Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Insight on Labor & Employment Developments for Connecticut Businesses

Can a Legislature Really Change a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

Posted in Labor Law & NLRB, Legislative Developments, Wage & Hour

My law partner, Gabe Jiran, talks today about whether it’s all that easy to change the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.  Is it just as easy as a vote? Or does it require something more? The answer has implications for all employers.  

With all of the talk about the financial difficulties faced by the government, I, and others in here, sometimes get the question of whether the State of Connecticut or other states might try to change the laws on collective bargaining or try to pass legislation to alter the terms of its existing collective bargaining agreements.

Other states have started down this road, but it is not that easy.

Recently, the Connecticut Attorney General was asked to opine on whether the General Assembly could statutorily change the contracts covering State employees to address the fiscal crisis.  A link to the opinion is here.

The short answer is that the State could do so, such as by passing a statute that wage increases be delayed or eliminated in State contracts.

However, the United States Constitution imposes a pretty heavy burden on the State to justify any such changes.

The relevant factors are:

  1. the severity of the fiscal crisis;
  2. the nature and duration of the contractual changes;
  3. the extent that the State has attempted to implement other alternatives in the past;
  4. the extent to which the State has studied and made findings about the feasibility of other alternatives;
  5. whether these alternatives would be a less dramatic option;
  6. the extent to which the fiscal crisis existed or was foreseeable when the State entered into the existing contract; and
  7. the State’s representations during negotiations for the existing contract.

Based on cases utilizing some or all of these factors, the State would face an uphill battle if it wanted to change an existing contract.

For example, a federal appeals court struck down the State of New York’s plan to delay wage increases for employees because New York had alternatives such as raising taxes or shifting money around in its budget.  In another New York case, the same court found that a $1 billion deficit was not a dire enough fiscal crisis to justify a delayed wage increase.

However, one case found that the City of Buffalo was able to impose a wage freeze when it was undeniable that Buffalo was in a fiscal emergency and that the wage freeze was a last resort after looking at other options.

In discussing the matters with others here, we expect that Connecticut and other states will continue to look for creative options to address their financial situations with employees.

However, it is doubtful that these options will involve changes to existing contracts without negotiation with the unions involved.  In addition, any State attempts to change contracts in the private sector would be almost certain to fail.

Compliance with Today’s Anti-Discrimination Laws Through a History Lesson

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Over the weekend, I was doing a lot of driving.  Having a kid at camp near the New Hampshire border to pick him up will do that.

So, it was time for me to catch up on some podcasts I had downloaded but hadn’t yet listened to.

I had already finished S-Town (worthy of a listen) but one of the others that I had been meaning to catch up on was Malcolm Gladwell’s “Revisionist History”.

In these episodes, he revisits an item from history that is often overlooked.

The first two episodes I picked were the most recent ones (State v. Johnson, and Mr. Holloway Didn’t Like That) and were based, in part, on interviews with legendary attorney Vernon Jordan and concerned legal cases from the Civil Rights Era.  Start there.

But the other one I listened too was from earlier in the season, called “Miss Buchanan’s Period of Adjustment”.

It too is riveting.

It tackles the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (the legendary school desegregation case) but from the perspective of the teachers who worked at the “colored-only” schools and who were subsequently laid off — allegedly for “performance” related reasons.

Even as a history major in college, I don’t remember hearing about this — how thousands upon thousands of black teachers lost their jobs when the schools that they taught at were closed. Different reasons were given — sometimes it was deemed to be too “difficult” for white students to be taught by black teachers.

But the effect was the same — a generation of teachers were lost to history.

That could be the end of a discrimination story, but Gladwell notes that the impact of this decision isn’t just that these teachers lost their jobs.

But rather, black students lost the opportunity to be taught by black teachers. And empirical research has shown that for black students, having a black teacher can be pivotal in reducing drop-out rates and ensuring students’ success.

The impact of these decisions still resonates today.

Gladwell highlights a study from just last year that looked for explanations about the under-representation of students of color in gifted programs.  Their conclusion?

