Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation

A Note describing employer accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). This Note addresses federal law regarding employers' duties to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability, absent undue hardship. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tools under Related Content to the right.

A template briefing for in-house counsel to give supervisors and managers regarding the prohibition against discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and their responsibilities in enforcing the employer's policies. Click here to download in Microsoft Word.

This Note discusses single plaintiff employment discrimination litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). It addresses various stages of the case, including pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, trial and settlement. This Note specifically addresses federal law, but it also is useful for cases pending in state courts.

A Note discussing workplace harassment, including sexual harassment and harassment based on other protected classes. This Note addresses federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

This Note addresses religious discrimination and accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). This Note discusses federal law prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation against applicants and employees on the basis of religion. It also addresses private employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations, absent undue hardship. For information about discrimination under state law, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Note describing retaliation claims and their defenses, as well as practical tips for minimizing the risk of experiencing them. This note addresses federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

This Note discusses systemic discrimination litigation. In particular, it discusses how to respond to information requests and subpoenas from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), issues to consider when deciding whether to challenge an EEOC subpoena, the EEOC's "sue first, ask questions later" litigation strategy and related best practices for employers. It is based on federal law.

An employee policy prohibiting retaliation and outlining the procedure for reporting retaliation. It can be incorporated into an employee handbook or used as a stand-alone policy document. This Standard Document applies only to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. State or local law may impose additional or different requirements but this document will be useful and relevant to employers in every state. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips. 

Model questions for an employer's counsel to use when deposing the plaintiff in a single plaintiff discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document applies only to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

A standard form for employees to inform an employer about complaints of alleged discrimination or harassment in the workplace. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips. It complies with federal law. For information about state law on discrimination and harassment, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

Model document requests, sometimes referred to as requests for production or RFPs, for an employer's counsel to use when serving document requests on the plaintiff in a single plaintiff employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document applies to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

Template clauses for an employer position statement to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responding to an employee charge of discrimination, harassment or retaliation. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanatory notes and drafting tips.

Model interrogatories for an employer's counsel to use when serving interrogatories on the plaintiff in a single plaintiff employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document applies to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

Model objections to document requests, sometimes referred to as requests for production or RFPs, for an employer's counsel to use when responding to document requests in a single plaintiff employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document is appropriate for use in defense of private employers. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

Model questions for interviewing the complaining employee, witnesses and the alleged harasser when investigating a sexual harassment complaint. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanatory and drafting tips. This Standard Document is based on federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

An employee policy on romantic or dating relationships in the workplace. It may also be referred to as a fraternization policy. It can be incorporated into an employee handbook or used as a stand-alone policy document. This Standard Document applies only to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. State or local law may impose additional or different requirements but this document will be useful and relevant to employers in every state. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips

This Standard Clause provides safe harbor language under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) that should be included in a request for employee medical certification to a healthcare provider seeking information about an employee's medical condition or fitness for duty. It can be included in a cover letter accompanying the medical certification request or as an addendum to the request. This Standard Clause has integrated drafting notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

A Checklist outlining considerations for an employer's counsel defending against a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information on disability discrimination claims under state law, see State Q&A under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist discussing considerations for an employer's counsel when defending an age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). For information on age discrimination claims under state law, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist of issues to consider under the Americans with Disabilities Act when testing applicants or employees for drug and alcohol use and disciplining employees for that use. This Checklist addresses federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist identifying resources to help employers comply with federal notice posting requirements. The Checklist directs employers to resources for notice posting requirements and posters from federal agencies, including the Department of Labor (DOL), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

A Chart of the major federal labor and employment laws applicable to private employers, including a description of which private employers are covered.

A Checklist to help employers prevent discrimination and minimize the risk of related litigation. It includes information on drafting effective policies, training supervisors and staff, conducting internal investigations and responding to internal discrimination complaints. This Checklist addresses federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Chart of remedies available in a dispute between private parties under major federal employment anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981).

