Human Relation Commission Meeting

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING URBANA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 TIME: 5:30 P.M. PLACE: Urbana City Council Chambers Urbana City Building 400 South Vine Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Taxicab Licensure Presentation and Discussion B. Prior Enforcement Rule Presentation and Discussion 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. STAFF REPORT A. Approval of EEO Workforce Statistics B. HRO Activity Report C. Budget Report 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT  URBANA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION OFFICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE DRAFT ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE ENFORCEMENT RULE: “PRIOR CONVICTION” AS A PROTECTED CLASS SUMMARY: The Human Relations Office is proposing this rule provides the following guidance to strengthen compliance and enforcement efforts for “prior conviction” as a protected class. The proposed rule guidance seeks to balance increasing effectiveness in enforcement with minimizing disruption to covered businesses. DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 26, 2013. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:  Electronic comments may be submitted to: terent@urbanaillinois.us  Send paper comments to: Todd E. Rent, City of Urbana, Human Relations Office, 400 South Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61801 All submissions should refer to “Enforcement Rule: Prior Conviction”. All comments will be made public and posted without alteration. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd E. Rent, Human Relations Officer, (217) 384-2466, City of Urbana, 400 South Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61801. Page 1 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  Table of Contents I. Policy Memorandum: The Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class II. Proposed Rule A. Summary of Proposed Rule B. Definitions C. Covered Entities (Exempt and Non-Exempt Businesses) D. Procedures for Prior Conviction Inquiry (Non-Exempt Businesses) 1. Prior Conviction Inquiry Prohibited on Employment Applications 2. Substantial Relationship Standard 3. Required Notice of Proposed Adverse Action a. Sample Notice 4. Recordkeeping Requirements E. Procedures for Prior Conviction Inquiry (Exempt Businesses) 1. Required Disclosure of Statutory Limitations a. Sample Notice F. Technical Assistance 1. Assistance to Employers 2. Good Faith Presumption in Favor of Businesses Who Participate in the Technical Assistance Program Page 2 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  URBANA HUMAN RELATIONS DIVISION POLICY MEMORANDUM 384-2456 TO: Urbana Human Relations Commission FROM: Todd Rent, Human Relations Officer RE: Enforcement of Prior Conviction Record as a Protected Class under the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE On December 13, 2011, Peter Resnick, Vice Chair of the Human Relations Commission, raised several questions regarding the enforcement of “conviction record” as a protected class under the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance. Specifically, Commissioner Resnick asked whether an employer violates the Ordinance when it asks whether a job applicant has a conviction record. Commissioner Resnick reasoned that employers who inquire about race, gender, national origin, etc. during an application would clearly be in violation of the Ordinance. Why then, would “conviction record” as a covered “protected class” not be treated similarly? On December 14, 2011 the Urbana Human Relations Commission heard public input from several members of Citizens with Conviction. The speakers provided compelling accounts of the difficulties associated with securing employment as an ex-offender. This memo is, in part, intended to address Commissioner Resnick’s questions, albeit from an administrative enforcement vantage point rather than a legal one. This memorandum will: 1. Describe the current enforcement of “conviction record” as a protected class under the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance; 2. Explain the policy reasoning/rationale underlying current enforcement of “conviction record”; 3. Discuss policy implications of changing the way in which the Human Relations Office enforces “conviction record”; and 4. Present alternative approaches to modify enforcement. THE RELEVANT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE Page 3 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class Section 12-37 of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance (“Ordinance”) provides, in part: “It is the intent of the City of Urbana in adopting this article, to secure an end in the city to discrimination, including, but not limited to discrimination by reason of…conviction record…” As such, “conviction record” is listed along with eighteen other specific protected classes. Section 12-62(c) of the Ordinance provides, in part: “It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer or employment agency to make or use a written or oral inquiry or form of application that elicits or attempts to elicit information for a reason based wholly or partially on discrimination;” Section 12-62(f)(2) of the Ordinance provides, in part: “It shall not be an unlawful practice for a notice or advertisement to indicate a preference, limitation or specification where such factors are bona fide occupational qualifications necessary for employment. Nor shall it be unlawful for a person to request, accept an order for, refer or hire an individual based on such a preference, limitation or specification where such factors are bona fide occupational qualifications necessary for such employment.” Section 12-105(a) of the Ordinance provides, in part: “Any practice or act of discrimination which would otherwise be prohibited by this article shall not be deemed unlawful if it can be established that such practice or act can be justified on the basis of being reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. However, a "business necessity" exception shall not be justified by the factors of increased cost to business, business efficiency, the comparative or stereotypical characteristics of one group as opposed to another or the preferences of co-workers, employers' customers or any other person.” THE ENFORCEMENT LANDSCAPE The above language establishes the following:  The Ordinance prohibits discrimination based upon an individual’s membership in nineteen protected classes;  “Conviction record” is established as a protected class under the Ordinance;  Employers are generally prohibited from asking about an applicant’s “protected class” status when the purpose of such inquiry (either in whole or in part) is to discriminate;  A practice that would