Numbers everywhere

Every once in a while, it’s worth taking a look at statistics in the employment law arena to get a sense of trends with the law and what employers should focus on.For those that have been paying attention, retaliation claims are now the most filed type of charge filed at the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee nationwide.In fiscal year 2012 (the last publicly available data), there were 99,412 charges filed (down from a peak of 99,922 in 2010).  Of those, 38.1% of charges were retaliation-based — up from just 22.6 percent in 1997.

Race discrimination claims — while up in terms of raw numbers from 15 years prior — are actually at their lowest levels percentage-wise in the last 15 years.  Instead, national origin claims and religion claims have each risen a few percentage points over the last 15 years — though even national origin claims seemed to have peaked in 2009.

Not surprisingly, in light of changes that were made to the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2009, disability discrimination claims are up sharply the last few years from 14,893 claims in 2005 to 26,379 claims in 2012.

Equal Pay Act claims — which some people projected would increase dramatically after the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 — have remained fairly flat the last few years.  Up a little, but just by a few dozen.  Not enough to really move the needle on such claims.

In Connecticut, unfortunately, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) has had issues with its computer system and hasn’t been able to update its statistics since 2010. 

(The EEOC does keep some statistics on claims are filed in Connecticut with the EEOC itself, but because those claims are typically investigated and handled through the CHRO, the EEOC statistics are really incomplete.)

But the CHRO statistics are hopefully coming soon.


Continue Reading

The conventional wisdom in a down economy is that employment discrimination claims will skyrocket. While there have been some indications of that at a national level, the numbers in Connecticut tell a very different story.

The state agency in Connecticut responsible for investigating discrimination complaints recently released its annual report (download here) for the

AS UPDATED (9/9)

Last week, I posted about the statistics released by the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.  (You can view the CHRO’s Annual Report here.)  Today, I continue to take a look behind the numbers and the implications for employers in Connecticut.

Among the most striking of the statistics is this fact: Human Rights Referees issued only six referee decisions for the entire fiscal year (2007-2008) that closed cases after public hearings. 48 other cases were closed through a stipulated agreement. 

Why is this number significant? Because there are seven human rights referees that are employed full-time by the State of Connecticut to handle these cases. (UPDATE: Although the statute does provide for seven, a reader noted that only five or six have actually been appointed — which may be a post for another day).   And yes, for those doing the math, that works out to about  one referee decision for each human rights referee for the entire year

Now you may be asking if 6 referee decisions is actually a lot when compared with past years. The answer is unequivocally no.  In 2000-2001, there were 87 public hearing referee decisions.  In 2002-2003, there were still 67 referee decisions.  Even for the year ending 2004-2005, 30 referee decisions were issued.  That’s a drop of over 90 percent since 2001.

Despite the decreasing numbers, effective July 1, 2004, the legislature approved of seven human rights referees to serve for three year terms (Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 46a-57.)  Unlike their predecessors (who served part-time), these human rights referees serve on a full-time basis.  (46a-57(b)). 

It’s obvious from the most recent numbers that a review of the staffing levels of the human rights referees is in order by the General Assembly — which is where the blame clearly lies for its passage of the statute requiring certain staffing levels.   Perhaps the General Assembly, which is looking for ways to trim the budget, can review the CHRO’s staffing levels and determine whether having five to seven full-time human rights referees who issue a total of six decisions in a year on public hearings is the best use of taxpayer funds.  (For a fairly scathing review of the CHRO, the Law Tribune has a column this week by Karen Lee Torre.)


Continue Reading