Even after conditioning on test scores and other factors, Black students indeed are referred to gifted programs, particularly in reading, at significantly lower rates when taught by non-Black teachers, a concerning result given the relatively low incidence of assignment to own-race teachers among Black students.

For schools that employ teachers (including many of our clients), the podcast is a good reminder that the employment decisions that are made have a big impact beyond just the teachers themselves. Students lives and their successes and failures depend, in part, on the teachers that they have in life.

For other employers, listening to this podcast is a reminder that our laws governing the workplace are not all that old. Our current laws are a reflection on what occurred in the recent past. Indeed, the major federal law — Title VII — wasn’t passed until 1964 — nearly a decade removed from the Brown decision.

We’ve made a lot of progress, thankfully, since then. But ensuring fairness and eliminating race discrimination are still items that should remain high up in a company’s “must-do” list.

If you’re looking for something different to listen to, give the podcast a listen.  Gladwell may have his own agenda, but it’s thoughtful and entertaining.  And it’s a good reminder that compliance with employment laws is about more than just doing the right thing.

Where Do The Proposed Federal Overtime Rule Changes Stand?

Posted in Highlight, Laws and Regulations, Wage & Hour

My colleague, Gabe Jiran, returns the blog today with this quick post updating us on where things stand on the DOL’s proposed changes to the overtime rules (and providing me with an excuse to link to one of the few songs to mention “overtime” in the title.)

As you may recall from some of the prior posts here, employers scrambled to address the Department of Labor’s changes to the salary threshold for white collar exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  That change would have increased the salary threshold from $23,360 to $47,476 annually in December, 2016.

However, several states challenged this increase, resulting in a federal court in Texas issuing a nationwide injunction stalling the increase.  Of course, many employers had already made changes to address the increase, but the injunction still stands.

Then the election happened. Which changed everything.

Now, the DOL under the new Trump administration has indicated that it will not advocate for a specific salary level under its regulations, but will instead gather information about the appropriate salary levels.

The DOL has thus issued a request for information to get feedback, which can be accessed here.

What does this mean for employers? While this process will most likely result in an increase in the salary levels, it seems that the DOL will do so based on responses to its request for information rather than arbitrarily setting a salary level.

For now, employers should continue to follow the current regulations and the $23,360 salary level while, of course, also following the Connecticut guidelines where applicable too.

But stay tuned here: Developments in this area now seem on the way.

Another Employer’s Defense in Disability/Medical Marijuana Case Goes Up in Smoke

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Featured Content, Highlight, Laws and Regulations

While the relaunch of the blog has been delayed a bit more (I swear it’s coming soon), it’s time to have another post in the interim. My colleague Gary Starr is back with an interesting decision from the state next door — Massachusetts. As some Connecticut employers cross state lines (and marijuana cases continue to arise), the case is a reminder that the law continues to evolve in unexpected ways.

Many states have approved the use of medical marijuana, despite the fact that the federal government continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance.  As a result there is a tension between state rights to use medical marijuana and federal law prohibiting its possession.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had an opportunity to determine how to balance the rights of an employee who had been prescribed and was taking medical marijuana for Crohn’s Disease versus the employer’s interest in complying with federal law and maintaining a drug free work place.  The Court found that the employee had sufficiently alleged that she was a qualified individual with a disability who was entitled to a reasonable accommodation related to use of medical marijuana.

As a result, her firing after testing positive could be challenged and she could pursue a disability discrimination claim under state law.

As part of the hiring process, a new employee was required to take a drug test.  She immediately explained to her supervisor that she suffered from Crohn’s disease and she had been prescribed and was using medical marijuana which was improving her appetite and allowing her to stabilize her weight.  She said that she did not take it before work or during working hours, but that if tested, she would test positive.  After being tested and getting a positive result, the human resource administrator called and fired her.  When the employee tried to explain the she had a prescription, the administrator told her that the company follows federal law, not state law.

The employee ultimately sued in state court claiming that she was being discriminated against because of her disability and that the company had failed to accommodate her disability.

