Going Postal - Violence In The Workplace

The 1986 killings by a part-time letter carrier, and his subsequent suicide, was not the first episode of its kind.  From 1983 forward, the United States has become chillingly aware that a trend had been developing with postal workers committing acts of violence against co-workers.   These events raised awareness of workplace violence. The term “going postal” became American English Slang for an individual becoming uncontrollably angry, and often committing violent acts in a workplace environment. 

I’m not going to address whether or not U.S. Postal Service workers are more likely to “go postal” than other employees.  I just want to address workplace violence. 

In 2003, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime issued a paper titled Workplace Violence, Issues in Response, which stated; “Mass murder on the job by disgruntled employees are media-intensive events.  However, these mass murders, while serious, are relatively infrequent events.  It is the threats, harassment, bullying, domestic violence, stalking, emotional abuse, intimidation, and other forms of behavior and physical violence that, if left unchecked, may result in more serious violent behavior.  These are the behaviors that supervisors and managers have to deal with every day.”

The OSH Act of 1970 General Duty Clause requires employers to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees”.  Citations can occur if an employer doesn’t take reasonable steps to prevent or abate a recognized violence hazard in the workplace.  While there are industries considered particularly vulnerable to workplace violence, all companies should take steps to implement effective safety measures to reduce the threat of workplace violence.  In 2011 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration released a new directive on workplace violence. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 600 people a year are victims of workplace homicide.  As recent as 2009, homicide was the number one cause of death for a woman on the job.   In 2010, workplace violence accounted for 18% of all work related fatal occupational injuries (assaults and suicides). 

Warning signs that an employee may be contemplating violence include a confrontational attitude, threatening co-workers, clients, customers, or boss, bragging about guns, and/or aggressive behavior.  Take steps to protect your employees: 

• Be aware of the warning signs. 
• Understand your policy. 
• Report to HR and upper management so that the organization can take action to protect its employees.

Workplace violence can affect employees, visitors, customers, and clients, even at times, employee families. Prevention programs that do not consider harassment in all forms and threats are likely to be ineffective. As an employer, we have a legal and ethical obligation to provide employees with an environment free from threats, harassment or violence.

FOREWARN Act

On June 14, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) reintroduced the Forewarn Act (S. 3297) in the Senate.  The Federal Oversight, Reform, and Enforcement of the Warn (FOREWARN) Act was originally introduced June 25, 2009, but died in committee without any action.    This legislation would amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by requiring more and smaller employers to notify workers of mass firings or plant closings and increasing employer penalties and enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance.  

 “A plant closing or mass layoff doesn’t just affect workers, but also their families, the surrounding community and the economic livelihood of nearby businesses. When workers are laid off through no fault of their own, they deserve enough advance notice so that they can begin to search or retrain for new positions,” Brown said. “The current WARN Act has too many loopholes that allow larger businesses to avoid doing the right thing and giving proper advance notice to their employees. While no law can fully help blunt the impact of a plant shutdown or mass layoff, this bill would help protect workers and communities when they do occur.”

Generally, the Forewarn Act would apply to employers with at least 75 employees, reduced from the current 100-employee threshold required to initiate coverage.  Additionally, the Act would reduce the number of laid off employees needed to constitute a plant closing from 50 to 25, and lower the mass layoff trigger. In addition to lowering the threshold of employees, the bill would require an employer to give a 90-day written notice of plant closing or mass layoff.  The current notice period is 60 days.  It would require the employer to provide affected employees with information regarding benefits and services available to them, including unemployment compensation, trade adjustment assistance, COBRA benefits, onsite access to rapid response teams and certain other services. One of the new additions is that the bill would authorize the DOL to enforce the terms of the Act, and increase employer penalties for violations to double back pay.  Under current law, an employer is liable for regular back pay only. 

2012 Executive Employer Survey Report

Littler Mendelson, the nation’s largest employment and labor law firm, recently released the results of its 2012 Executive Employer Survey Report.   The data was collected during April and May via email to in-house counsel, human resources and C-suite executives primarily throughout the U.S. 

