Can Veteran Status Be Updated Using Employee Self Service In Peoplesoft?

Increasingly, employers are choosing to encourage their task applicants and employees to self-identify their gender, race/ethnicity, disability, and veteran status to help with voluntary diverseness and inclusion initiatives. For federal contractors and subcontractors, however, obtaining and retaining cocky-identification data is not optional, it is a requirement. But knowing from whom you may asking self-identification information, when you may request information technology, and what form(s) to use tin can exist confusing given that the obligations stem from four sets of statutes and regulations, each of which have different requirements.

In this three-office weblog series, we will discuss self-identification compliance requirements and "best practices" covered federal government contractors choose to undertake. In today's blog, Part One of the series, we will cover cocky-identification for purposes of EEO-one reporting. In Part 2 of the series, we will talk over self-identification reporting pursuant to Executive Order 11246 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Aid Human action of 1974 (VEVRAA), equally amended. Finally, in Part Three of the series, we will comprehend self-identification pursuant to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Human activity of 1973 (Section 503), also as self-identification recordkeeping, and some tips for encouraging self-identification.

Cocky-Identification for EEO-1 Reporting

OFCCP's Rules require prime number federal contractors and commencement-tier subcontractors discipline to Executive Order 11246, as amended, with fifty or more employees and "a" prime number contract or "a" first-tier subcontract valued at $50,000 or more to annually submit an EEO-1 report to the EEO-1 Joint Reporting Committee–comprised of the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). See 41 CFR department 60-i.7, which implements Executive Gild 11246. Executive Order 11246 authorizes OFCCP to undertake data collections from covered federal government contractors independently of the EEOC'due south split information collection authority pursuant to Title Vii of the 1964 Ceremonious Rights Act. (Notation: The EEOC is currently in the process of seeking approval under the Paperwork Reduction Human action (PRA) to collect the EEO-i survey for 2019, 2020, and 2021. The EEOC is seeking to collect Component 1 of the survey and to discontinue the collection of Component two pay information. The EEOC will announce the opening of time to come EEO-1 collections, every bit well as new deadline dates, by posting a notice on the EEOC dwelling house page and sending a notification letter to eligible EEO-1 filers). Covered federal regime contractors do not file EEO-1s for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, or other U.S. territories and Protectorates. See Paragraph ane of the EEOC's EEO-1 Instruction Booklet.

On the EEO-1 report, the covered employer must report all employees the employer must categorize by race, sex, and job category. Federal agencies utilize the EEO-1 Study to collect data from private employers and government contractors virtually their women and minority workforce to create a baseline on employment demographics past race and sex. The agencies also apply the EEO-i Written report information to support ceremonious rights enforcement and to clarify employment patterns, such equally the representation of women and minorities within companies, industries, or regions. Both the EEOC and the OFCCP accept informally taken the position that employee cocky-identification is the preferred method to collect this demographic information. If an employee declines to self-place his or her race and/or ethnicity, the reporting employer may use employment records, personal knowledge, or visual identification. The EEOC also insists that employers written report the race, sexual practice, and ethnicity of all of its employees, just as well suggests, in the absenteeism of legal authority, that it is unlawful for employers to crave employees to report their race, sex, and ethnicity. As a result, an urban myth has grown up inside the HR community nationwide that it is not lawful to compel an employee to reveal his/her race, sexual activity, or ethnicity for the purpose of filing an accurate EEO-1 Report. While we believe it is more likely than not that a covered employer required to file an EEO-one report could hogtie an employee to reveal his/her race sex data pursuant to the employee's duty of loyalty owed to every employer, few Human Resources managers relish the idea of taking agin action against employees who fail or refuse to self-identify their race, sex and/or ethnicity. Rather, HR managers simply routinely default to visual identification and make their best judgment about an employee'south race, sex, and ethnicity. Trouble solved.