be prohibited by the Ordinance may not be (prohibited) when the practice can be justified as being “reasonably necessary” to the normal business operations;  The provisions may be summarized by stating that where there is a substantial relationship or nexus between the nature of the position applied for and an applicant’s criminal conviction, the employer may lawfully deny employment based upon that conviction. From an enforcement perspective, “conviction record” is a distinct type of protected class as compared with all of the other classes with the notable exception of “physical and/or mental disability”.1 The distinctiveness of “conviction record” as a class arises out of a number of relevant attributes including, (1) the presence of subgroups within the larger (protected) class, (2) the relevance of those subgroups to the determination of whether an employer has violated the Ordinance, and (3) lack of similar (protected) class 1 In tacit recognition of the distinctness of “physical and/or mental disability” as a protected class, the federal framework has a distinct set of laws, regulations and enforcement procedures (Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, etc.) to ensure effective enforcement. No such federal framework is available for “conviction record” because it is not a protected class under the federal, state or even most municipal systems. Page 4 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class coverage in other jurisdictions. Taken together, these attributes influence the efficacy and feasibility of enforcement regimes. The next section will briefly discuss the attributes identified above. SUBGROUPS WITHIN THE LARGER CLASS First, there are myriad “subgroups” within the single class of “prior conviction”. The subgroups are determined in large part by circumstantial factors such as: (1) type of conviction, (2) individual’s age at the time of the conviction, and (3) time since conviction. Obviously, types of conviction range the full gamut of the criminal code; from retail theft to aggravated criminal sexual assault of a minor or from possession with intent to armed bank robbery. Indeed, even within one criminal conviction type, the circumstances leading to a conviction for burglary vary widely.2 An individual’s age at the time of conviction may also vary widely. More importantly, an employer’s assessment of the relevance of the conviction could be and often is influenced by the applicant’s age at the time of conviction. Many employers tend to show more lenience with bad behavior made earlier in life. Such behavior is often viewed as a consequence of immaturity and youth. However, when a candidate’s record evidences such behavior at an age where most individuals are expected to engage in mature, responsible behavior, such lenience is less likely. Thus, an individual convicted of battery resulting from a bar fight at age eighteen, may be viewed much differently than such a conviction at age forty. Finally, the time elapsed since the conviction is another distinct but interrelated factor. Years lived without subsequent convictions tend to be considered as evidence of rehabilitation. This is particularly true where the conviction occurred decades in the past. Thus, a thirty year old conviction for drug trafficking will be viewed very differently than a conviction for a similar offense that is only two years old. Taken together, variance within and amongst the three factors enumerated above can result in an extraordinarily broad spectrum of circumstances that would all fit under the single label “prior conviction”. So, a thirty year old conviction for retail theft where the offender was eighteen shares the same protected class status as a two year old conviction for aggravated battery against a minor when the offender was forty. Both circumstances fall under the label of “prior conviction”. RELEVANCE OF SUBGROUPS Second, depending on the nature of the position applied for and the applicant’s subgroup attributes, adverse decisions made solely on the basis of protected class membership, may or may not constitute unlawful discrimination. Indeed, each of the factors outlined in the previous section may be legitimately weighed by an organization in the course of deciding whether employment may be denied or rather, whether the applicant’s subgroup disqualifies him/her for the position sought. In fact, the frequency wherein an applicant’s subgroup results in a permissible adverse employment decision is not 2 For instance, a conviction for “burglary” could result from two very different scenarios. A burglary charge could as a result from breaking in an unoccupied residential home. However, a burglary charge could result from shoplifting without the cash on hand to pay for the stolen merchandise. Page 5 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class insubstantial.3 By direct contrast, the number of instances in which an adverse decision that is based solely upon race, national origin, ethnicity, religion or gender would be lawful is extraordinarily low.4 The above distinction is an important one. Protected classes tend to be fairly homogenous – particularly regarding factors that may or may not be related to the opportunity sought. Thus, Asian-Americans cannot legally be divided into subgroups based upon the circumstances under which they became Asian- Americans. There is no subgroup of Mexican-Americans who may be legally denied employment solely on the relevance of subgroup membership to the desired position. Further, there is no subgroup of African Americans who would be statutorily barred from employment based solely on their membership in a subgroup. However, within the general protected class of “prior conviction” we have seen above that subgroup status (i.e. conviction type, age at time of conviction and time elapsed since the conviction) may have a significant impact on whether the individual is hired. Thus, the protected class of “prior conviction” is not a homogenous group and cannot reasonably be viewed as such. UNIQUENESS OF “PRIOR CONVICTION” AS A PROTECTED CLASS Third, there are very few jurisdictions, whether federal, state, or municipal that designate “conviction record” as a protected class. While this factor does not and should not impact the City’s commitment to retaining the class, the factor presents very real enforcement considerations. As noted above, enforcement of “conviction record” is not part of the rubric of the federal and state anti-discrimination enforcement framework. What framework does exist, often as the result of local ordinances, generally comports with the formulation provided in the fifth summary bullet-point from the section above entitled “The Enforcement Landscape”. As a result, most employers have structured internal hiring policies to comply with the prevailing