.4%. During the same period, the number of women regular employees grew to over 33,400 or 29.4%. More than 4,100 women and more than 2,200 minority employees held management positions at the end of 1996; and of these, more than 2,400 were in senior management.
Of the 13,791 new IBM employees hired in the U.S. last year, over 29% were minorities, and over 34% were women. The numbers include 1,863 recent college graduates, of whom approximately 33% were minorities, and 31% were women.
One of the ways IBM managers show their support for the company's workforce diversity program is to participate in the mentoring program, which encourages people from diverse backgrounds to enhance their career potential through the help of a seasoned professional. Mentoring is designed to eliminate the traditional disadvantage of women and minorities being "out of the loop."
IBM is certain that it is the premier employer in America, having initiated and pioneered numerous Work-Life Programs that have become common place in many companies today. Because the demands of work versus the obligations of personal life have become such a prominent business issue, IBM works tirelessly to enhance the work environment of its valued employees, as well as the terms and conditions of employment, generally. In dealing proactively with issues that are possible impediments to employee attendance, productivity, and loyalty, the company's Work-Life Programs are pointed to with great pride, and include:
IBM indicates it has been a national leader in providing employees information on resources in their community on child and elder care programs. Over the years these services have been expanded to include resources and consultation for adoption, education, and adult disabilities. In 1989, IBM established the IBM Funds for Dependent Care Initiative (FDCI). Over a five-year period, 1990 - 1994, the company invested $25 million in more than 500 projects to increase the supply and enhance the quality of child and elder care services in communities where IBM employees live and work. The company replenished the fund at a level of $50 million to cover the years 1995-2000. Through FDCI, IBM participated in The American Business Collaboration for Quality Dependent Care (ABC/QDC), a group of twenty-two "champion" companies that commit to long term investments in communities to provide high quality dependent care for its employees. The company also covers children with disabilities for expenses not reimbursed under IBM's medical plans, up to a lifetime maximum per child of $50,000.
To accomplish flexible working arrangements, the Individualized Work Schedules Program permits employees to begin their workday up to two hours before, or two hours after, the normal location start and stop times, providing a four-hour window of flexibility. When employees need to be away from work for an extended period of time, they may take a personal leave of absence for up to three years. The employees also can reduce their workweeks for a broad array of personal needs, such as dependent care responsibilities, "once in a lifetime" opportunities, or other individual needs. Employees can perform their work at home or in another off-site location, with computers and other technology, to meet the demands of their day-to-day jobs.
IBM Personal Financial Planning includes educational seminars, individual consultations and related services to help employees plan for their future. The Life Planning Account was established by IBM to provide financial assistance to employees, retirees, and eligible dependents when they complete a course or program that helps promote a healthier lifestyle. Programs eligible for financial assistance can cover such subjects as physical fitness, weight management, nutrition, stress management, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, and financial planning.
The following are examples of workforce accommodations made for IBM employees with disabilities:
To help employees transition into retirement, an employee may request a personal leave of absence for up to one year, to work part time at IBM, or work for another company, provided there is no conflict of interest, and receive full earnings and service credited toward retirement.
Finally, IBM indicates that discrimination on the basis of factors unrelated to the job simply is not tolerated; and because of the corrosive effect of harassment on morale and productivity, employees engaged in these activities are subject to disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
Employees are encouraged to come forward and talk to their manager at any time they have a problem, question or concern that, if not addressed, could affect job satisfaction and work performance. When a resolution cannot be reached by the employee talking to his or her manager, that employee can choose from among three processes (Panel Review, Open Door, and Speak Up Programs), so the matter can receive a timely and thorough investigation.
Normally, an employee must come forward on his or her own behalf to initiate an Open Door or Panel Review; and the decisions of those two processes cannot be appealed through one of the other channels. A Speak Up, however, may be converted to a Panel Review or Open Door process before a response is given, and where the employee agrees.
Under the Panel Review Program, a five-member panel of three employees and two managers, who are randomly selected, decide appeals involving how the interpretation and/or application of specific company policies, procedures, or established practices affect an employee. A panel will not accept situations over which it has no jurisdiction, or if it feels the issue can be better pursued through another internal appeals process. The panel does not make legal determinations.
The Open Door Program reviews actions or inactions by management which personally affect an employee. All issues, except policy decisions and operational business issues, are eligible under this program. After an objective and thorough review, it will not make a legal determination; but it will determine whether the employee was treated fairly.
The Speak Up Program is a two-way communications channel that an employee can use anonymously to raise concerns, express opinions, report unlawful acts, or obtain information on any company-related subject.
IBM has established thirty-one diversity councils around the world, comprised of men and women representing a variety of backgrounds, cultures and work and life experiences. The councils' vision is to build on IBM's diverse workforce, resulting in all employees realizing their full potential and thus enhancing business achievement.
IBM is very involved in communities, believing that it serves its own interests best when it serves the public interest. In 1996, the company's worldwide contributions of technology, people, services, and cash to social, cultural, and educational programs amounted to a retail value of $87.5 million. The Community Service Assignment Program supports placements with community organizations that are requested by employees, or by nonprofit organizations, or by IBM. The employees can be away from their jobs on most assignments for one year with full IBM pay. Since 1971, more than 1,000 IBM employees have been granted assignments.
The Community Service Career Program allows employees, upon retirement, to work full-time with community-based organizations. They receive their full IBM retirement benefits and a portion of their final salaries for up to two years. Additionally, many IBM employees volunteer their time to help nonprofit organizations or schools in their communities. Through the Fund for Community Service, IBM contributes financial or IBM product grants to community organizations or educational institutions. Since 1971, IBM has supported grants for nearly 36,999 projects which have totaled nearly $60 million. In 1995, IBM contributed $1.9 million to support 1,252 projects around the U.S. Many IBM employees serve as volunteers and company representatives on committees and boards of directors of various nonprofit organizations.
IBM provides purchasing and marketing opportunities to minority-, women-, and disabled-owned companies in all areas of its business. Since the 1980s the company has invested more than $3.5 billion through this program. In 1996, the company purchased $513 million of products and services provided by entrepreneurs who were minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. In addition, IBM has engaged minority-owned insurance firms to underwrite about $171 million worth of IBM's group life insurance.
IBM has restructured its educational opportunities funding to focus on the issue of school reform. Reinventing Education is a $25 million initiative that promotes systemic reform to ensure that all children are prepared to meet world-class standards of achievement. The school districts that were selected all have new, higher standards for student achievement, especially tougher high school graduation requirements, and a track record of changing policy and regulations in order to foster school reform and restructuring.
IBM sponsors a PBS television show for children called Puzzle Place, which features a multi-ethnic cast of child puppets who encounter "puzzling" social situations of everyday life. The show encourages self-esteem, cooperation and respect for others.
The company als