Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement
Purposes [Proposed Rules] [03/29/2004]
Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement
Purposes [03/29/2004]
[Federal Register: March 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 60)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16445-16450]
[DOCID:fr29mr04-23]
[[Page 16445]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VII
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
41 CFR Part 60-1
Obligation to Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement
Purposes; Proposed Rule
[[Page 16446]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
41 CFR Part 60-1
RIN 1215-AB45
Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement
Purposes
AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, DOL.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has
promulgated regulations requiring covered federal contractors to
maintain certain employment records for OFCCP compliance monitoring and
other enforcement purposes. These regulations were amended on November
13, 2000, to require employers to be able to identify, where possible,
the gender, race and ethnicity of each applicant for employment. OFCCP
promulgated this regulatory requirement to govern OFCCP compliance
monitoring and enforcement purposes (e.g., to allow OFCCP to verify EEO
data), consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures.
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures were issued
in 1978 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department
of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the predecessor to the Office
of Personnel Management (``UGESP agencies''). The Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures require employers to keep certain kinds
of information and detail methods for validating tests and selection
procedures that are found to have a disparate impact.
In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget instructed the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to consult with the Department of
Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel
Management and ``evaluate the need for changes to the Questions and
Answers accompanying the Uniform Guidelines necessitated by the growth
of the Internet as a job search mechanism.''
The UGESP agencies recently have promulgated interpretive
guidelines in question and answer format to clarify how the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures apply in the context of the
Internet and related technologies. The recent interpretive guidelines
expressly contemplate that ``[e]ach agency may provide further
information, as appropriate, through the issuance of additional
guidance or regulations that will allow each agency to carry out its
specific enforcement responsibilities.'' The rule proposed today would
amend OFCCP recordkeeping requirements for OFCCP compliance monitoring
and other enforcement purposes to conform to the new interpretive
guidance promulgated by the UGESP agencies.
DATES: Submit written comments on or before May 28, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Joseph DuBray, Jr.,
Director, Division of Policy, Planning and Program Development, OFCCP.
Electronic mail is the preferred method for submittal of comments.
Comments by electronic mail must be clearly identified as pertaining to
the proposed amendment to 41 CFR Part 60-1, and sent to
ofccp-public@dol.gov.
As a convenience to commenters, public comments transmitted by
facsimile (FAX) machine will be accepted. The telephone number of the
FAX receiver is (202) 693-1304. To assure access to the FAX equipment,
only public comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX
transmittal.
Where necessary, hard copies of comments, clearly identified as
pertaining to the proposed amendment to 41 CFR Part 60-1, may also be
delivered to Joseph DuBray, Jr., Director, Division of Policy, Planning
and Program Development, OFCCP, Room C-3325, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210. Because of delays in mail delivery, OFCCP
suggests that commenters planning to submit comments via U.S. Mail
place those comments in the mail well before the deadline by which
comments must be received.
Receipt of submissions will not be acknowledged, except that the
sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling OFCCP at (202)
693-0102 (voice), or (202) 693-1308 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph DuBray, Jr., Director, Division
of Policy, Planning and Program Development, OFCCP, Room C-3325, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 693-
0102 (voice), or (202) 693-1308 (TTY). Copies of this proposed rule in
alternative formats may be obtained by calling (202) 693-0102 (voice),
or (202) 693-1308 (TTY). The alternative formats available are large
print, electronic file on computer disk, and audiotape. The proposed
rule is available on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov/esa.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
OFCCP requires covered federal contractors to obtain, where
possible, gender, race and ethnicity data on applicants and employees.
See 41 CFR 60-1.12(c). OFCCP requires this data collection activity for
several purposes relating to contractors' administration of required
affirmative action plans and OFCCP's role in monitoring compliance with
OFCCP requirements. See 65 FR 68023 (November 13, 2000); 65 FR 26091
(May 4, 2000). Contractors must supply this information to OFCCP upon
request. See 41 CFR 60-1.12(c)(2).
OFCCP regulations require covered contractors to develop
affirmative action programs (AAPs). See 41 CFR 60-2.1 One component of
an AAP is a ``job group analysis'' in which the contractor is required
to group various jobs that are similar with respect to job content, pay
and promotional opportunities. See 41 CFR 60-2.12. Contractors must
collect gender, race and ethnicity data and keep track of such data as
to applicants and hires by job title or AAP job group. Many contractors
use ``applicant flow logs'' for this purpose. See OFCCP's Federal
Contract Compliance Manual at Section 2H01(b). OFCCP regulations
require contractors to conduct self-analyses of their hiring practices
to ensure against unlawful discrimination. See 41 CFR 60-2.17(b)(2).