formulation. Based upon the distinctiveness of the class, comparisons with other protected classes can sometimes be less than helpful or even misleading. For instance, no legitimate business outside of certain extremely rare exceptions5 would consider publishing a job application that inquires into the applicant’s race, gender, national origin or religion for the purposes of determining an applicant’s eligibility for a vacant position. Such an inquiry is almost never lawfully relevant to an applicant’s qualifications. However, when a hospital or school evaluates a job applicant for certain positions, the state of Illinois has mandated by law the prohibiting of employment of individuals with certain criminal convictions. Thus, in the case of “conviction record” such an inquiry is by necessity, lawful. ENFORCEMENT OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination against individuals with physical and/or mental disabilities. Unlike other protected classes, an individual within the class may be legally denied employment, if that individual is unable perform the essential and marginal job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. In a way similar to “prior conviction”, individuals within certain subgroups of the class may be lawfully denied employment on the basis of the relationship between their 3 The term denotes a rate of occurrence higher than rare but certainly less frequent than a majority. 4 There are a few notable exceptions, mostly from the entertainment sector (i.e. acting, modeling, etc). For instance, advertisements for performance roles in theatrical, television or motion picture productions often specify race and/or gender. 5 (i.e. entertainment industry mentioned in note 3) Page 6 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class subgroup status and the nature of the position applied for. As such, the ADA provides a useful albeit imperfect comparator as a protected class with many similarities to the “prior conviction” protected class. Rather than having subgroups based upon type of conviction, etc., relevant subgroups under the ADA may be characterized as: type of disability, severity of job related impairment, and the availability/reasonableness of measures that will mitigate the job-relevant impairment. Based upon the distinctiveness of “physical and/or mental disabilities” as protected classes, lawmakers opted to create a distinct approach to enforcement. Employers that are covered by the ADA are obliged to develop what is typically referred to as an “Essential and Marginal Job Function Analysis” (“Essentials and Marginals”) for each position within their organization. The analysis first identifies each of the physical and mental requirements of the position such as “frequently requires lifting objects weighing 50 lbs or more” or “requires long periods of intense mental focus and concentration.” Second, the analysis classifies each requirement according to whether the requirement is part of the “essence” of the position (i.e. essential) or more peripheral or “marginal” in nature. The ADA bars employers from directly inquiring as to whether a job applicant has a physical or mental disability. Rather, the ADA requires that the applicant be given opportunity to review the Essentials and Marginals for the applied-for position. The employer is then is permitted to ask whether, given the Essentials and Marginals, the applicant believes he or she is able to perform the functions with or without reasonable accommodation. If the answer is affirmative, then the employer’s inquiry must stop.6 Only after issuing a contingent offer, may the employer reinitiate the conversation. Specifically, the employer may then inquire (normally as part of a pre-employment physical) whether and what type of accommodation is required to fulfill the Essentials and Marginals. Once the accommodation is identified, the employer must state whether it deems the accommodation “reasonable”. If so, the accommodation must be made. If not, the employer is obligated to offer an alternative accommodation that (1) it deems to be reasonable and (2) allows the applicant to successfully perform the Essentials and Marginals. This negotiation (affectionately known as the “ADA dance” to HR professionals) continues as long as both parties believe that a reasonable accommodation is achievable. When one or both parties conclude that a mutually agreeable accommodation is not achievable, then the applicant may file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or other appropriate state or local administrative enforcement agency. That agency will then determine whether a reasonable accommodation (given the employer’s size and resources) exists that would enable the applicant to successfully perform the Essentials and Marginals. While there are significant distinctions between “physical and/or mental disability” and “prior conviction” as protected classes, the existence of legally relevant subgroups or subclasses within the broader classes make the drawing of comparisons highly instructive.7 Note that the ADA’s approach to enforcing the 6 If the answer is negative, then the applicant has basically indicated that he or she is not qualified for the position. As such, the employer is no longer obligated to consider the applicant for that position. 7 One significant distinction that was alluded to in an earlier section bears repeating. As a federal law, the ADA generally covers all private U.S. businesses with workforces of at least 50 employees. Because of this broad scope, the businesses throughout the country were required to modify hiring practices to achieve compliance. So, if a particular business had locations in each state, each location was required to implement similar ADA-compliant procedures. Page 7 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class protected class is not based upon the attempt to maintain parity with other fundamentally distinct protected classes, but based upon the particular characteristics and challenges of the class. Thus, the enforcement framework appears to be specifically tailored to balance the needs of the protected class with the legitimate business concerns of those with whom they will interact. CURRENT ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES It is against the above-described landscape that the Urbana Human Relations Office (“HRO”) has enforced the Ordinance’s prohibition of discrimination against individuals based upon their prior criminal convictions. As an initial matter, HRO enforcement actions taken against employers who have either failed to hire or terminated individuals based upon “conviction record” have been relatively successful.8 That said, however, the HRO has not imposed a mandate as to what specific wording is or is not allowed on applications. Consequently, employers have not