The lower court had dismissed the case, but the highest Massachusetts court concluded that the employee had sufficiently alleged that she had a disability, that she was qualified for the position, and that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation.  As a result, the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The high court, however, also made clear that the employer could still win, but the employer must show that the accommodation was not reasonable and/or caused an undue burden.  The court noted that the employee could not come to work intoxicated, nor could the employee engage in tasks that could pose a risk to the public.

It also noted that if the employer was subject to federal laws related to a drug free work place or similar obligations, then the accommodation could be found unreasonable.

In Massachusetts, employers must not simply apply a drug free work environment policy, but must look at each situation to determine whether the employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.  In states that have adopted medical marijuana statutes — like Connecticut — employers must decide whether the employee has a disability, how to handle a request for an accommodation, and whether there is a compelling reason to deny the accommodation based on undue hardship.

It is also critically important to meet with and discuss the situation with the employee to determine whether there is an alternative to the use of medical marijuana and to review how the job is structured to see if the employee can do the essential functions without violating company policies or impairing the company’s business operation.  It is also important to determine the scope of the medical marijuana statute to determine whether employees have additional employment rights under state statutes.

In states where an employee has been prescribed medical marijuana, employers may not be able to fire an employee who has simply failed a drug test.  More questions must be asked before firing someone who tests positive for marijuana.

This is Why the Number of Employees You Have Matters in Employment Law

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Featured Content, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

There are many confusing aspects of employment law — not the least of which is that certain laws only apply to employers of a certain size.

For example, the federal age discrimination law, ADEA, only applies to a business if it has 20 or more employees who worked for the company for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).

Now in some instances, that might not matter in Connecticut because Connecticut’s general anti-discrimination laws generally (with exception) apply to employers of three or more employees.

Why does this matter? Because there are some aspects of this federal law (and others) that don’t apply to small employers.

One prime example of this is the requirement that employers comply with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act, which is part of ADEA.  This law requires separation agreements to have certain conditions, including 21 days for the employee to consider the release.  But employers who are under 20 employees are not covered by ADEA and thus don’t need to follow this particular legal requirement (even if it may still be a good idea).

Another area that this comes up is in FMLA coverage.  Most people are aware that FMLA only applies to employers who have 50 or more employees.

But there is a secondary requirement that is often overlooked — that the employee asking for such leave be located in an office that itself has 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius.

By way of example: Suppose an employer has 1000 employees, but only 25 located in Connecticut and there are no offices within 75 miles.  An employee has a serious health condition; is the employee eligible for FMLA leave?

The answer is no.  At least 50 employees must work for the employer within a 75 mile radius.

Practical Law had a good summary of this:  

Employers should analyze whether the employee meets the 50 employee and 75 miles requirement when the employee gives notice that leave is needed. An employee who is deemed eligible for FMLA leave continues to be eligible for the next 12 months even if the number of employees drops below 50. To determine whether an employee is eligible, the distance is based on:the employee’s physical work site using surface miles over public streets, roads, highways and waterways by the shortest route; or if an employee has no fixed work site, the employee’s work site is his home base, the site to which he reports or the site from which his work is assigned.

Now, nothing prevents an employer from giving all of its employees FMLA-leave, but they’re not required to.

Thus, employers who are in various locations should be sure to look at all the employer-size rules to figure how where they are covered and how. Because size really does matter.

The One Area of Connecticut Law Employers Love (For Now)

Posted in Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Laws and Regulations

 

Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a surprising (at least to me) article about how Idaho has implemented a legal framework that gives employers a great deal of flexibility in an area getting a good deal more publicity of late: Non-compete agreements. (H/T to a post by Suzanne Lucas in Inc. too.)

When everyone has a non-compete agreement, what problems does that cause? Lots, according to the article:

For the most part, states have been moving toward making it easier for people to switch teams, but Idaho went the other direction with legislation that was friendlier to employers. The resulting law was particularly strict because it put the onus on employees to prove that they would not harm their former employers by taking the new jobs.

Proponents note that the statute applies only to “key employees” who tend to have more responsibility and better pay. But employment lawyers say Idaho companies tie down all levels of workers, not just top executives, with tough employment contracts.

Contrast that with California, which bans nearly all types of non-compete agreement, and lately, Massachusetts, and suddenly, Connecticut’s laws on non-compete agreements look downright moderate.

