Contractor Compliance
Software vendors introduce solutions for compliance with new OFCCP guidelines.
April 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
Before search engines, message boards and e-mail reduced the job-hunting process to a simple series of mouse clicks, a federal contractor's applicant pool was relatively small. This made reporting race and gender information to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the body in charge of ensuring that federal contractors don't use discriminatory employment practices, a painless necessity.
But once job hunters took to the Internet, applicants bombarded employers with r?sum?s, making compliance a huge headache. To cope with the vast increase in applications, companies simply ignored the guidelines and the OFCCP did little to enforce them.
“A few years ago, you were really free to use whatever mechanism you wanted to weed down your applicant pool,” says Judy Duff, director of product management at BrassRing, a Waltham, Mass.-based provider of HR solutions. “Once you chose your top candidates, those were the ones you officially counted as applicants and reported on.”
But then in October 2005 the OFCCP revamped its regulations for reporting race and gender statistics to ensure companies report information about candidates they consider in light of the vast number of r?sum?s they now receive via the Internet. The new guidelines establish a four-prong test to determine Internet applicant status, specify more precisely when to solicit race and gender information, and establish new recordkeeping requirements. The OFCCP began enforcing the new regulations May 5. Failure to comply could result in a loss of federal contractor status.
These guidelines create new burdens for employers. Determining who qualifies as an Internet applicant is time-consuming. In addition, most human resources IT systems don't support the new recordkeeping requirements. In response, software companies are releasing new products and add-ons to automate the compliance process.
“The goal is to use technology to help recruiters continue to be efficient in filling positions while complying with the new guidelines,” says Murray Simpson, a compliance consultant for Peopleclick, a Raleigh, N.C.-based provider of staffing-related software.
Recent Ruling
Under the old guidelines, an applicant was anyone who indicated an interest in an employment opportunity. This vague definition drove contractors crazy when trying to determine which applicants to report to the government, a requirement that ensures contractors aren't using discriminatory hiring practices.
“Under the old definition, if the OFCCP really wanted to give you a hard time, they would force you to report on basically everyone who filled out an application,” says Ely Leichtling, a partner at Quarles & Brady.
The four-prong test clarifies who falls under the definition of an Internet applicant, a misleading term because under most circumstances it applies to all candidates regardless of how they submitted their r?sum?s.
To be considered an Internet applicant, an individual must first submit an expression of interest. Then the contractor must consider the individual for employment for a specific position. The third prong is if the individual's qualifications meet the predetermined basic qualifications of the position. Finally, the individual must not remove himself or herself from the candidate pool.
“With this test, there is going to be a much larger set of applicants because if you look at an individual's credentials, then you have considered them and if you have considered them and they meet the basic qualifications then you have to collect data on all these candidates,” Duff says.
In addition to the new definition, the regulations also establish recordkeeping requirements. These include storing all information on any pre-established limits the company used to narrow down the pool of applications, such as automatically rejecting all applications received after a certain date. In addition, when searching internal databases, recruiters must record search keywords, search dates and the position for which they conducted the search.
“If you only do three or four searches a day, maybe that's manageable,” Leichtling says. “But if you do 50 a day, you're probably going to need to add more people.”
Redrafted Definition
The new definition of Internet applicant places a huge burden on contractors. If done manually, deciphering who qualifies as Internet applicants greatly slows down the recruitment process.
This is why companies such as BrassRing and Peopleclick have rolled out software to help contractors automate the process of identifying which applicants fall into the official pool.
“To spend a lot of time processing who should be in the pool is frankly just a waste of time,” Duff says. “So we are automating that so recruiters can spend time interacting with the candidates they are actually considering for the position.”
Most of the software works like this: Employers post openings on either their own Web sites or on job sites. They list criteria for the position including basic qualifications and other objective job characteristics such as salary and shift requirements. When an individual sees a desired job, he or she clicks on a link that opens a window to an application, which oftentimes is directly linked to the company's network. The individual answers questions about his or her qualifications and submits a r?sum?.
After completing the application, the user is then prompted to voluntarily fill out an electronic form with his or her gender and race information. Although no one at this point is technically an applicant, experts agree that asking all submitters upfront for race and gender information is the best way to ensure compliance.
Finally, applicant-tracking software automatically goes through all submissions, sorting those that meet basic qualifications from those that don't by matching keywords in the pre-established qualifications to the r?sum?s. The software marks all candidates who possess basic qualifications and places them in a file. It then retains all the other r?sum?s in a separate file for recordkeeping purposes.
“At the end of the process, you now have a database where you can clearly see applicants that applied for a specific position but did not meet qualifications versus applicants who are qualified candidates,” says Lee McDermott, HR product manager at Ultimate Software, a Weston, Fla.-based HR and payroll solutions company.
Recordkeeping Requirements
In addition to retaining r?sum?s, contractors must also maintain records of all keyword searches they've used to scan internal databases for job candidates. Information that must be kept on file includes the objective keywords they used to conduct the search, the date of the search and the position for which they conducted the search. Because this requirement was previously absent from the OFCCP's guidelines, old HR software doesn't support such retention needs.
However to facilitate compliance with this new guideline, this new HR software and add-ons relieve recruiters of having to perform the recordkeeping manually.
“In the past, searches were being logged, but they were being logged in a garbled computer language,” Simpson says. “Our solution provides clients with the automatic logging of the position for which the search was conducted, the search criteria and the search date in a user-friendly format.”
In addition to keyword storage, contractors must also record what data management techniques they used, if any, to limit the potential Internet applicant pool, such as accepting only the first 100 applications or accepting only those applications that individuals sent within the last 90 days. These HR solutions now have this recordkeeping capability as well.
“These changes to the OFCCP requirements were caused because of technology,” says George Chaffey, a partner at Littler Mendelson. “And it is the very same technology that is making it easy for people to adapt.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'We Are Far From Finished': Amazon Pro Bono Program Raises Sights After Championing Justice From West Virginia to Ukraine
5 minute readAdvertising Tech Likely to Draw More Scrutiny in 2025 Over Consumers' Data, Lawyers Say
5 minute readIn-House Moves of the Month: Boeing Loses Another Lawyer, HubSpot Legal Chief Out After 2 Years
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250