OFCCP ``selects'' contractors for compliance audits based on
statistical analyses of gender, race and ethnicity data contractors
submit to OFCCP. Since the mid-1980s, OFCCP has used the Equal
Employment Data System (EEDS), which analyzes data contractors submit
on EEO-1 reports, to identify contractor-establishments for audits. In
regulations adopted on November 13, 2000, OFCCP implemented an Equal
Opportunity (EO) Survey that requires contractors to submit gender,
race and ethnicity data for applicants and hires by EEO-1 job category
or AAP job group. See 41 CFR 60-2.18. One of the purposes of the EO
Survey is to collect data that OFCCP could use to select contractors'
establishments for compliance audits. 65 FR 26100 (May 4, 2000). (An
extensive study is underway regarding the validity of the EO Survey.)
OFCCP has resources to conduct approximately 1,500 on-site compliance
audits annually. This constitutes less than two percent of the universe
of establishments operated by federal supply and service contractors
within OFCCP's jurisdiction. Because of these factors, OFCCP must make
accurate decisions about which workplaces to investigate, at peril of
misdirecting
[[Page 16447]]
agency investigation resources. In general, OFCCP seeks to maximize the
likelihood that agency investigation resources are committed to
workplaces where systemic employment discrimination exists and to
minimize commitment of resources to workplaces where such systemic
discrimination is absent.
OFCCP initiates a compliance audit of a contractor's establishment
by sending the contractor a ``scheduling letter.'' OFCCP's Federal
Contract Compliance Manual at Section 2B03 and Figure 2-2. The
scheduling letter asks the contractor to provide, among other things,
gender, race and ethnicity data on applicants and hires, by AAP job
group or job title. Id. OFCCP determines whether to conduct an on-site
audit of a contractor's workplace based in part on statistical analysis
of applicants and hires information contractors submit to OFCCP.
Although the Department of Labor is a signatory to the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, OFCCP regulations did not
expressly require contractors to maintain and submit to OFCCP
information about the gender, race and ethnicity of applicants and
employees, prior to the November 13, 2000 amendments. See 65 FR 26091
[NPRM May 4, 2000]. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures were issued in 1978 by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the
predecessor to the Office of Personnel Management (``UGESP agencies'').
In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget instructed the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to consult with the Department of
Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel
Management and address the ``issue of how use of the Internet by
employers to fill jobs affects employer recordkeeping obligations''
under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. See
Notice of OMB Action, OMB No. 3046-0017 (July 31, 2000). In particular,
the Office of Management and Budget instructed the agencies to
``evaluate the need for changes to the Questions and Answers
accompanying the Uniform Guidelines necessitated by the growth of the
Internet as a job search mechanism.'' Id.
The UGESP agencies recently issued a Notice in the Federal Register
seeking comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act about the burdens
and utility of interpretive guidance intended to clarify how the
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures apply in the
context of the Internet and related technologies. 69 FR 10152 (March 4,
2004). The preamble to the new interpretive guidance discusses the need
for clarification of UGESP obligations in the context of the Internet
and related electronic technologies. See, especially, 69 FR 10154-
10155. The UGESP agencies expressly contemplate that ``[e]ach agency
may provide further information, as appropriate, through the issuance
of additional guidance or regulations that will allow each agency to
carry out its specific enforcement responsibilities.'' 69 FR 10153.
Because of OFCCP's unique use of applicant data for compliance
monitoring and other enforcement purposes, OFCCP has determined that
additional regulations are required to clarify how contractors must
comply with OFCCP recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, the rule
proposed today would amend OFCCP recordkeeping requirements for OFCCP
compliance monitoring and other enforcement purposes, in light of this
recent interpretive guidance issued by the UGESP agencies.
II. Analysis
The rule proposed today would implement, for OFCCP compliance
monitoring and other enforcement purposes, the new interpretive
guidance promulgated by the UGESP agencies. The proposed rule would
amend Sec. 60-1.3 to add a definition of ``Internet Applicant.'' The
proposed rule would also amend Sec. 60-1.12 to require contractors to
retain Internet submissions of interest and to collect gender, race,
and ethnicity information from Internet Applicants.
The proposed definition of ``Internet Applicant'' provides
sufficient specificity for OFCCP to enforce this data collection
requirement and for contractors to understand how to comply. Under the
proposed definition, ``Internet Applicant'' involves four criteria: (1)
The job seeker has submitted an expression of interest in employment
through the Internet or related electronic technologies; (2) the
employer considers the job seeker for employment in a particular open
position; (3) the job seeker's expression of interest indicates the
individual possesses the advertised, basic qualifications for the
position; and, (4) the job seeker does not indicate that he or she is
no longer interested in employment in the position for which the
employer has considered the individual.