Indeed, for now at least, Connecticut employers have a good deal more flexibility on non-compete agreements that in other areas of employment law.

In fact, I was reminded of this when I looked back on a post from 2014 that noted the same thing — also in response to an article from The New York Times. It seems back then, the newspaper was also bemoaning the increasing use of non-compete agreements. Hmm.

In any event, employers in Connecticut should be mindful of this edict from the courts from 40 years ago that still rings true today:

In order to be valid and binding, a covenant which restricts the activities of an employee following the termination of his employment must be partial and restricted in its operation “in respect either to time or place, … and must be reasonable—that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interest of the party in whose favor it is made and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public. The interests of the employee himself must also be protected, and a restrictive covenant is unenforceable if by its terms the employee is precluded from pursuing his occupation and thus prevented from supporting himself and his family.

Want to Help Refugees? You Can Always Hire One. Legally.

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Immigration

CgeorgeOver the last few months, I’ve had a few opportunities to use my legal background to help shed some light on refugee resettlement.

Back in February, I helped Connecticut lawyers introduce and sponsor a resolution at the American Bar Association Midyear Meeting calling for Congress to provide legal protections and sufficient funding for refugee resettlement.

And yesterday, I (along with many others within my firm, including my colleagues Brenda Eckert and Ashley Marshall) helped produce a program at my lawfirm on the issue. At various times during the year, we sponsor an “In Community” program that sheds light on issues impacting Connecticut.  The program yesterday focused on “Refugees and Resettlement: The Process and Protection Under the Law”.  My thanks to my firm for their leadership on this issue.

Among the speakers were Chris George, Executive Director, Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services (IRIS) (pictured) and Kimberly May-Bailey, MSM, Director of Migration, Refugee and Immigration Services, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Hartford.

The work that they are doing in Connecticut to help assist refugees who relocate to Connecticut is nothing short of amazing and my thanks also to them to sharing the story of their work for us.

One of the interesting aspects to come out of the discussion was that fact that refugees are expected to become self-sufficient pretty quickly upon arrival.  To make that transition happen, the U.S. Government actually allows refugees to start work legally in the United States immediately upon arrival.  As the government tells refugees:

As a refugee, you may work immediately upon arrival to the United States. When you are admitted to the United States you will receive a Form I-94 containing a refugee admission stamp.  Additionally, a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, will be filed for you in order for you to receive an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). While you are waiting for your EAD, you can present your Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record, to your employer as proof of your permission to work in the United States.

For employers looking to help refugees, this is welcome news. Sometimes, employers may worry whether foreign nationals have sufficient documentation to allow them to work in the United States. With refugees, it’s clear from the outset that the answer is yes.

If you are willing to help, please contact IRIS or Catholic Charities.  There is always a need to help refugees.  As Chris George reminded us at the presentation, the Statute of Liberty reminds that that we take the tired and the poor and today’s refugees are among the most vulnerable we have in society.  Making sure that they can find work is one way to ensure that they can have a life to be proud of in the United States.

How Will Federal Legal and Regulatory Changes Impact Connecticut Employers?

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Labor Law & NLRB, Laws and Regulations, Legislative Developments, Wage & Hour

file101235857424For the last six years, you haven’t seen much on this blog about changes to federal employment laws because, well, there just weren’t any.  What we DID see, however, were changes to regulations and enforcement orders.

Nearly six months into the new Trump administration, we’re now starting to see significant shifts in the federal regulatory scheme too.

A lot of national employment law blogs have been starting to recap them so I’m not going to go too in depth here. Among the changes? A death-knell to the persuader rule, and, earlier this month, a pullback of guidance on joint employment and independent contractor rules.   And it looks like the overtime rule changes are still in limbo as well, with the DOL “rethinking” such rules in news articles this week.

You don’t need to have a law degree to understand that these changes will favor companies.

Last night too, the Trump administration named the final member of a new National Labor Relations Board who will, no doubt, start rolling back other labor law decisions that have favored employees and labor unions as well.

But what will the impact be in Connecticut?