The respondents included In-House Attorneys/Corporate Counsel (45%), human resources professionals (41%) followed by C-Suite executives and other professionals (7% respectively). 

Addressing multiple areas of workforce management, including recruiting, retention, and training, the survey also addressed the impact of the presidential election and the candidates' perceived ability to create jobs. 

Underemployment, difficulty in transitioning away from a job that is not a good fit to one that is, and a removal of resources, all continue to be barriers to today's job market.  Sixty-seven percent of respondents say that underemployment is continuing to impact the workforce as a result of "inability to secure high-level jobs."  85 percent say that job immobility is still an issue and 91 percent indicated workers today are asked to do more with less.   However, it is encouraging to note that 71 percent of the respondents say their company plans to hire new workers within the next 12 months.

In addition to job creation, top issues expected to receive a high priority from President Obama were healthcare reform (81%), union organizing (64%) and workplace discrimination matters (59%). 

Presidential candidate Romney will place a high priority on immigration reform (50%) and healthcare reform (48%). 

Regardless of the presidential outcome, respondents think that the next president will assign a very high priority to job creation (85% Romney followed by President Obama at 70%).

In addition to addressing regulatory issues such as healthcare reform, anti-discrimination and the NLRB, healthcare reform and Union organizing appear to be the top concerns.  A strong majority (64%) of respondents felt that healthcare reform would have a significant impact on the workforce over the next few months.  NLRB/union organization matters followed closely with 41%.  This is likely attributable to controversial "right to work" legislation in states including Wisconsin and Indiana and its effect on organized labor. 

Has Social Media Emerged As A Recruiting Tool?

Social Media in the workplace continues to be a hot topic for discussion.  Surveys address the use of social media in the workplace for recruiting to whether or not employees should be allowed to Twitter.

A recent CareerBuilder survey reflected that 37% of respondents used social networking sites to research job candidates.

PayScales respondents to their recent survey indicated that 56% of all respondents used social media to help recruit for their workforce in 2011.  LinkedIn was the most popular website with 80% of the respondents using it as a recruiting tool followed by Facebook which 45% of the respondents used.  Research suggests a job candidate's Facebook profile is indeed a reliable indicator of job performance.  Bear in mind that Facebook isn't the only social network out there.

In a 2009 study, Harris Interactive determined that 45% of employers "perused" a candidate's social network activity prior to a job interview.

PayScales survey results reflected that small companies (65%) were most likely to use social media for recruiting with large companies (44%) less likely.

The Littler Mendelson survey found that 14% of the respondents screened applicants based on their social media profiles.  This percentage differs significantly from other, current research and suggests that the topic needs further review.

It's a trend.  Yes, it's growing.  Are you on board?

2012 Outlook for Employers: PayScale Survey

PayScale has released their 2012 Compensation Best Practices Report.  The data, collected in November and December of 2011, covers multiple industries including healthcare, finance and insurance.  The report provides information on compensation practices, hiring practices and social media. 

The report reveals a significant improvement for both employers and employees.  Of particular note is that there continues to be an upward trend in hiring practices with more organizations increasing their size than in either 2009 or 2010.  Additionally, fewer companies are terminating employees and are instead maintaining their existing workforce or adding new talent. 

Finance & insurance industries were 60% more likely to maintain their existing employee levels with healthcare at 59%.  Industries anticipating increases in organization size over 2011 were media & telecommunications (57%) with transportation & warehousing/storage at 55%. 

The principal reason why companies adjusted compensation was "Performance-Based Pay Increases (69%).  Just under 49% indicated "Employee Promotions" as a driver for compensation adjustments.

In 2011 the base salary adjustments ranged from a decrease of 10% to an increase of 15% depending on the industry.

Pay range adjustments in 2011 held at 66% compared to only 25% of respondents in 2010.  The average adjustment was approximately 5%, slightly up from an average of 4% in 2010. 

The most important compensation objective guiding the respondents' 2011 decisions was "Retaining Top Employees," which was chosen by 54% of the respondents.  This was true across all company sizes and industries.   Retaining and attracting quality workers are still the two chief compensation objectives for 2012 regardless of company size and industry. 