The proposed definition provides that ``advertised, basic
qualifications'' are qualifications that the employer advertises to
potential applicants that they must possess in order to be considered
for the position. The proposed definition further provides that
``advertised, basic qualifications'' must be noncomparative features of
a job seeker. Under this standard, the employer cannot compare the
relative qualifications of job seekers to determine which candidates
have the best qualifications. In addition, the ``advertised, basic
qualifications'' must be objective. They cannot depend on the
employer's subjective judgment. Rather, a third-party, unfamiliar with
the employer's decision process, would be able to evaluate whether the
job seeker possesses the qualification without more information about
the employer's judgment. Lastly, the ``advertised, basic
qualifications'' must be job-related. They must be relevant to
performance of the job at hand and enable the employer to accomplish
business-related goals.
The proposed rule also would amend Sec. 60-1.12(a) to require
contractors to retain records of all submissions of interest through
the Internet or related electronic technologies. OFCCP requires these
records to evaluate whether the contractor has complied with the
definition of Internet Applicant.
Section 60-1.12(c)(1)(ii) requires contractors to obtain
information, where possible, on the gender, race, and ethnicity of
applicants. The proposed rule would amend Sec. 60-1.12(c)(1)(ii) to
incorporate the new category of ``Internet Applicant,'' as defined in
the amendment to Sec. 60-1.3 and to distinguish between
``applicants,'' i.e., submissions of interest that are not submitted
through the Internet and related electronic technologies, and
``Internet Applicants.''
Finally, the proposed rule would delete Sec. 60-1.12(e), which
provided that the requirements of Sec. 60-1.12 ``apply only to records
made or kept on or after December 22, 1997.'' Because OFCCP requires
employment records to be retained for two years, 41 CFR 60-1.12(a),
this provision is now superfluous. Of course, the deletion of this
provision does not affect a contractor's ongoing obligation to retain
relevant employment records during the pendency of an OFCCP complaint
investigation or compliance review.
The new interpretive guidelines promulgated by the UGESP agencies
apply only to the Internet and related technologies. Because OFCCP
relies on applicant data to determine whether to conduct an on-site
audit of a contractor's workplace, OFCCP is concerned that the data
allow for meaningful analysis. The proposed rule creates differing
standards for data collection for traditional applicants versus
Internet Applicants for the same job. Accordingly, if an employer's
[[Page 16448]]
recruitment processes for a particular job involve both electronic data
technologies, such as the Internet, and traditional want ads and
mailed, paper submissions, the proposed rule would treat these
submissions differently for that particular job. We are unsure whether
this dual standard will provide OFCCP with meaningful contractor data
to assess in determining whether to commit agency resources into an
investigation of a contractor's employment practices. Therefore, OFCCP
expressly solicits comments on this issue.
Under the proposed rule, the agency will rely on labor force
statistics or other relevant data for enforcing E.O. 11246 with respect
to recruitment processes that occur prior to collection of gender, race
and ethnicity data. This approach is consistent with the longstanding
approval of such statistics in hiring discrimination litigation and is
especially appropriate because the proposed definition of ``Internet
Applicant'' relates to ``advertised, basic qualifications.'' See, e.g.,
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 430 n.6, 431 (1971) (relying on
Census data about the general population to find that a high school
degree requirement had a disparate impact on African-Americans);
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329-330 (1977) (``The application
process itself might not adequately reflect the actual potential
applicant pool, since otherwise qualified people might be discouraged
from applying because of a self-recognized inability to meet the very
standards challenged as being discriminatory.''); Int'l Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 341-343 (1977) (use of population
statistics to prove hiring discrimination); see also, E.E.O.C. v. Joint
Apprenticeship Committee of Joint Industry Bd. of Elec. Industry, 186
F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 1999) (General population and qualified labor
market data ``often form the initial basis of a disparate impact claim,
especially in cases such as this one in which the actual applicant pool
might not reflect the potential applicant pool, due to a self-
recognized inability on the part of potential applicants to meet the
very standards challenged as being discriminatory.'').
Thus, OFCCP will compare the proportion of women and minorities in
the contractor's relevant applicant pool with labor force statistics or
other data on the percentage of women and minorities in the relevant
labor force. If there is a significant difference between these
figures, OFCCP will investigate further as to whether the contractor's
recruitment and hiring practices conform with E.O. 11246 standards.