It’s still a bit early to tell, but I think the impact may be muted in some ways. After all, we have a CONNECTICUT Department of Labor that still marches to its own drum.  For example, it has taken a pretty aggressive view on who is (or is not) an employee vs. an independent contractor.

Indeed, as I’ve discussed before, the Obama-era rule changes might have, in fact, helped level the playing field for some Connecticut employers who have felt that they have had to comply with stricter Connecticut rules which made them less competitive nationwide.  With the rollback of some of these rules at the federal level, Connecticut’s higher standards may come back into play more often.

That may be overstating it a bit, but Connecticut employers will have to play catchup to figure out the patchwork of federal and state regulations and the interplay between them.

Perhaps it is more fair to say that things are still shaking out this year for Connecticut employers.  The General Assembly session that just ended was more quiet than most.  But at a national level, employers shouldn’t be too quick to make too many changes because there seems to be many more aspects in flux than in years past.

The only thing I’ll predict for the next six months is that we have all the ingredients in place for a wild roller coaster ride with more changes than we’ve seen in some time.

So buckle up.   Things are just getting interesting.

The Dialogue: Sex Harassment in the Workplace — Still an Issue, but How Much?

Posted in Discrimination & Harassment, Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

The Dialogue, a online conversation between yours truly and a prominent employee-side attorney, Nina Pirrotti, returns today with another installment — this time tackling the topic of sexual harassment in the workplace.   For prior installments, check out these posts here and here.  As for the promised redesign and relaunch of the blog, it’s nearly complete. Can’t wait to share it with you soon.    

chionDan: Last time we promised to tackle a serious topic: Pizza. Given that you’re based on New Haven, surely you have thoughts on the subject. Pepe’s? Sally’s? Modern? Or something else? 

But in the meantime, I wanted to tackle a really serious topic and get your thoughts on the state of sexual harassment claims.  It feels like we’re hearing more about it of late.  It’s been about two months since Bill O’Reilly was fired from Fox News amid allegations of sexual harassment, and the news this month is of a major shakeup at Uber in light of an internal investigation looking at workplace culture.  Indeed, the Uber CEO just announcement his resignation yesterday! We won’t get statistics out from the agencies that receive harassment complaints (EEOC and CHRO), but anecdotally, it feels like we’re seeing more awareness of the issue and more questions from employers.  What are you seeing from the employee-perspective this year?

nina_t_pirrotti1-150x150Nina: This is the bone-chilling reality and the reason why, even if I won the lottery tomorrow I would never give up my day job:  Sexual harassment continues to infect the workplace at the same alarming levels as it did in the days of Mad Men.  Indeed, the only aspects of it that have changed over the years is that now  men of power have much greater variety in the manner of delivery.  So in addition to groping, fondling and yes, even raping women in the workplace ala Don Draper and his C-Suite buddies, men of power these days are also sexting, Snapchatting  and otherwise exploiting social media to prime, intimidate and conquer their victims.  Hell, the president of the United States is even doing it!

Long before a SunTrust recruiter made headlines when he sent a nude photo of himself to a female prospective hire, exposing his genitals and inviting her to “play,” my client, a factory worker who spoke little English, endured daily groping and sexual taunts from her assembly line supervisor.  The smoking gun in that case?  A naked photo of himself that he texted her during work hours.   That case settled quickly, and despite her paltry salary, very, very well.

The main problem I encounter is, even if by some miracle such women summon the courage to come to me (the factory worker, for example, cancelled two appointments before she showed up at my office) , they often are petrified to take it to the next level.   Even when they have damning evidence, these men have such a hold on them that they fear for their jobs and even their physical safety if they come forward.   I will never forget the time I had to meet with a client at an undisclosed location far away from her workplace and my office to consult with her on a case in which the powerful, rainmaker chief of her department was subjecting her to unrelenting sexual harassment and she had the “goods” (graphic e-mails) to prove it!  She, an otherwise rational, grounded person, was convinced he would discover what she was doing and harm her.

Is your workplace more like a locker room?

Is your workplace more like a locker room?