Mining, oil & gas exploration is the industry with the greatest concern for employee retention in 2012:  81% of respondents in this industry feel employee retention is a high or top concern in 2012.    The industry with the least concern is Real Estate & Rental Services.  21% of respondents in this industry feel employee retention is of little to no concern for 2012.

Survey responses in the area of Social Media reflected that 53% of respondents have a formal policy on the use of social media.  Where companies have official policies, only 29% encourage the use of social media at work, while 42% say the use of social media is not allowed at all.  The larger the company, the less likely it has a formal social media policy in place:  57% of small companies have a formal social media policy, compared to 52% of medium companies and 47% of large companies.

In closing, employers and employees face 2012 with greater optimism.  Companies will continue to focus on increasing their workforces and increasing employee wages.  Employee retention will continue to be a concern as the economy improves and workers consider other options. 

Failure to Adapt

Salary.com ran this great article, "Failure to Adapt to the New Working World Will Leave You In the Unemployment Line by 2020."  It's an interesting article to say the least.  And, from an HR standpoint, continuing your education and remaining at the fore-front of emerging technologies, being able fully embrace such changes, can only be of benefit to the individual.  However, my questions to you, after reading this article, would be "Is revolutionary change underway in our nature of work?"  "Will the introduction of new technologies cause increases in job displacement and result in a continued rise in unemployment?" 

Well, here's that list of the 10 global trends that are killing your career:

10. Global Talent Seeking:  As countries continue to invest in emerging economies - specifically those in Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Africa - and as technology broadens the talent pool, people will be expected to work with others from around the world.  Key skills include knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, and a willingness to consider and accept new approaches.

Career Killers:  Inability to get along with, accept, or understand people from different cultures; being set in one's ways; adhering to stereotypes.

9.  Mixed Generations:  The timing of a turbulent economy, combined with longer life spans, means people are waiting longer to retire.  By 2020, it's predicted the average age of retirement will be 70.

Jeanne C. Meister and Karie Willyerd, authors of The 2020 Workforce:  How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop, and Keep Tomorrow's Employees Today, say that by the year 2020, the typical workforce will include five generations - Baby Boomers to recent college grads.  Those who retained Kindergarten lessons of getting along well with others will be in high demand.

Career Killers:  Lack of flexibility and inability to integrate with those from different generations.

8.  Millenial Invasion:  According to a recent study done by Mercer, in 2020 40% of the workforce will be comprised of "Millenials," people born after 1980.  Many of these Millenials will hold leadership roles, and will expect others to subscribe to their value systems, beliefs, and behaviors.  Workers who are successful in working with teams, who are up on the latest tech, and who have plenty of innovative ideas and solutions will do best in a Minnenial environment.

Career Killers:  Lack of flexibility, integrity, and/or entrepreneurism; inability to keep pace with expectations regarding speed and technology.

7.  Mobil Workforce:  Thanks to an increasingly global economy and supporting technology, 2020's workforce will be on the move.  Work will be done less "in the office" and more whenever and wherever it gets done - in a satellite office, at home, on the commuter train, or in a coffee shop.  While this may initially seem more convenient, workers should be ready to bid adieu to 9-5 and say hello to 'round the clock workdays.

Career Killers:  A commitment to punching out at 5 and being unwilling to 'integrate" work and life.  If you won't take work calls at your child's soccer game, you might not make it in 2020.

6.  Technology As a Way Of Life:  Today, we're still at the point where emerging technology is new and "cool."  By 2020, it will be an accepted way of life, and just the way we get things done.  But don't expect more time as a result.  As technology allows organizations to get things done faster, more accurately, and more efficiently, mere humans will be expected to keep pace.

Career Killers:  Unwillingness/failing to keep up to date on the latest technology; inability to keep up with a more rigorous pace; and unwillingness to work longer or less traditional hours.

