In Historic Decision on Digital Bias, EEOC Finds Employers Violated Federal Law When They Excluded Women and Older Workers From Facebook Job Ads
WASHINTON — The Communications Workers of America (CWA) announced yesterday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces federal equal employment opportunity laws, has issued a historic decision finding reasonable cause that seven American employers violated federal law when they sent job ads on Facebook that excluded women, older workers, or both from getting those job ads. The employers who received the finding are Capital One, Edward Jones, Nebraska Furniture Mart, Enterprise Holdings, Renewal by Andersen, Drive Time Auto, and Sandhills Publishing Co.
Federal law bars employers from engaging in discriminatory advertising and hiring based on sex, age, and other statuses. Since 2018, CWA and several workers have filed discrimination charges against 66 employers that allegedly excluded older workers, women, or both from their job ads on Facebook. (10 charges challenge gender and age bias, and the other 56 challenge age bias only).
The EEOC has now ruled on seven of those charges, “find[ing] reasonable cause to believe that” the named employers “violated” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), because they engaged in the practice of “advertising on a social media platform and limiting the audience for their advertisement[s] to male” applicants or to “younger applicants.” “Upon finding that a violation has occurred,” the EEOC has invited the parties to attempt to settle the charges. The dozens of other pending charges raise the same factual and legal questions as the charges the EEOC has ruled on already.
“All workers deserve a fair chance to get a good job,” said Sara Steffens, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Communications Workers of America. “The EEOC’s rulings should send employers a strong message that they can’t unfairly lock workers out of opportunities based on their gender or age. CWA will continue to fight to hold employers accountable for unjust discrimination.”
“This historic decision shows that our civil rights laws apply to digital advertising and recruiting. It underscores that the internet is not a civil rights free zone,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, Counsel at Outten & Golden LLP. “The EEOC is clearly saying that all workers deserve an equal opportunity to hear about jobs and that employers cannot deny workers job ads based on their age or sex.”
“These rulings have far-reaching consequences,” said Galen Sherwin, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Today’s job seekers increasingly use online platforms rather than traditional help-wanted ads to find jobs, and more and more employers use social media and other digital tools to advertise to and recruit workers. This ruling sends a message that employers don’t get a pass to avoid anti-discrimination laws simply by posting their ads online.”
The plaintiffs in 10 of the sex- and age-bias charges filed with the EEOC in September 2018 are represented by Outten & Golden LLP and the ACLU. Outten & Golden also represents plaintiffs in 56 age bias charges filed with the EEOC since January 2018 and represents the CWA and workers who are currently litigating a proposed class action lawsuit in federal court alleging that Amazon and T-Mobile excluded older workers from getting their job ads. That case is Communications Workers of America v. T-Mobile US, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., No. 17-cv-07232-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
In March 2019, CWA, Outten & Golden, and ACLU reached a groundbreaking settlement with Facebook under which Facebook agreed to make major changes to its ad platform to prevent advertisers from discriminating when sending job, housing, and credit ads in the future. The first stage of those changes is scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2019. The 66 pending EEOC charges against employers and the CWA v. T-Mobile and Amazon litigation seek to hold accountable the employers who allegedly sent age- or gender-restricted job ads on Facebook prior to the changes to Facebook’s platform.
In its ruling, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Nebraska Furniture Mart, Renewal by Andersen, and Sandhills Publishing Co. violated Title VII and the ADEA by excluding women and older workers from getting their job ads. It also found reasonable cause to believe that Capital One, Edward Jones, Enterprise Holdings, and Drive Time Auto violated the ADEA by excluding older workers from getting their job ads.
The EEOC’s determinations regarding the seven employers are available at:
The gender bias charges against Nebraska Furniture Mart, Renewal by Andersen, and Sandhills Publishing Company (Need Work Today) are available at .
The terms of the settlement agreement with Facebook are available at .
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090