What makes matters worse is that too often these victims’ worst fears are reinforced by employers who fail to take swift, decisive action when sexual harassment allegations are brought to light. This is far more apt to happen when the predator is a money maker for the employer.    In the case of the harassment by the department chief, for example, several other women had complained about his conduct to no avail.  Such non-response packs two punches.  First, it emboldens the predator who now  has first-hand knowledge he can act with impunity.  Second, it chills fresh victims, like my client, from taking action to protect themselves.   At some point, the hope for we plaintiffs’ employment lawyers, though, is that the lid explodes off the boiling pot.   We have seen this time and again in the media with Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes and the folks at Uber et al and, closer to home, that fearful employee who was sexually harassed by the “untouchable” chief ended up convincing four other employees to come forward (three of which were senior executives) and that case settled for well over $1 million even though the hospital finally terminated the chief and all five employees  kept their jobs.

I know your clients would never face such a predicament because they are getting advice from the best, Dan!  Perhaps you could share with us, though, how you counsel those employers who learn that an otherwise valuable employee is being accused of sexual harassment?

As for Pepes, Sally,Modern, Bar or others go, they are all great but I prefer making my own.  The secret is in my sauce . . .

Dan:  Well that’s a lot to respond to! But I don’t think it’s a fair argument to elevate rape (a horrific violent crime) into an analysis of sexual harassment cases in general.   No legitimate employer or their counsel is going to countenance sexual assault (much less outright sexual harassment either.)  Everyone agrees such conduct is wrong.    Continue Reading

Recommendations for Uber Are Roadmap for All?

Posted in Highlight, Human Resources (HR) Compliance, Manager & HR Pro’s Resource Center

roadIf you had a million dollars (or more) to investigate your culture, what would you find out? (Music fans may appreciate the classic “If I Had a Million Dollars” song from the Barenaked Ladies. You’re welcome.)

Well, Uber engaged a lawfirm, Covington & Burling, and the former Attorney General Eric Holder to do just that — interviews with over 200 people, reviews of over 3 million documents — and discovered a lot.  It isn’t pretty.

Thankfully, the firm released its recommendations for all the world to see. In doing so, the report actually can serve as a bit of a road map of what to do at your company if you have some similar issues.  All for free.

You can and should review the report here.  There are some specifics that won’t be helpful — like allocating the responsibilities of the CEO.  But there are many others which show what the best practices are at companies in 2017.  Here are a few to get you started:

  • Use Performance Reviews to Hold Senior Leaders Accountable.  This recommendation is straightforward, but suggests that companies should have metrics that are tied to “improving diversity, responsiveness to employee complaints, employee satisfaction, and compliance.”  If you don’t hold senior leaders accountable, things will fall through the cracks.
  • Increase the Profile of [] Head of Diversity and the Efforts of His Organization.   This recommendation suggests something that may come as a surprise to some companies but reflects a growing shift in corporate culture, that is, that an “empowered senior leader who is responsible for diversity and inclusion is key to the integrity of” a company’s efforts.  Note the dual emphasis. As the report later explains, “It is equally important that the role address both diversity and inclusion. Diversity is generally viewed as focusing on the presence of diverse employees based on religion, race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and culture. Inclusion, on the other hand, focuses not just on the presence of diverse employees, but on the inclusion and engagement of such employees in all aspects of an organization’s operations.”
  • Human Resources Record-Keeping.  With the buzz about data, this recommendation reflections the growing wisdom that a company should have “appropriate tools, including complaint tracking software, to keep better track of complaints, personnel records and employee data.”  More than that, a company should “emphasize the importance of record-keeping to all Human Resources staff, and impose consequences for failure to adhere to record-keeping requirements.”  In other words, no longer should HR be viewed as secondary to a company’s mission. It’s front and center.
  • Training, Training, and Training.  I’m cheating a bit on this one because the report actually breaks down training at various levels, but the need for training is emphasized for senior leaders, HR staff, and managers.  And more than that, the company should also “require employees who routinely interview candidates…to undergo training on interviewing skills, conducting inclusive interviews and unconscious bias.”

There’s much more to the report, including additional suggestions specifically on diversity and inclusion efforts.   It’s a helpful roadmap for all companies.