A sexual harassment training Checklist outlining issues for an employer to consider in creating training to deter and prevent sexual harassment and related legal exposure. This Checklist includes suggested content for sexual harassment training and additional topics for training for supervisors and managers. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

This tool enables subscribers to search and compare PLC's Drug Testing Laws State Q&A resources. Questions and answers cover state-specific drug testing requirements, circumstances under which drug testing is permitted, the kinds of tests authorized by law, substances for which employers can test, protocols, employer liability, legal protections for employees and more. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "Submit" button. To see all of PLC's State Q&As on Drug Testing Laws, see State Q&A Guide to Drug Testing Laws. To see all of PLC's State Q&As, including relevant Legal Updates since the publication date (under Related Content), see individual Q&As on the Labor & Employment State Q&As landing page.

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Arizona.  This Q&A addresses Arizona laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in California. This Q&A addresses California laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Connecticut. This Q&A addresses Connecticut laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Florida. This Q&A addresses Florida laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Idaho. This Q&A addresses Idaho laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Indiana. This Q&A addresses Indiana laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool). For a recent update on retaliation and discrimination protections under Indiana's smoking law, see Related Content on the right.

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Kansas. This Q&A addresses Kansas laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Louisiana. This Q&A addresses Louisiana laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Maryland. This Q&A addresses Maryland laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Michigan. This Q&A addresses Michigan laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Mississippi. This Q&A addresses Mississippi laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Nebraska. This Q&A addresses Nebraska laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in New Hampshire. This Q&A addresses New Hampshire laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in New Mexico. This Q&A addresses New Mexico laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in North Carolina. This Q&A addresses North Carolina laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Ohio. This Q&A addresses Ohio laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Oregon. This Q&A addresses Oregon laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in South Carolina. This Q&A addresses South Carolina laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to anti-discrimination law for private employers in Texas. This Q&A addresses Texas laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal laws may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in Virginia. This Q&A addresses Virginia laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to state anti-discrimination law for private employers in West Virginia. This Q&A addresses West Virginia laws prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Anti-discrimination Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Arizona. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Illinois. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Kansas. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Massachusetts. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Missouri. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in New York. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Oklahoma. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to drug testing law for private employers in Texas. This Q&A addresses employers' rights and restrictions when conducting workplace drug and alcohol testing of job applicants and current employees, as well as testing based on suspicion of intoxication or randomized testing. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Drug Testing Laws: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Alabama. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Arkansas. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Colorado. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in the District of Columbia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Georgia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Illinois. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Iowa. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Kentucky. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Maine. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Massachusetts. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Minnesota. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Missouri. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in New Hampshire. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in New Mexico. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement, as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in North Carolina. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Oklahoma.  This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements.  Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool). 

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Pennsylvania. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in South Carolina. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Texas. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Virginia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in West Virginia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

An Article on the EEOC's Guidance on the use of criminal background information, including arrest and conviction records, for employment purposes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including compliance requirements and best practices.

An expert Q&A with Donald Livingston of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) systemic discrimination investigations and litigation.

On September 14, 2011, Practical Law Company and Ogleltree Deakins presented Deconstructing the Final ADAAA Regulations: How to Comply with the New Guidance, a one hour webinar on compliance with the ADAAA and the EEOC’s revised regulations. You can access the recorded webinar here (registration required to view recorded webinar). Click here to download webinar slides

Multinational companies are increasingly finding that a failure to manage employment liability risks on a global basis can lead to losses ranging from court awards or penalties to diminishment of corporate and brand image. This step-by-step guide provides a template for establishing global employment best practice standards and policies.

In Koessel v. Sublette County Sheriff's Department, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a plaintiff could not proceed with his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) where he had demonstrated that he could physically perform the essential functions of his job but a doctor had concluded he could have psychological trouble performing in high-stress situations.