5.  Environmental Awareness:  As more organizations and individuals commit to being green, behavior toward work will change.  With rising costs of gas seeing no end in sight, efforts will be made to reduce time and money spent on travel (including commuting) and work that can be done at home will be.  Workers will enjoy their employers' more relaxed attitude about time, but will also be self-motivated and self-disciplined.

Career Killers:  Inability to work alone; poor time management; lack of Independence.

4.  Social Responsibility:  According to a list generated by the Society for Human Resource Management, corporate social responsibility is one of the hottest emerging workplace trends.  As companies shift to a broader worldview, employees will be expected to develop opportunities for social responsibility, integrate them into business strategy, and articulate the impact of corporate social responsibility on the organization, the industry, and the world. 

Career Killers:  Not making social responsibility a priority in both your personal and work lives.  Organizations will look for those that can make an impact and walk the walk.

3.  Rising Cost of Healthcare:  The rising cost of healthcare will lean toward unsustainable, and organizations will look to control costs through wellness programs, health risk appraisals, and penalties for smokers.  Expect increased background checks and health screenings that may occur pre-employment or post-offer.

Career Killers:  While there won't be discrimination based on illness or disability, a growing number of organization may refuse to hire people who make lifestyle choices that affect their health, such as smoking.

2.  An Ever-Changing Economy:  When it comes to the economy, the only thing we can count on staying the same is change.  Entrepreneurial employees who can rapidly adapt to unforeseen change have the best chances of keeping their organizations afloat, and will be highly valued.

Career Killers:  Difficulty in adapting to new and challenging situations; inability to meet tests and trials; lack of inspiration and innovation.

1.  Talent Shortages:  According to the Employment Policy Foundation, a growing economy and retiring Baby Boomers will leave a labor shortage of 35 million workers by the year 2020.  Organizations will focus more effort than ever on recruiting and retaining skilled, experienced workers, and will be paying particular attention to the link between performance and meeting business objectives.

Career Killers:  Not acquiring the best education, experience, and skills.  Organizations will be competing for the best, and if you're not the best, expect to be overlooked.

Issac Asimov once said, "The only constant is change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today.  No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be." 

H.R. 1004: Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011

The Medical Flexible Spending Account Improvement Act of 2011, introduced recently by Reps. Charles Boustany (R-LA), John Larson (D-CT), Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and others, aims to encourage more people to use health care FSAs by eliminating the so-called “use-it-or-lose-it” rule.

The Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2011 amends the IRS Code to allow amounts in FSA (Flexible Spending Arrangements) plans, that are NOT spent for medical care, to be distributed to the participant as taxable income after the close of the plan year.  Previously such unspent amounts were forfeited by the participant to their employers at the end of the plan year (or grace period where one was offered).

The new bill, passed by committee by a 23-6 vote, would allow employees to withdraw up to $500 in taxable cash at the end of the plan year (or grace period). And the withdrawal would have to be made within seven months of the end of the plan year.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a summary regarding the impact of H.R. 1004 on the Federal Government.  In the report, the office states that “. . . . estimates that enacting H.R. 1004 would reduce revenues by about $4 million over the 2012 – 2022 period.”   

In related news:  

Earlier the IRS announced it would consider “modifying” the 28-year-old “use-it-or-lose-it” rule because the new $2,500 cap on FSA contributions limits individuals’ ability to defer large amounts of tax-free compensation into an FSA.  

The IRS guidance (www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-40.pdf) clarifies these aspects of that rule:

• The rule is effective for plan years starting on or after Jan. 1, 2013. The limit does not apply to plan years that begin prior to 2013.
• Employer contributions do not count toward the $2,500 limit.
• The limit is per employee. If a husband and wife both work for the same employer, each may make contributions of $2,500 per year.
• Grace period amounts from 2012 carried into 2013 do not count toward the limit. Plans can provide up to two months and 15 days in which salary contributions may be used by the employee before being subject to the “use-it-or-lose-it” rule, and the carryover does not count against the subsequent plan year’s $2,500 limitation.
• If an employer, due to “a reasonable mistake,” allows an employee to contribute more than $2,500 out of his or her salary, and the mistake is corrected by the employer, the plan will not cease to be a valid plan.