Many Hour managers believe that employees should be given the opportunity to self-identify via a paper or electronic self-identification class, although in recent years there has been a groundswell of movement towards on-line reporting of all HR information, including EEO-1 race, sex, and ethnicity data. Virtually employers provide new hire employees with a cocky-identification course, postal service-offer, and acceptance, as function of the onboarding process. Alternatively, more modernistic electronic applicant tracking systems and corporate HR software simply port over any pre-employment self-identification data to the new hire's employee files.

To preserve a "lack of knowledge" defense force to failure-to-rent claims, contractors should preserve self-identification data separately from application files or other records bachelor to those responsible for personnel decisions. Neither the EEOC nor the OFCCP endorse or require a particular self-identification course for race, sex, and ethnic information (at that place are unlike rules for federal contractors governed past Department 503 of the Rehabilitation Deed equally to self-identification of inability). Accordingly, employers and covered federal government contractors are free to create their own "cocky-ID" forms for purposes of EEO-one reporting. In deference to the EEOC's business that employers not force even incumbent employees to reveal their race, sex, or ethnicity, most cocky-ID forms collecting EEO-1 demographic information currently brainstorm with a statement about the voluntary nature of the grade. The EEOC suggests the post-obit linguistic communication which many employers embroider to add a request for information about the employee's sex and or veteran condition [to help consummate the VETS-4212 class if the employer is also covered by 38 USC department 4212(d)], among other improvements in the language to encourage persons expressing involvement in a position to provide the requested demographic data:

"The employer is subject field to certain governmental recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the administration of civil rights laws and regulations. In order to comply with these laws, the employer invites employees to voluntarily self-identify their race or ethnicity. Submission of this data is voluntary and refusal to provide it will not subject you to whatever adverse handling. The information obtained volition exist kept confidential and may just be used in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations, including those that require the information to be summarized and reported to the federal authorities for civil rights enforcement. When reported, data will not place any specific private."

Information technology is prudent for employers to also collect the employee's name and job title and assign an identifier number for electronic retrieval for further statistical analyses. Equally with all other federal agencies, the EEOC and OFCCP must use the Office of Management & Budget's definitions of race and ethnicity set out in OMB Directive fifteen (rev 1997) equally follows:

• Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish civilization or origin regardless of race.
• White (Not Hispanic or Latino): A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or Northward Africa.
• Blackness or African American (Non Hispanic or Latino): A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (Not Hispanic or Latino): A person having origins in any of the peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
• Asian (Non Hispanic or Latino): A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent, including, for case, Cambodia, China, Republic of india, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
• Native American or Alaska Native (Not Hispanic or Latino): A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Primal America), and who maintain tribal amalgamation or customs attachment.
• Two or More than Races (Not Hispanic or Latino): All persons who identify with more than one of the above five races.

Employers should use just these race/ethnicity categories and not add whatsoever additional ones, although the federal government allows collection of which two or more races in the employer's discretion (which seems to be of interest only to the federal government and certain university employers). The EEOC requires all employers responsible to file an EEO-1 Report pursuant to Title Vii to business relationship for all employees and volition not eyebrow "other" or "unknown" employer responses as to any individual employee.

Contractors that are concerned about reporting "non-binary" employees (i.e., someone who does not identify exclusively every bit male or female) should read DE's November 22, 2019 blog postal service titled, The "Non-Binary" Dilemma:  Federal Gender Reporting When "Male" & "Female" Are No Longer the Only Realities in the Workplace.

Stayed tuned for more self-identification best practices in parts ii and three of this weblog serial!

• Writer
• Recent Posts

Alexa Morgan is a founder and Partner of Trick, Wang & Morgan P.C. Her practice focuses on virtually all areas of employment law before both state and federal courts, as well as administrative agencies. She regularly handles employment litigation matters involving complex wage and 60 minutes class action issues, workplace discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination.

Can Veteran Status Be Updated Using Employee Self Service In Peoplesoft?,

Source: https://directemployers.org/2020/05/11/self-identification-best-practices-for-federal-government-contractors-subcontractors-eeo-1-reporting/

Posted by: richardsonscance.blogspot.com

Share this post