been sanctioned for requiring job applicants to disclose prior convictions if that was done for the purposes of determining whether the individual has a disqualifying conviction. Enforcement of such a prohibition would be a marked departure from current practice that would, consequently, require many Urbana employers to change hiring practices in regards to individuals with prior convictions. Indeed, because such a consequence would have a substantial impact on the community, it would be inappropriate for HRO to modify current enforcement without further input and direction. “BAN THE BOX” This enforcement approach would ban all covered employers from asking about prior convictions on job applications and/or at any stage in the hiring process prior to a contingent offer of employment. A major advantage of this approach is of a similar nature to the issue mentioned in footnote 8. Charges filed under this approach would involve little or no factual dispute. This is because charges would only be filed where prior conviction leading to the rejection of the complainant would have come to light as a direct result of the complainant being selected as the most qualified applicant. In sum, the only remaining issue in such cases would be whether there was a nexus between the job and the prior conviction. Furthermore, the complainants under this approach would be highly motivated because, but for the employer’s decision, the position would have been theirs. The disadvantage of this approach is that it would represent a marked departure in Urbana’s and most other communities’ approach. Thus, it is not inconceivable that multi-site employers would need a separate set of applications and procedures when hiring in Urbana. On a related note, employers would in certain instances invest time (interviewing, reference checking) and resources (testing, travel expenses) into applicants who either cannot or will not be hired because of their prior conviction. Another disadvantage - or rather risk - is that employers would surreptitiously run background checks on all 8 The rate of settlements achieved under this protected class is well above rates for all other classes. This is due in large part to the fact that certain factual disputes that would typically exist in a discrimination claim are often undisputed in prior conviction cases. For instance, if an individual files a charge after being rejected for a position for which he or she had received a conditional offer of employment, there is no point for the employer to argue that the individual was not the most qualified. The only true issue is whether there is a substantial relationship between the position offered and the applicant’s prior conviction. By contrast, in a typical race charge, most of the time-intensive factual inquiry focuses on whether the Complainant was more qualified than the individual selected. Page 8 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class applicants and find pre-textual reasons for excluding all individuals with prior convictions. Such behavior would be difficult to detect because applicants would be excluded at the preliminary stages of selection where less time investment equals less motivation to claim or even suspect discriminatory conduct. One approach to resolving some of these difficulties might be to limit coverage to employers who are not statutorily prohibited from hiring individuals with certain prior convictions. However, defining the exact contours of the exempted class of employers may be somewhat difficult. For instance, would we exempt employers whose bonding requirements limit their ability to hire individuals with certain prior convictions? Would we exempt ambulatory clinics that may not be statutorily prohibited from hiring individuals with prior convictions? What if a non-exempted clinic is a part of a larger, exempted, employer? ESSENTIALS AND MARGINALS Another approach would be modeled after ADA enforcement. The approach would require employers to develop a document similar to the Essential and Marginal Job Function Analysis currently required under the ADA. However, rather than list the physical and mental requirements of each position, this document would list the types of convictions that would disqualify an individual from employment based upon those convictions’ substantial relationship with specifically defined position responsibilities. More simply, employers would be obliged to develop and disclose a distinct list of disqualifying convictions for each position based upon the duties of that position. While the employers would be free to provide this list at any point in the application process, employers would no longer be permitted to ask about prior convictions on the job application. Rather, in a fashion similar to the ADA, employers may inquire as to whether, based upon the “essentials and marginals” of the applied-for position, the applicant has any prior convictions that may disqualify him/her from the position. If the applicant answers affirmatively, the employer should give the applicant an opportunity to provide any information that would (1) provide a more complete view of the circumstances leading to the conviction and/or (2) address the risk(s) associated with hiring the individual, which may include but is not limited to factors such as: age at the time of conviction, time elapsed since the conviction, and/or post-conviction relief.9 If employer concludes that the additional information does not sufficiently address the risk, then employer may choose to no longer consider the candidate. There are several distinct advantages to this approach. First, the approach mimics the ADA process. This is an advantage because a vast majority of covered employers will be familiar with both the substantial and procedural requirements of the ADA. As such, raising employer awareness regarding the new enforcement approach may be accomplished largely by referring to similar requirements in the ADA. Modeling the enforcement approach after the ADA also helps to compensate for the lack of an underlying state and/or federal legal framework. Thus, to the extent that the approach follows the ADA, novel issues and disputes arising from enforcement actions may be fruitfully analogized to similar disputes in the relatively well-settled terrain of the ADA. 9 For example, after a certain statutorily determined time has elapsed, certain ex-offenders may apply for a “Certificate of Good Conduct”. If an employer hires an individual with such a Certificate, the employer enjoys a degree of immunity for negligent hiring suits arising from the selection of the individual. Page 9 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class A second advantage of this approach is that the ex ante development and exchange of relevant information will tend to save time and resources