OFCCP routinely utilizes labor force statistics in order to assess
contractors' compliance with the requirement to develop an
``availability analysis'' as part of their affirmative action programs.
See 41 CFR 60-2.14. Specifically, OFCCP regulations require contractors
to create an ``availability analysis,'' defined as ``an estimate of the
number of qualified minorities or women available for employment in a
given job group * * *'' See 41 CFR 60-2.14(a). The availability
analysis is required to be based on ``the most current and discrete
statistical information available.'' See 41 CFR 60-2.14(d). Among the
most current and discrete data currently available is data derived from
the 2000 U.S. Census, to which OFCCP has access for use in assessing
contractors' compliance with these requirements.
III. Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
proposed rule would be a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically
significant regulatory action under the Order). Accordingly, OMB
reviewed this proposed rule under the Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
If promulgated in final, this Proposed Rule would help clarify
applicant recordkeeping requirements for Federal contractors in the
context of the Internet and related technologies. Therefore, the
Proposed Rule neither increases nor decreases burdens. The Rule would
benefit smaller businesses just as much as larger businesses, by
helping employers to understand what their applicant recordkeeping
obligations are with respect to the Internet. The Proposed Rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
business entities. The head of OFCCP has certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to that effect.
Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well
as EO 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, the Rule
proposed in this NPRM would not include any Federal mandate that might
result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more
than $100 million in any one year.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The paperwork burden associated with OFCCP's proposed rule is
covered by OMB Number 3046-0017, Collection Title, ``Recordkeeping
Requirements of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures, 29 CFR Part 1607, 41 CFR Part 60-3, 28 CFR Part 50, 5 CFR
Part 300.'' OFCCP repeats verbatim the Paperwork Reduction Act
statement submitted by EEOC in support of the above-referenced
collection:
Type of Respondent: Businesses or other institutions; Federal
government; State or local governments and farms.
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code:
Multiple.
Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC): Multiple.
Description of Affected Public: Any employer, government
contractor, labor organization, or employment agency covered by the
Federal equal employment opportunity laws.
Respondents: 827,962 firms are included in the affected public,
according to U.S. Census statistics.
Responses: 827,962.
Reporting Hours: 2,588,285.
Number of Forms: None.
Form Number: None.
Frequency of Report: None.
Abstract: The recordkeeping issues addressed by UGESP are used by
respondents to assure that they are complying with Title VII and E.O.
11246; by the federal agencies that enforce Title VII and/or E.O. 11246
to investigate, conciliate and litigate charges of employment
discrimination; and by complainants to establish violations of federal
equal employment opportunity laws.
Burden Statement: There are no reporting requirements associated
with UGESP. The only paperwork burden derives from the recordkeeping.
With respect to paperwork burden, the proposed additional Questions and
Answers would present a solution to problems employers currently face
in applying the Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in the
context of the Internet and related technologies. Therefore, the
proposed additional Questions and Answers would not involve an increase
in paperwork burdens associated with attempts to apply existing
guidelines to the context of the Internet and related technologies.
Only employers covered under Title VII and E.O. 11246 are subject
to UGESP. For the purpose of burden
[[Page 16449]]
calculation, employers with 15 or more employees are counted. Based on
examination of the latest available U.S. Census Bureau firm data, the
number of firms in this category is approximately 827,962. According to
figures based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, the total
number of employees employed by firms in this category is 115,886,025.
Assuming one record per employee, this results in 115,886,025 records.
Additionally, statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate
that the number of individuals, both employed and unemployed, actively
seeking employment from all employers, total 15 million. Assuming that
each of these individuals submits on average five applications, this
results in 75 million potential records from a recordkeeping
perspective. Therefore, the total number of records reflecting
employees employed by firms and all job seekers is 190,886,025.
From the private employer survey the Commission conducts, it
determined that 80 percent of the private employers file their
employment reports electronically. From this same survey the Commission
also learned that when records are computerized, the burden hours for
reporting, and thus for recordkeeping, are about one-fifth of the
burden hours associated with non-computerized records. Further, the
proposed additional Questions and Answers apply to the Internet and
related electronic data processing technologies, which involves
computerized recordkeeping.
The proposed additional Questions and Answers would clarify how
employers should address applicant recordkeeping in the context of the
Internet and related technologies. In the absence of such
clarification, employers would be faced with significant, additional
paperwork burdens based on the rapid expansion of the Internet and
related technologies for recruiting. The Commission is unaware of any
systematic data to accurately quantify the burdens associated with how
employers were attempting to address applicant recordkeeping in the
Internet context prior to this clarification. The Commission will be in
a better position to assess these issues after the additional Questions
and Answers have been implemented. At this time, the Commission assumes
that, with this clarification, the basis for the estimate of the cost
per record has not changed since the initial burden calculations in
1979. Inflation adjustments would derive a current cost per record
(manual recordkeeping) of $0.56 and current cost per record
(computerized recordkeeping) of $0.11.