This Law Firm Publication by Holland & Hart LLP discusses Colorado's Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013, signed into law by Governor John Hickenlooper on May 6, 2013. The new law, effective January 1, 2015, allows employees to recover compensatory and punitive damages against Colorado's small employers (with 1-14 employees), along with attorneys' fees and costs, back pay, front pay, interest and other potential relief. The law caps damages awards based on the size of the employer (1-4 employees, 5-15 employees and more than 15 employees). The new law also eliminates the age 70 cutoff for age discrimination claims brought under Colorado law.

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Mariotti v. Mariotti Building Products, Inc. that the US Supreme Court's test from Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, to determine whether a shareholder-director of a professional corporation is an employee for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), also applies to business entities that are not professional corporations in an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

In Wiest v. Lynch, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that whistleblowers bringing suit under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) only need to express a reasonable belief that their employers' actions violated or will violate specified federal laws or Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules and regulations.

In Bechtel v. Administrative Review Board, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the burden-shifting framework applicable to whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The Second Circuit denied the petitioner employee's petition for review, holding that the Administrative Review Board (ARB) did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or abuse its discretion, when it affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissing the petitioner's complaint.

In Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff Syed Alam's Title VII retaliation suit against an affiliate of his former employer, concluding that Alam failed to allege that he was ever employed by or sought employment with the affiliate, and that the affiliate was not an agent of his former employer.

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the recent decision of the Phoenix City Council to amend the Phoenix City Code's anti-discrimination ordinance to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression." The ordinance covers employers in the city that have one or more employees for each working day in each of 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The law exempts organizations including religious organizations, small private landlords, senior housing and private clubs. Violations of the law may result in a Class 1 misdemeanor and a $2,500 fine.

In Moore v. Appliance Direct, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joined the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in holding that the retaliation provision (Section 216(b)) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) creates a separate discretionary standard of damages for retaliation claims, and therefore gives the district court discretion whether to award liquidated damages.

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., discusses the California Supreme Court's February 7, 2013 decision in Harris v. City of Santa Monica on the "mixed-motive defense" in employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court held that where an employee demonstrates that unlawful discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in an adverse employment action but the employer proves it would have made the same decision absent such discrimination, a court may not award the employee back pay, damages or reinstatement.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses a California Court of Appeal's decision in McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech. Inc., in which the court ruled that an employee is generally not protected by California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for refusing to participate in or cooperate with his employer's internal investigation into misconduct or for giving false information to an employer investigator.

In Keith v. County of Oakland, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether a deaf individual is otherwise qualified to be a County lifeguard and can be provided with a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA), which expands whistleblower protections for employees of contractors and subcontractors with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and establishes a four-year pilot program to enhance whistleblower protections for most other federal contractors and subcontractors.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP describes recent amendments to California's pregnancy leave regulations, effective December 30, 2012. The amended regulations extend coverage to "perceived pregnancy."  They also expand the definition of "disabled by pregnancy" for purposes of pregnancy disability leave, and clarify that the four-month leave period is calculated in hours, not days. The amended regulations clarify reasonable accommodation requirements and include changes to employee notices.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses the new Massachusetts law legalizing the medical use of marijuana. Massachusetts is the 18th US state to pass such a law. The new law applies to patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, or other conditions determined by a physician. The new law, which is effective January 1, 2013, eliminates criminal penalties for patients, physicians and marijuana dispensaries. It does not, however, require employers to accommodate on-site use of medical marijuana or authorize operation of motor vehicles under the influence of marijuana.

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the implications for employers of Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution, which legalizes the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado. Despite the passage of the law, Ogletree Deakins concludes that drug testing for marijuana remains permissible in Colorado, and that employers can still take action against employees found to be in violation of carefully crafted drug policies.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in EEOC v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans that information about an employee's illness provided in response to a non-medical inquiry is not protected by the confidentiality requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) where the employer was unaware of the employee's medical condition beforehand.

The European Commission has published a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures. (Free access)

This Legal Update highlights pertinent resources about employers' legal obligations regarding veterans and their families and care-givers.