of both employers and candidates. From the employer’s perspective, careful development of the “Essentials and Marginals” will necessitate examination of the job responsibilities to determine which bear a substantial relationship to felony convictions. The employer will have already developed the arguments that it believes justifies disqualification of individuals with certain convictions. Indeed, in many cases the employers may even be guided by examples and analyses published by the Urbana Human Relations Office. The result for employers is more certainty regarding permissible and impermissible actions under the Ordinance. From the candidates’ perspective, knowing whether a particular conviction disqualifies him from an employment opportunity may allow him to expend time and resources pursuing positions for which his conviction will not constitute a barrier. Conversely, knowing that an employer regards a particular conviction as disqualifying for a position may prompt the candidate to mount an affirmative challenge to this assessment, prior to becoming a formal candidate. Such a challenge could be raised and decided expeditiously because the only determinative issue would be whether the employer can establish a substantial relationship between the conviction and available position. As is the case with the ADA, the most significant disadvantage to this enforcement approach emerges from the requirement for employers to develop “Essentials and Marginals” for each position. The requirement to identify convictions that have a substantial relationship to a position’s duties represents a potentially daunting task even for highly skilled human resources professionals. Such a task would be significantly more difficult for a company possessing a relatively modest human resources function. In addition to the need for competent human resources/legal staff, covered employers would need a reasonable amount of time to review their entire position roster, identify job responsibilities bearing a substantial relationship to certain criminal convictions, identify and classify the relevant criminal convictions. Indeed, even with highly qualified staff, the sheer amount of work involved would be considerable. Two strategies could significantly mitigate the burden to employers. First, the effective date of the new requirements could be delayed for one (1) calendar year in order to provide employers with additional time to achieve compliance. Second, the Human Relations Office could provide comprehensive technical guidance to local employers. The guidance would ideally take many forms such as but not limited to providing advisory opinions for common occupation types, and holding compliance workshops. While such measures would not completely offset the expense and resources of compliance, the measures would certainly reduce the overall burden. A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE PROGRAM Another approach would encourage or even incent employers to voluntarily choose to implement one of the above approaches (inquire into background at the contingent offer or provide a disclosure statement about disqualifying convictions, etc.). Employers who voluntarily choose to implement such policies could be given special recognition or even afforded certain rebuttable presumptions if HRO charges are filed against them. Further, the Human Relations Commission and HRO could engage in a comprehensive effort to educate employers on the costs, both legal and societal, of discrimination against individuals with prior convictions. Page 10 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class This approach has pretty obvious advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that there would not be a requirement of any employer to modify any current practice so long as that practice is consistent with current enforcement. The disadvantage is clear. Voluntary systems of compliance are only effective where the targeted participants are given significant legal incentives to participate.10 CONCLUSION As stated above, the purpose of this memo is to begin the thoughtful articulation of various issues related to changing HRO’s enforcement of “conviction record” as a protected class under the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance. Further discussion will more fully explore many of the ideas covered here. 10 One analogous example is the Department of Health and Human Service’s Compliance Program Guidelines for Hospitals which are largely based on the Department of Justice’s Sentencing Guidelines. Page 11 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class Summary of Proposed Rule In order to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of the City of Urbana’s prohibition of discrimination based upon “prior conviction”, the Human Relations Office proposes the following rule provides the following guidance: 1. Coverage  The proposed rule exempts employers who are restricted based upon state and/or federal law from hiring individuals with certain prior convictions for specific positions. For example, hospitals and nursing homes covered under the Health Care Worker Background Check Act [225 ILCS 46], which prohibits covered employers from hiring individuals with certain convictions for certain positions are exempt from coverage under the rule when hiring for those certain positions. Thus, these employers are classified as “exempt”.  All other private employers are classified as “non-exempt” or “covered”. 2. Covered Employers  Under the proposed rule, covered employers may deny employment to individuals based upon a prior conviction only when the prior conviction bears a substantial relationship or nexus to the specific position for which the applicant has applied such denial is reasonably necessary to the normal operations of the business or enterprise. Such denials shall not be justified by the factors of increased cost to business, business efficiency, the comparative or stereotypical characteristics of one group as opposed to another or the preferences of co- workers, employers’ customer or any other person.  Under the proposed rule, covered employers are prohibited from asking whether an applicant has a prior conviction until a contingent offer of employment is made.  As such, covered employers may not inquire about conviction status on employment applications. Covered employers will have (1) one year from the date of enactment of the proposed rule to comply with this requirement. Page 12 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class   While employers may not inquire about prior conviction until a contingent offer of employment is made, employers may, at any time, provide accurate information regarding (1) the duties and responsibilities of the applied-for position, as well as (2) which convictions may disqualify an applicant from employment based upon the duties and responsibilities and (3) that upon extension of a conditional offer, the employer intends to run a criminal background check (“CBC”) on the applicant.  