The number of burden hours can be obtained by dividing the total
cost of recordkeeping by the hourly cost of labor needed to collect and
compile such data. The current cost per hour of personnel for UGESP
recordkeeping is $14.75/hr (hourly rate for personnel clerks from BLS
compensation survey).
Computerized recordkeepers = (.80) x (190,886,025) x ($0.11) =
$16,797,970.20
Manual recordkeepers = (.20) x (190,886,025) x ($0.56) = $21,379,234.80
Total recordkeeping cost = $38,177,205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR04.048
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
OFCCP has reviewed this Proposed Rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that the rule does
not have ``federalism implications.'' OFCCP has concluded that the
Proposed Rule would not increase any recordkeeping burdens currently
imposed by UGESP on the States. Therefore, the rule does not ``have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government,'' and the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this
rule.
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
OFCCP certifies that this Proposed Rule does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.
Request for Comments
OFCCP invites comments about the NPRM from all interested parties.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 60-1
Affirmative action plans, Civil rights, Discrimination in
employment, Employment, Labor.
Signed at Washington, DC on March 24, 2004.
Victoria A. Lipnic,
Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Administration.
Charles E. James, Sr.,
Assistant Secretary for Federal Contract Compliance.
Accordingly, part 60-1 of Title 41 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 60-1--Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors
1. The authority citation for part 60-1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 201, E.O. 11246, 30 FR 12319, 3 CFR, 1964-
1965 Comp., p. 399, as amended by E.O. 11375, 32 FR 14303, 3 CFR,
1966-1970 Comp., p. 684, E.O. 12086, 43 FR 46501, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,
p. 230 and E.O. 13279, 67 FR 77141, 3 CFR, 2002 Comp., p. 258.
2. In Sec. 60-1.3, a new definition is added below ``government
contract'' and above ``minority group'' to read as follows:
Sec. 60-1.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Internet Applicant.
(1) Internet applicant means any individual who:
(i) Submits an expression of interest in employment through the
Internet or related electronic data technologies;
(ii) The employer considers the individual for employment in a
particular open position;
(iii) The individual's expression of interest indicates the
individual possesses the advertised, basic qualifications for the
position; and,
(iv) The individual does not indicate that he or she is no longer
interested in employment in the position for which the employer has
considered the individual.
(2) For purposes of this definition, ``advertised, basic
qualifications'' means qualifications that the employer advertises
(e.g., posts a description of the job and necessary qualifications on
its Web site) to potential applicants that they must possess in order
to be considered for the position and that meet all of the following
three conditions:
(i) The qualifications must be noncomparative features of a job
seeker. For example, a qualification of three
[[Page 16450]]
years' experience in a particular position is a noncomparative
qualification; a qualification that an individual have one of the top
five number of years' experience among a pool of job seekers is a
comparative qualification.
(ii) The qualifications must be objective; they do not depend on
the employer's subjective judgment. For example, ``a Bachelor's degree
in Accounting'' is objective, while ``a technical degree from a good
school'' is not. One way to tell an advertised, basic qualification is
objective is that a third-party, unfamiliar with the employer's
operation, would be able to evaluate whether the job seeker possesses
the qualification without more information about the employer's
judgment.
(iii) The qualifications must be job-related; in other words, they
are relevant to performance of the job at hand and enable the employer
to accomplish business-related goals.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 60-1.12, the third sentence in paragraph (a), and
paragraph (c)(1)(ii), are revised to read as follows; paragraph (e) is
removed in its entirety.
Sec. 60-1.12 Record retention.
(a) General requirements. * * * Such records include, but are not
necessarily limited to, records pertaining to hiring, assignment,
promotion, demotion, transfer, lay off or termination, rates of pay or
other terms of compensation, and selection for training or
apprenticeship, and other records having to do with requests for
reasonable accommodation, the results of any physical examination, job
advertisements and postings, applications, resumes, and any and all
employment submissions through the Internet or related electronic
technologies, such as on-line resumes or resume databases (regardless
of whether an individual qualifies as an Internet Applicant under 41
CFR 60-1.3), tests and test results, and interview notes. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Where possible, the gender, race, and ethnicity of each
applicant (i.e., submissions that are not through the Internet and
related electronic technologies) and Internet Applicant as defined in
41 CFR 60-1.3.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-6972 Filed 3-25-04; 10:10 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P
|
