Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

Client Alert
May 11, 2022

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. 

Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other.  In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin.  For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years. 

Interestingly, the total Monetary Benefits recovered through voluntary resolution of claims was over $350 million for the complainants of workplace discrimination.  This was the 7th highest total recovery on record over the previous 25 years.  This number was somewhat surprising because the agency only resolved about 62,000 total cases in 2021.  Again, for reference, in 2013, the agency collected record Monetary Benefits of $372 million, but that was for the resolution of over 97,000 claims.

What does this mean for employers?  It’s fairly simple.  While the total number of claims has been decreasing, the total cost of claims is steeply rising. 

What is the cause of the increase of cost of claims?  Again, it seems fairly simple.  Retaliation remains the most common type of charge filed with the EEOC.  Retaliation claims account for over 56% of the total charges filed, and are ordinarily the most expensive claims for employers. 

Why are retaliation charges problematic?  As we have cautioned employers, retaliation claims are problematic because they include claims of deliberate, targeted unlawful conduct in response to the claimant’s participation in a protected activity.  It is difficult to explain away or prove a legitimate business justification for targeted mistreatment of an employee who raised an internal complaint, gave a witness statement, or did something else to invoke the retaliation protection. 

What can employers do to minimize the risk?  To minimize the risk of retaliation claims employers can implement several baseline steps:

  • Make sure you have an effective avenue for employees to report employment complaints, including any threats of retaliation. We recommend a third-party anonymous hotline.
  • Once a complaint is received, begin the investigation immediately, fairly, and professionally.
  • As part of the investigation, specifically remind everyone involved that retaliation is strictly prohibited!
  • As part of your overall foundation, make sure all employees are trained and reminded that retaliation will not be tolerated and is grounds for immediate termination. This is accomplished through updated policies that are signed by employees and regular training.
  • Train employees on civility and respect in the workplace. These training events by third-party professionals have shown added benefits at minimizing not only the underlying bad acts, but also at preventing subsequent retaliation. 

With a proper foundation of workplace preventative measures, employers can minimize their risk of EEOC charges and high-leverage claims.  For further information, please reach out to Jeffrey C. Miller, jcmiller@bmdllc.com, or any member of the BMD L+E team.

Jeffrey C. MillerLabor and Employment LawEEOC
Client Alert

New Ohio Reporting Requirements for Non-Residential Contractors

March 18, 2026Ohio’s E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act, effective March 19, 2026, requires all nonresidential construction companies, subcontractors, and labor brokers to use E-Verify to confirm employee work eligibility on projects across the state. The law applies regardless of company size and carries financial penalties and potential restrictions on future state contracts for noncompliance. Some uncertainty remains around requirements for existing employees, making early compliance planning important.Client Alert

DOT Non-Domiciled CDL Rule

March 11, 2026A new rule from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will significantly narrow eligibility for non-domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) beginning March 16, 2026. The rule limits eligibility to holders of H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas and eliminates Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) as qualifying proof of work authorization. As a result, many lawfully present and work-authorized immigrants, including refugees, asylees, DACA recipients, and Temporary Protected Status holders, will no longer be able to obtain or renew a non-domiciled CDL. The change is expected to affect roughly 194,000 drivers nationwide and has prompted multiple legal challenges, including a pending emergency stay request before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.Client Alert

FinCEN Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule Now in Effect

March 6, 2026FinCEN’s new Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule, effective March 1, 2026, requires certain real estate transfers to be reported to combat financial crimes. Transfers of residential property to entities or trusts without financing may require a Real Estate Report.Client Alert

Department of Education Proposes Redefinition of “Professional Degree,” Excluding Nursing and Limiting Graduate Loan Borrowing

February 20, 2026The U.S. Department of Education has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would redefine “professional degree” programs under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The proposal excludes nursing from the recognized list and would impose new borrowing limits for graduate students while eliminating the Grad PLUS program. Public comments are due by March 2, 2026.Client Alert

First-of-Its-Kind Federal Ruling Finds Use of Consumer AI Tool May Destroy Attorney-Client Privilege

February 17, 2026On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a first-of-its-kind ruling finding that documents generated by a criminal defendant using a consumer AI platform were not protected by attorney-client privilege after being shared with counsel. The court treated the AI tool as a third party, concluding that entering sensitive information into a publicly available platform may waive confidentiality. The ruling also suggests that the work product doctrine may not apply where AI-generated materials are created independently by a client rather than at counsel’s direction. The decision signals that parties should exercise caution when using consumer AI tools in connection with legal matters.
Older posts