Covered entities who perform CBC on potential employees, must abide by the following guidelines: 1. The applicant must be given a “Notice of Rights” prior to the performance of a CBC. 2. The applicant must sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of the “Notice of Rights”. 3. The employer must provide written notice if it plans to take any adverse action (i.e. deny employment) based upon information gained in the CBC. Such written notice must (1) provide a copy of the CBC report to the applicant, (2) identify the specific conviction that led to the proposed adverse action, (3) clearly explain how the identified conviction is substantially related to the position applied-for and (4) notify the applicant of his/her right to appeal the adverse decision to the Urbana Human Relations Commission. Further, the employer must provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the CBC report. Such reasonable opportunity will be no less than forty-eight (48) hours from the time at which written notice of an adverse decision was provided to the applicant. 4. The determination as to whether an adverse action or denial of employment is reasonably necessary to the normal operations of business or enterprise should comprise an individual assessment based upon the following factors:  The facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct;  The number of offenses for which the individual was convicted;  Age at the time of conviction, or release from prison; Page 13 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class   Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post- conviction, with the same or a different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct;  The length and consistency of employment history before and after the offense or conduct;  Rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training;  Employment or character references and any other information regarding fitness for the particular position;  Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program.  Upon extending a contingent offer of employment, covered employers are required to provide a “Notice of Rights” to the applicant who is the subject of the CBC. The “Notice of Rights” will inform the applicant of their rights under the proposed rule. 3. Exempt Employers  Under the proposed rule, exempt employers may ask whether an applicant has a prior conviction at any time during the application process, except that such an employer must provide notice to the applicant at the time of inquiry indicating (1) the specific section or provision in state or federal law that mandates exclusion of individuals having certain prior convictions, and (2) the right of the applicant to contact the Urbana Human Relations Commission should that applicant have any questions or concerns regarding the application of the provision to the position for which he/she has applied. 4. All Employers  The Urbana Human Relations Office will provide technical assistance to any Urbana business seeking to ensure compliance with the proposed rule. Such assistance shall include, but is not limited to: (1) providing electronic template of all notices required under the proposed rule, and (2) assistance in determining Page 14 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  which, if any, convictions may bear a substantial relationship to particular positions.  Any employer following guidance in accordance with technical assistance provided by the Urbana Human Relations Office shall be presumed to be in compliance with the proposed rule. Such a presumption shall be rebuttable only upon clear and convincing evidence of non-compliance. Page 15 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  THE URBANA HUMANA RELATIONS COMMISSION RULES OFFICE GUIDANCE GOVERNING INQUIRY INTO AND CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR ARREST OR CONVICTION RECORD BY EMPLOYERS PREAMBLE The Human Relations Commission was created be the City Council of the City of Urbana to secure an end to discrimination, including but not limited to discrimination by reason of age, color, creed, class, family responsibilities, marital status, matriculation, national origin, personal appearance, physical and mental disability, political affiliation, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, prior arrest or conviction record, source of income, or any other discrimination based upon categorizing or classifying a person rather than evaluating a person’s unique qualifications relevant to opportunities in, but not limited to, employment, housing, places of public accommodation, and credit or commercial transactions. The following enforcement rule is adopted guidance is provided pursuant to Section 12-19 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Urbana. This rule governs guidance seeks to provide information clarifying the standards upon the which Human Relations Office will rely in investigating and evaluating whether the Human Rights Ordinance’s prohibition against discrimination based upon circumstances under which Urbana employers may inquire about and/or consider “prior arrest or conviction record” in the evaluation of applicants for employment has been violated. Please note that the Human Relations Commission, the municipal commission charged with issuing the final determination in all enforcement actions has clearly articulated that any consideration of prior arrest or conviction record must be limited to the underlying conduct implicated by the conviction and not the fact of the conviction itself. Rather, employers may disqualify candidates based upon conduct, not conviction record. APPLICATION 1. Applicable Law Section 12-39 of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance defines discrimination in part as: Any practice or act which is unlawfully based wholly or partially on the…prior arrest or conviction record of any individual, or any subclass of the above groups [Emphasis added] Section 12-62 of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance reads, inter alia: (a) By an employer. It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer to do any of the following acts for a reason based wholly or partially on discrimination: (1) To fail or refuse to hire, to discharge or to accord adverse, unlawful and unequal treatment to any person with respect to his/her application, hiring, training, compensation, tenure, upgrading, promotion, layoff or any other terms, conditions or privileges of employment; … (b) By an employment agency. It shall be an unlawful practice for an employment agency to do any of the following acts for a reason based wholly or