The 10 Most Common Legal Mistakes HR Makes

Business Management Daily recently ran this great article outlining common legal mistakes that "HR makes."  Well, those mistakes can be made by any employer, supervisor, and/or business leader out there.  Not just "HR."  While a lot of this is just plain common sense, we all get busy from time to time and make a mistake. 

 #1: Advertisements, Interviews, and Offer Letters

Mistake: improper language in job advertisements. Too many employers still use inappropriate terms — such as "girl," "boy," or "young" — in their job advertisements. This is particularly true when managers, rather than HR, write the ads.

Mistake: unlawful interview inquiries. Too many hiring managers ask about personal and/or protected characteristics during job interviews, which sets the employer up for a discrimination lawsuit if the applicant is not hired.

Mistake: inaccurate description of the job. Some hiring managers work so hard to get top-notch recruits in the door that they fail to be realistic with their description of the job. The unhappy employee will leave, and it will have been a shameful waste of the employer's time and money.

Mistake: inadvertent creation of contractual promises. Too many employers include language in their job offer letters that inadvertently creates an employment contract. For instance, mentioning a yearly salary implies a yearly contract.

#2: Wage and Hour Issues

Mistake: misclassification of workers. Exempt vs. non-exempt status: Finding and correcting these mistakes are an Obama administration priority. While there are many factors to consider, you're basically basing your determination on the employee's level of responsibility and/or training, and a salary test.

Mistake: mandating confidentiality of wage information. Prohibiting employees from discussing their wages is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

#3: Privacy Assumptions and Violations

Mistake: permitting an expectation of electronic privacy. Too many employers fail to advise employees to expect no privacy on their computers. If you asked employees, "Do you think the stuff you put into that computer is private?" you might get some interesting answers.

Mistake: improper electronic monitoring. Some states have statutes that require employers to give employees notice if they are being monitored electronically.

Mistake: inadvertently revealing private employee information. HR possesses a great deal of sensitive information about individual employees. It is your duty to keep that information confidential.

#4: Training and Performance

Mistake: failure to train supervisors. When supervisors are not trained, they're the ones who get you into trouble. They may say rude, racist, or sexist things, or be unintentionally discriminatory, and because they are in a supervisory position, the entire company is on the hook.

Mistake: misleading performance evaluations. If you try to discipline an employee for a performance/behavior problem that was never noted on their evaluation, your hands may be tied.

#5: Rough Beginnings and Sharp Endings

Mistake: sloppy start. Among HR's common errors in this area are: failing to submit the state notice of a new hire; failing to tell the employee the key terms and conditions of employment; and providing the employee with a misleading description of working conditions.

Mistake: sloppy finish. Regardless of whether a termination is voluntary or involuntary, always allow the employee to leave with dignity.

#6: Investigations

Mistake: failure to oversee supervisory investigations. As an HR professional, you know that timeliness and thoroughness are important in an investigation. But what about when a supervisor is the one investigating, not HR? It's still HR's responsibility to provide oversight.

#7: Record-Keeping/I-9 Issues

Mistake: failure to document past practices. Courts love to know not only whether the treatment of an employee was against the law or company policy, but whether it was in line with past practices.

Mistake: failure to comply with Form I-9 requirements. Failure to complete the I-9 form properly and failure to keep the form in a separate file are common mistakes employers make.

#8: Breakdowns In Communication

Mistake: failure to keep employees in the loop. Forgetting to notify employees about policy/procedure changes, outcomes of investigations/discipline issues, or unsatisfactory behavior or work quality can be a costly slip-up.

#9: Accommodations

Mistake: failure to explore accommodations. "Accommodation" can be defined as "a determination in favor of the employee." Employers should explore accommodation options when an employee: has a disability, is pregnant, is called to active military duty or has a family member called to active military duty, or wants to engage in a religious observance/practice.

#10: Non-Compete Agreements

Mistake: unreasonable scope. Obviously, an agreement prohibiting an employee from working at any position in the same general industry forever and ever isn't going to hold water.