In EEOC v. KarenKim, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by denying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s motion for injunctive relief against a terminated sexual harasser. The court found there was sufficient danger harassment could continue despite the harasser's termination where he was in a romantic relationship with the defendant company's owner and that relationship was the primary reason the harassment had been allowed to continue.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed multiple employment-related bills into law in September 2012, covering such areas as wage payment laws and notification requirements, anti-discrimination laws and social media laws.

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut in Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp. adopted a broad reading of the Dodd-Frank Act's whistleblower definition under the Act's anti-retaliation provision, holding that an employee's reasonable belief of SEC violations qualified him as a protected whistleblower for purposes of his retaliation claim against his employer.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires employers to reassign employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, unless the reassignment would cause the employers undue hardship. The decision overrules Seventh Circuit precedent in light of the US Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a draft of its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) for public comment, which outlines five nationwide enforcement priorities for the agency. The EEOC plans to vote on the draft SEP at the end of its fiscal year on September 30, 2012.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses California's Senate Bill 1038, which was recently signed by Governor Brown. Effective January 1, 2013, the new law will, among other things, eliminate the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). The FEHC's duties of rulemaking and administrative adjudication of discrimination claims will be mainly assumed by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which will include a Fair Employment and Housing Council.

In Seff v. Broward County, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Broward County's wellness program fell within the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) safe harbor for insurance plans. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in Broward County's favor, which was based on the district court's finding that the wellness program was a term of Broward County's group health insurance plan for purposes of the safe harbor.

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C discusses a new Rhode Island law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of homelessness. Specifically, employers will be prohibited from discriminating against job applicants or employees who lack a permanent mailing address or use a shelter or agency as a mailing address. The law provides injunctive relief, actual damages and reasonable attorneys' fees to homeless job applicants or employees who experience this form of discrimination. 

In Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free School District, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an employer may satisfy its burden of production under McDonnell Douglas by providing circumstantial evidence of nondiscriminatory reasons for an employment decision, when the employer, through no fault of its own, cannot specifically articulate nondiscriminatory reasons for the decision. 

This Law Firm Publication by Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP discusses the New York Appellate Division, First Department's decision in Melman v. Montefiore Medical Center, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff physician's age discrimination and retaliation claims against a hospital under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The discussion makes it clear that despite the broad protections of the NYCHRL, a discrimination claim will not survive summary judgment if the plaintiff does not present concrete evidence that the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

On July 17, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) signed an agreement to work together to enforce the whistleblower provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA).

In Paidi v. Mills, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a New York law that prevents nonimmigrant aliens from receiving pharmacist licenses. The Second Circuit held that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause because aliens are a suspect class and the state could not distinguish lawful nonimmigrant aliens from other aliens.

This Law Firm Publication by Stoel Rives LLP discusses the Washington Court of Appeals' decision in Short v. Battle Ground School District, finding that Washington's Law Against Discrimination does not require employers to accommodate employees' religious beliefs. Although the court acknowledged that Title VII imposes an affirmative duty to accommodate employees' religious beliefs and practices, it noted that Washington's law predates Title VII and does not contain similar language. The court declined to read the duty to accommodate into the WLAD. Washington's Supreme Court has yet to directly address the issue.

The Department of Labor's (DOL) Administrative Review Board recently ruled that the whistleblower protection provision in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) protects employees of private contractors, subcontractors or agents of publicly traded companies. The decision explicitly rejects the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's contrary reading of SOX in Lawson v. FMR LLC earlier this year.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses a new Connecticut law permitting the palliative use of medical marijuana by qualified individuals with debilitating medical conditions. The law is administered by the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) and takes effect on October 1, 2012. Connecticut is the 17th state to pass a medical marijuana law.  

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision affirming that an employee has no right to reinstatement under the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act (MPLA) following an extension of maternity leave. Hansen claimed that her employer violated the MPLA by failing to reinstate her after maternity leave and by retaliating against her for taking maternity leave. She also claimed that the employer violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) by terminating her because of her sex. The court held that the MPLA neither provides nor suggests that an extension of leave under the MPLA extends the right to reinstatement. The court supported its conclusion by referring to federal court decisions that the expiration of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave terminates reinstatement rights to the same or an equivalent position. Further, because Hansen’s employer clearly stated in writing that she would forfeit her right to reinstatement if she extended her leave, her right to reinstatement was not extended. The court also held that there was a bona fide reduction in force and that Hansen failed to show that her termination was because of her sex.