partially on discrimination: Page 16 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  (1) To fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive such individual of an employment opportunity; … (c) By an employer or employment agency. It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer or employment agency to make or use a written or oral inquiry or form of application that elicits or attempts to elicit information for a reason based wholly or partially on discrimination; to make or keep a record of or disclose such information, except that the collection and reporting of such information shall not be unlawful if done for equal opportunity or affirmative action purposes pursuant to any local, state or federal government equal opportunity or affirmative action program. Section 12-105(a) of the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance reads, inter alia: (a) Any practice or act of discrimination which would otherwise be prohibited by this article shall not be deemed unlawful if it can be established that such practice or act can be justified on the basis of being reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. However, a "business necessity" exception shall not be justified by the factors of increased cost to business, business efficiency, the comparative or stereotypical characteristics of one group as opposed to another or the preferences of co-workers, employers' customers or any other person. [italics added] 2. Exempt Employers and Positions Those employers whose hiring/employment practices are governed by either federal and/or state laws that restrict them from hiring persons with certain convictions for certain positions are exempted from this provision as it would pertain to that position and potential employee. If an employer can verify that they are required by law to screen applicants for certain convictions and/or are barred from hiring person with certain convictions, they will be deemed “exempt” employers. However, this exemption applies only to those “exempt positions” and their correspondingly excluded convictions as articulated in state or federal laws. An employer may not get receive a plenary exemption for all positions in a particular business for positions/convictions that are not specifically enumerated in state or federal law merely because other positions in their business are exempted. 3. Application of Law to Exempt Employers Exempt employers may inquire as to whether an applicant for an exempt position has a prior conviction at any time during the application process. However, should that employer either inquire about prior convictions or plan to use knowledge of a prior conviction in hiring determinations (regardless of how such knowledge was obtained), the employer must provide notice to the applicant at the time of inquiry indicating (1) the specific section or provision of federal or state law that prohibits hiring of certain individuals have certain prior convictions, and (2) the right of the applicant to contact the Urbana Human Relations Commission should said have applicant have any questions or concerns regarding the application of the provision to the position for which he/she has applied. Any employer performing a criminal background check must do so in conformity with the rules stated in section 5 below. 4. Application of Law to Non-Exempt Employers Page 17 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class The following rules apply to all non-exempt employers: a. Non-exempt employers may deny employment to individuals based upon a prior conviction only when based upon the conduct or circumstances of the conviction or the fact of the prior conviction, bears a substantial relationship or nexus to the specific position for which the applicant has applied the employer established that such denial is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise; b. The determination as to whether an adverse action or denial of employment is reasonably necessary to the normal operations of business or enterprise should comprise an individual assessment based upon the following factors:  The facts or circumstances surrounding the offense or conduct;  The number of offenses for which the individual was convicted;  Age at the time of conviction, or release from prison;  Evidence that the individual performed the same type of work, post-conviction, with the same or a different employer, with no known incidents of criminal conduct;  The length and consistency of employment history before and after the offense or conduct;  Rehabilitation efforts, e.g., education/training;  Employment or character references and any other information regarding fitness for the particular position;  Whether the individual is bonded under a federal, state, or local bonding program. c. Non-exempt employers are prohibited from asking whether an applicant has a prior conviction until a conditional offer of employment is made; d. Non-exempt employers may not inquire about conviction status on employment applications. Non-exempt employers have one (1) year from the date of enactment of the proposed rule to comply with this requirement and amend any job applications or documentation as necessary; e. Non-exempt employers may, at any time, provide to applicants or potential applicants accurate information regarding the following: (1) the duties and responsibilities of the applied-for positions; and (2) whether, upon extension of a conditional offer, the employer intends to run a criminal background check (“CBC”) on the applicant. 5. Criminal Background Checks Exempt employers may conduct a criminal background (“CBC”) check upon the submission of an application by an applicant, provided notice is given to the applicant at the time of submission of the application that the employer may run a CBC. Non-exempt employers may only run a CBC upon extension of a conditional offer. Both exempt and non-exempt employers who intend to run a CBC on an applicant must abide by the following rules: a. All employers must provide a “Notice of Rights” to the applicant informing the applicant of his/her rights under these rules; b. The applicant must be given a “Notice of Rights” prior to the performance of the CBC; c. The applicant must be informed that he/she has the right to provide evidence of rehabilitation to the employer; d. The applicant must sign a document acknowledging receipt and understanding of the “Notice of Rights”. Page 18 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class Non-exempt employers must provide written notice to applicants if they plan to take any adverse action, such as denying employment, based upon information gained in the CBC. Such written notice must: a. Provide a copy of the CBC report to the applicant; b. Identify the specific conviction that led to the proposed adverse action; c. Clearly explain how the identified conviction is substantially related to the position applied for; and d. Notify the applicant of his/her right to appeal the adverse decision the Urbana Human Relations Commission. Further, non-exempt employers must provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the CBC report. Such reasonable opportunity will be no less than forty-eight (48) hours from the time at which the written notice of an adverse decision was provided to the applicant. 