Mistake: lack of consideration. Legally, contracts are valid only if both sides give something. If the employee gives up their right to compete, the employer must also give something. Too often, the employer gives nothing, making the non-compete agreement invalid in a court of law.

EEOC Enforcement Guidelines - Arrest and Convictions

During the application or hiring process many employers include criminal background checks on their applicants.   There has always been a bit of confusion and controversy over what information can or can’t be used in the decision making process.  On April 25^th the EEOC released their new Enforcement Guidance (Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.).

Is there a legal risk for employers to misuse information obtained during a background check?  Yes.  January 11, 2012 the EEOC announced that Pepsi paid $3.1 million to settle an EEOC race-bias charge.  The EEOC found that the criminal background check policy used by Pepsi discriminated against more than 300 African American applicants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The policy precluded applicants from employment if they had an arrest pending prosecution, even if they had never been convicted of any offense.  (Statistics indicate that African Americans and Hispanics are arrested in numbers, and incarcerated at rates, disproportionate to their representation in the general population.)

The new EEOC Guidance discusses the difference between arrest and conviction records.   Per the EEOC:

1. The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with business necessity.  However, an employer may make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying an arrest if the conduct makes the individual unfit for the position in question. *Remember, the fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred.  Many arrests do not result in criminal charges, or the charges are dismissed.  An individual is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.*
2. In contrast, a conviction record will usually serve as sufficient evidence that a person engaged in particular conduct.  In certain circumstances, however, there may be reasons for an employer not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision.

Previously (Felony Convictions and the Hiring Process, November 21, 2011) I touched on the three Green Factors* that an employer may take into consideration during the hiring process: 

• The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
• The time that has passed since the offense, conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and,
• The nature of the job held or sought.

Bear in mind there are some industries in which employers are subject to federal statutory and/or regulatory requirements that prohibit individuals with certain criminal records from holding particular positions or engaging in certain occupations.

In closing, I’m going to quote the EEOC; “When asking questions about criminal records, limit inquiries to records for which exclusion would be job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.  Keep information about applicants’ and employees’ criminal records confidential. Only use it for the purpose for which it was intended.”

*Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F. 2d 1158 (8^th Cir. 1977)

The link:  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm

Paycheck Fairness Act Fails In Senate

Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act which would have ensured that women are paid the same amount as their male counterparts.  The final vote was 52-47, effectively killing the bill for the time being.  Senate Republicans voted against the measure in the belief that it would adversely affect businesses if employees attempted to file pay-related lawsuits.

The bill would have required employers to prove that any discrepancies between male and female pay are job-related and not based on discrimination, and was pushed in part by a census report which concluded that women typically earn 77 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earn for the same position.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used a procedural maneuver that gives him the ability to reintroduce the bill at a later date.

New EEOC Statistics

In May, the EEOC released their latest charge statistics.  And, Texas employees have the dubious honor of filing more EEOC charges than any other state. 

The EEOC received a record 99,947 charges of discrimination during 2011 fiscal year, which ended September 30^th.  Of those charges, 9,952 were filed in the Lone Star State.   Yes, that's 10%.   Coming in behind Texas was Florida with 8,008 and California reporting 7,166. (Rounding out the top 5 are Illinois at 6,098 and Georgia at 5,599.

The EEOC provides a breakdown of the individual charge filings.  The top Texas discrimination charges are:

• Retaliation 41%. 
• Race 36.3%.  
• Retaliation - Title VII 35.9%
• Sex discrimination 29.4%

While more people are aware of their rights in the workplace, I believe the numbers are more a reflection of the SIZE of Texas.  Hey, we have close to 6 million MORE people than Florida.  So yes, logically, our numbers may be higher.  I don't want to say that the numbers should be higher, but they may be.  

Recommendation:  Let's stamp out discrimination altogether.  Who's with me on this?  Do I see any hands?

If you would like to take a look at the EEOC Charges by State, and Category, the link is provided below. The state and territory data for fiscal year (FY) 2009 through FY 2011 is now posted on the website. 

http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/state_11.cfm