On May 31, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health & Human Services that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

In Smith v. Bray, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the cat's paw theory of liability is available under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where an employee, acting with a retaliatory motive, causes the employer to retaliate against another employee. An employee may be held individually liable under Section 1981.   

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified the standard for proving discrimination in single-motive cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held in Ponce v. Billington that plaintiffs need not prove discrimination was the sole cause of an employer's adverse employment action to prevail on a Title VII claim.

This Law Firm Publication by Ford & Harrison LLP discusses the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in LaMont v. Independent School District #728, which broadens the definition of sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The court held, for the first time, that a plaintiff can allege a hostile work environment claim for harassment that was based on sex, but was not sexual in nature. However, the plaintiff must still show that the conduct altered the conditions of employment and created an abusive working environment. This decision brings Minnesota sexual harassment law in line with Title VII.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that private sector workplace discrimination charge statistics for US states, territories and the District of Columbia are available on the EEOC website.

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., discusses the New Jersey Appellate Division's recent decision in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., finding the plaintiff has the burden of proving failure to mitigate front pay damages. The court held that while an employer must prove failure to mitigate back pay damages, it was unfair to require an employer to forecast what jobs the plaintiff could obtain in the future and demonstrate that the plaintiff would not pursue them.

In Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided two issues of first impression for the Second Circuit regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). First, Title VII's anti-retaliation provision does not protect employees who participate in their employers' internal investigation of discrimination. Second, employers cannot assert the Faragher-Ellerth defense to hostile work environment claims when the alleged discrimination involves a proxy or alter ego of the employer.  

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued updated guidance and related questions and answers on employer use of arrest and conviction records in making employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses a new Nebraska law that grants civil immunity to employers that provide job references to prospective employers of their current or former employees. The law creates a list of approved information that an employer may disclose without fear of liability. However, the law does not provide immunity to employers who either: Knowingly or recklessly provide false information. Disclose information with a discriminatory or retaliatory purpose. Approved on April 10, 2012, the law takes effect July 18, 2012.

The US Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has extended the comment period for the proposed rule implementing statutory amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Among other things, the new rules would expand military caregiver leave, add a special hours of service eligibility requirement for airline flight crew employees, and impact certain regulations for calculating FMLA leave and for reinstating employees following FMLA leave.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill repealing the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which had allowed workers to bring workplace discrimination claims in state court under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.

The EEOC issued a final rule amending ADEA regulations concerning disparate impact claims and the reasonable factors other than age (RFOA) defense. The rule clarifies that, in the absence of an RFOA, the ADEA prohibits employer policies that have a disparate impact on older workers, and also establishes factors to consider in determining reasonableness.

This Law Firm Publication by Fisher & Phillips LLP discusses Indiana's new anti-smoking law, signed by Governor Daniels. Under this law, smoking is prohibited in any place of employment, all public places and within eight feet of the entrance to either of these places. Employers must inform current and prospective employees of the prohibition. The law also prohibits discrimination and retaliation for reporting violations under this law. The anti-smoking law takes effect July 1, 2012.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, a disability discrimination case involving two individual claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision's (EEOC) administrative subpoena seeking the employer's nationwide hiring records, reasoning that the requested information was not relevant and overbroad.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released additional guidance on when an employer potentially violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring employees to have a high school diploma.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the whistleblower protection provision in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) does not protect employees of private contractors or subcontractors to public companies.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a final rule extending the recordkeeping requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to entities covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).

On January 27, 2012, in Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that intracompany complaints may constitute protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). An employee's complaint falls under the FLSA anti-retaliation provision where it is sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it as an assertion of FLSA rights and a call for their protection.

