Employers' Year-End Bias Check: Discrimination in Performance Reviews and EEOC Updates
With new COVID and AI-related guidance from the EEOC in recent months, employers have a lot to consider heading into 2022.
December 22, 2021 at 01:33 PM
7 minute read
It's the most wonderful time of the year … for year-end reviews and compensation discussions. While these reviews serve an important purpose, if not conducted thoughtfully, they can allow managers to unconsciously reflect biases in their evaluations. Indeed, with new COVID and AI-related guidance from the EEOC in recent months, employers have a lot to consider heading into 2022.
- What risks do performance reviews pose to employers?
Oftentimes, supervisors are asked to rate employees based on a generic form or template evaluation. While this format may streamline the review process for HR, it robs the reviewer of having a sincere discussion of what the employee is doing well or where there is room for improvement. In addition, these template reviews open the door for biases to sneak into play. These biases can make people feel less included and may affect how diverse employees are treated in the performance-review process, and in the organization overall.
It's important to note that you should communicate to employees whether there is any compensation adjustment tied to the performance-review process. The last thing you want is for people to assume that if they have a positive review, they will receive a raise or bonus, if that's not the case.
- How can employers avoid biases influencing their evaluations?
The first place to start is to coordinate metrics. There's always going to be a degree of subjectivity to an evaluation via form, but honing in on specific performance analytics and cross-referencing those with job descriptions and review documentation will help managers gain a clear perspective on the nature of the work being done. For example, if an employee is expected to make 15 widgets, and 15 is an acceptable performance, and they made the 15 widgets, but the employee receives a negative performance review, management is equipped to ask follow-up questions based on data. You want to see consistency between performance data and review outcomes. You also want to track for consistency with past reviews, and dig in to any apparent discrepancies.
This content has been archived.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 AllBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readThe Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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