Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

2020 EEOC Statistics – More Money and Fewer Charges

Client Alert

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its comprehensive report on the workplace discrimination claims it received in Fiscal Year 2020. The Enforcement and Litigation Statistics provide detailed breakdowns of charges of employment discrimination and resolutions under a variety of statutes. Here are the highlights:

Total Charges Filed

The EEOC’s FY 2020 ended on September 30, 2020, and the total number of workplace discrimination charges filed with the EEOC dropped to 67,448. This was to be expected with the number of workplaces that shut down in 2020. Also, the increase in remote work in 2020 reduced the prospect of inappropriate interaction among employees. It was somewhat surprising that the total number of charges only dropped by 7% compared to FY 2019. Nearly every measure of labor-statistics showed a decrease of at least 10%-15% in workforce participation.  

Total Dollars Recovered

The EEOC recovered $106 million in FY 2020 through litigation. This exceeded the total litigation recovery in 2018 and 2019 combined. The previous 10-year average was approximately $53M/year. The $106M was the largest amount recovered by the EEOC since 2004. Again, this was somewhat surprising based upon the limitations on the legal system and the conservative administration in place. Outside of litigation, the FY 2020 monetary benefit recovered by the EEOC was $333.2 million. The total recovery of $439 million was the most in the past 20+ years.  

Claims of Interest

For the 18th year in a row, Retaliation claims continued to increase. Retaliation remains the most common type of charge filed with the EEOC. In FY 2020, Retaliation was part of 55.8% of all charges filed, an increase from 53.8%. If nothing else, this stresses the importance for all employers to educate their supervisors, managers, and employees on the strict prohibition against retaliatory conduct.

Disability Discrimination was the second most common claim, with 36.1% of all charges filed, an increase from 33.4%. This is likely due to the expansion of the definitions of a disability and the requirements on employers to engage in an interactive accommodation process.   

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) claims increased by 110%, although they still make up around 1% of the total charges. This law is still in its relative infancy but may see another increase surrounding vaccination issues.

All other claims remained largely consistent. Race Discrimination modestly dropped to 32.7% of the charges from 33% in 2019. Although Color Discrimination increased to 5.3% of total charges from 4.7%. Sex Discrimination accounted for 31.7% of claims. Age Discrimination was included in 21% of claims. National Origin claims were approximately 9.5%. Religious Discrimination accounted for 3.6% of charges.

Employer Takeaway

In evaluating claims, the percentages will always add up to more than 100% because some/most charges allege multiple types of discrimination. 

It is important for employers to evaluate the types of charges as they create policies and educate their workforces. Too often, employers will focus only on sexual harassment training and policies and/or may include some discrimination training, but will overlook age discrimination, when those claims account for over 20% of the risk. The $439M recovered by the EEOC does not include any of the other litigation, arbitrations, informal resolutions, and severance packages that employers face in claims of discrimination and retaliation.

Obviously, the most significant risk to employers is a Retaliation claim. It accounts for the greatest number of claims, and results in the highest amount of damages and penalties. 

For additional information or to evaluate trainings, policies, and other risk mitigation measures, please contact Labor + Employment Law Member Jeffrey C. Miller, jcmiller@bmdllc.com or any member of the BMD Labor + Employment Team.


HHS Accessibility Requirements for Medical Diagnostic Equipment: What Health Care Providers Need to Know

Health care providers that receive federal financial assistance are now subject to updated HHS accessibility requirements for medical diagnostic equipment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. With the July 8, 2026, compliance deadline in effect, covered providers should ensure they have the required accessible equipment, train staff, and review operational practices to reduce compliance risk and provide accessible care for patients with disabilities.

Florida Super Lawyers® Recognizes Brennan Manna Diamond Attorneys to the 2026 Lists

BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND is proud to announce that three of our attorneys have been designated to the 2026 Florida Super Lawyers® and Florida Rising Stars® lists. Super Lawyers is based on multiple categories of independent research and peer evaluation to identify outstanding lawyers.

Supreme Court Clears Path for TPS Terminations: What Employers Need to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot removed legal obstacles that had delayed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria. The ruling also reinforces the administration's authority to terminate other TPS designations currently under review. Employers should immediately identify workers whose employment authorization is tied to affected TPS programs, review Form I-9 records, and prepare for forthcoming USCIS guidance before taking any employment action.

The Risks of Outsourcing Medical Billing and the Importance of State-Law Compliance

Offshoring medical billing and other administrative functions can reduce costs, but it also raises significant compliance, operational, and contractual risks. Although HIPAA does not explicitly prohibit protected health information from being accessed or stored outside the United States, healthcare providers and their vendors remain responsible for safeguarding patient information and complying with state-specific restrictions that may limit or prohibit offshore subcontracting.

Risks of Using AI-Generated, Implied Celebrity Endorsements in Advertising

Businesses using AI-generated celebrity images, videos, or voice simulations in advertising may face significant legal risks if the content falsely implies an endorsement, affiliation, or sponsorship. This article discusses potential exposure under false advertising, right of publicity, consumer protection, and professional conduct laws, and explains why disclaimers may not be enough to avoid liability.