In a unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the US Supreme Court held the ministerial exception rooted in the First Amendment barred an employment discrimination suit brought by a teacher and commissioned minister against her employer, a church and school.

This Ford & Harrison LLP memorandum discusses the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) announcement requiring mediation for every discrimination charge filed with the MDHR. Individuals may still choose to file a discrimination suit in court before filing a charge with the MDHR.

This Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. memorandum discusses several new Oregon employment laws effective January 1, 2012. HB 3450 requires employers to include specific disclaimers in arbitration agreements with employees. Under HB 3034, employers must permit employees to take unpaid leave for jury duty rather than requiring the employees to use vacation, sick or annual leave. HB 2828 requires employers with ten or more employees to provide certain insurance coverage to an employee serving as a juror if the employee elects to have coverage continue during this time. HB 2040 clarifies the information a former employee must include in a written notice of non-payment of wages at termination. Under HB 2039, employees can recover statutory damages and attorneys' fees from employers that issue dishonored checks. 

The EEOC recently published an informal discussion letter noting that a high school diploma job requirement may violate the ADA if it screens out individuals based on their disability, and is not job related and consistent with business necessity.

The Seventh Circuit recently held that comments from an employer's HR director were admissions against that employer's interest, not hearsay, despite the fact that she was not directly involved in the termination decision. Because her comments were direct evidence of possible violations, the Seventh Circuit, in Makowski v. SmithAmundsen LLC, reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the employer, allowing claims to stand on pregnancy discrimination, FMLA interference and retaliation.

The SEC has released its Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program for fiscal year 2011.

This Jackson Lewis LLP memorandum analyzes a recent Washington State Court of Appeals decision to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated an employee who had been terminated for hanging a noose in the vicinity of an African American co-worker. The employee filed a union grievance after his termination for violating the employer's anti-harassment policy, and the arbitrator ordered his reinstatement after a brief suspension. In a case of first impression, the Washington Court of Appeals held that Washington state has a dominant public policy against employment discrimination, as articulated by the Washington Law against Discrimination, and the arbitrator's decision improperly limited the employer's ability to  comply with Washington's anti-discrimination laws. 

This Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. memorandum discusses the new six-page notice, MW-400 (11/11), that was issued on November 4, 2011, by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL). The notice is in accordance with the requirements of a 2009 statute, P.L. 2009, c. 194, relating to the maintenance and reporting of employment records. Employers must immediately provide the notice to all new employees and have until December 7, 2011 to distribute it to current employees.

This Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP memorandum discusses the Michigan Court of Appeals' September 13, 2011 decision in Hall v. Stark Reagan, P.C., holding that shareholders may sue for discrimination under the state Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The ELCRA prohibits discrimination against any individual and the court reasoned that the term individual is not limited to employees.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an employer may be required to assist an employee with her commute, as a means of providing reasonable accommodation for the employee's disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

In Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board adopted a new definition for adverse employment actions for claims brought under the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Under the new standard, an employer's action may qualify as adverse if it is more than trivial, even if the employee suffers no tangible employment consequences.

An updated Whistleblower Investigations Manual has been issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The new manual includes updated guidance for OSHA's handling of retaliation complaints under the whistleblower provisions of 21 statutes.

Employers that request specific or unnecesary work authorization documents from their employees violate the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). On August 22, 2011, the US Department of Justice reached a settlement with Farmland Foods, Inc. regarding the company's requests for discriminatory documents. Farmland's civil fines are the highest ever assessed in a settlement agreement under IRCA.    

In Randolph v. ADT Security Services, Inc., the US District Court for the District of Maryland held that an employer violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when it terminated employees for breaching their confidentiality obligations by disclosing confidential information to a state agency in connection with a wage claim.

In Reynolds v. Dept. of the Army, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a performance improvement plan, standing alone, is not an adverse employment action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The Third Circuit is now in accord with the Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits on this issue. 

An update on the CFTC's final regulations on whistleblower incentives and protections under the Dodd-Frank Act.

An update on the SEC issuing proposed rules to implement Section 21F of the Exchange Act, entitled "Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection," as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.