6. Assistance to Employers The Urbana Human Relations Office will provide technical assistance to any Urbana business seeking to ensure compliance with these rules. Upon request the HRO will: a. Provide electronic templates of all notices required under the rule; b. Assistance in determining if an employer is exempt or non-exempt; c. Assistance in determining which, if any, convictions may bear a substantial relationship to particular positions; and d. Other assistance as appropriate. 7. Good Faith Any employer acting in accordance with these rules shall be presumed to have acted in good faith. Any employer following guidance in accordance with the technical assistance provided by the Urbana Human Relations Office shall be presumed to be in compliance with the proposed rule. Such a presumption shall be rebuttable only upon clear and convincing evidence. Page 19 PROPOSED RULE – Enforcement of Prior Conviction as a Protected Class  % % % % % % HRSS STAFF COMPANY EE AA AA WN WN LTN LTN ASIAN ASIAN NA NA OTHER %OTHER MIN MIN EEO POLICY REC BATTERY SOLUTIONS LLC (2013) 86 0 0.00% 22 25.58% 9 10.47% 1 1.16% 1 1.16% 0 0.00% 11 12.79% YES YES 1 YR WOOLARD MKTG CONSULTANTS (2013) 3 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% YES YES 2 YRS  . ··.. > / . .· Office Use Only (05/13) . . -~ .. Reque~tedhy: . .·. 0~~11; < ' CITY OF URBANA :. HUMAN RELATIONS DIVISION Ap~~pved by: . ' DIM ' ' ' · .. y.,,_ .. f ·-: .. . 400 SOUTH VINE ST. URBANA, ILLINOIS Gl801 Certification · (217) 384-24GG (phone); 384-2428 (fax) Dati!: terent@urbanaillinois.us Certificate Expiration Date: EDUALEMPLDYMENT OPPORTUNITY {E.E.D.) WORKFORCE STATISTICS FORM . -· Please complete the sections below as instructed. Failure to properly complete this form may . result in a delar or denial of eligibilit~ to bid or do business with the Cit~ of Urbana. ..- Section I. Identification - I. Company Name and Address: ... Name: ~iJo6la 11to_ 11rf1~ (·~?Sd lrttn!s ....... . ~ rd r 'DH' . d/b/a: Address: /l1 ~ J J/1ft:T . ..._~ --;;-:---.... /b'el/ -- City/State/Zip ( tt f.i. m'l~- i \";" L L (c; L 3 )·-t> ' ,i Telephone Number(s) include area code: ;< /J. ::3 5Cj- :?t(JS1 Check one ofthe following t-GQ!Jl.Oration IX I Partnership I Individual Proprietorship I I Limited Liability Carp. I FEI Number: .f..O ·:j.'ftf l)'i:? Social Security Number .. ___ 2. Name and Address of_!he Comi!!II!Y.'s Pr:in~al Office (answer only if not tlte same as above)__ . Name: .·---------- ·--~----~·-- Address: ~~- ·····----·--~---- ·······---·-~~-·-----"'--- .. ............ ~~ ----~~ City /State/Zip ········-·· -------- 3. Major activity of your company (product or service): ; Vu 1 ~· 1 ! .. ·----- -------·······-~-~- I' ,,•. ---~--------- ' ' ,, ' . . I~.+ ...... -~-- 4. Project on which your company is bidding: i'\1Ui:c1:· . 5. City of Urbana contact staff assigned to contract: ( 1 (• u 1 /1, 1 1 ------~----···----·~----- - - - - - - · - · · - -· --··----~--~-----~---------~~- ) ·--· --- - . //? ...u/ _{}_~----~---.--(:. r~--·--" ' (_ ----- ' ____ -·-·~"·  SECTION II. Policies and Practices ---.--...--~ Description of EEO Policies and Practices YES NO A. Is it the Company's policy to recruit. hire. train. upgrade. promote and discipline persons without regard to race. color. creed. class. national origin. religion. sex. age. marital status. mental \ / and/or physical disability. personal appearance. sexual preference. family responsibilities. 1\. matriculation. oolitical affiliation. prior arrest. conviction record. or source of income ? B. Has someone been assigned to develop procedures. which will assure that the EED policy is implemented and enforced by managerial. administrative. and supervisory personnel? If so. please indicate th)lfame and title,.11f th[)lfficial chargljd with this responsibility. Name: f!tJnnlf' J. lU to/tt I d ..). Title 'Pho~idfi-r.r- 1\ Telephone: /!)/7 ~·y.:,-'1-()l(t;-'f Email: w:o/tirc),<) mr1?6Mre corn -,-. .~-,---=:=...:::t~===.::::::;==~=::...:...::~-'----:::-::----:-:--J-..-.._..._j--1 C. Does the cnmpany have a written Equal Employment Opportunity plan or statement? Note: If no. a copy of an E.EO statement is enclosed. You must attach an EED Statement in order to be considered eligible to do business with the City of Urbana. lluestions? (217) 384-24GG or terentlilclty.urbana.il.us. l \ 7 0. Has the company deveio"'p:.:.e d-a-wr-it-te-n-po""'li-cy-st-at-em-e-nt prohibiting Sexual Harassment? You must attach a copy of your company's Sexual Harassment Policy in order to be considered \( eligible to do business with the City of Urbana. E. Have all recruitment sources been notif1ed that th-e-co-m-pa_n_y_w""'illc-c-o~;ider all qualified appli~ants without regard to race. color. creed. class. national origin. religion. sex. age. marital status. '.I.~ mental and/or physical disability. personal appearance. sexual orientation. family responsibilities. matriculation, political affiliation. prior ar~est. conviction record. or source of incom"e'-'?-:----:--o---+-~t---1 F. If advertising is used, does it specify that all qualified applicants will be considered for employment without regard to race. color. creed, class. national origin. religion. sex. age. marital \ status, mental and/or physical disability, personal appearance, sexual orientation. family / \ responsibilities. matriculation. political affiliation. prior arresL conviction record. or source of income? t--::-+.:;.=:7"-·· . •":- f--..... -t----1 G. Has the contr·actor notified all ol its sub-contractors of the1r obligations to cornply with the [qual Opportunity requirements either in writing. by inclusion in subcontracts or purchase orders? H. Is the company a state certified minority/women owned business? If yes. please attach acopy of f--..._state certification. ..~~~-~~· _ . _ . ·~+-·----J--~-4 I. Does the company have collective bargaining agreements with labm· organizations? ,..._ -- ... ____ --·- ........ --·~--·-·~ ......... ___ -·· - - · - · ·--.• J. Hm the labor organizations been notif1ed of the company's responsibility to comply vntb the Equal Employment Opportunity requirements mall contracts w'1th the City of Urbana? . . ..... ~· ~ ·- K. Does your company perform construr:tion. rehabilitation. alteration. conversion. demolition or repair ot buildings, highways or other improvements to real prwerty? {If yes, please complete -~Table B.) ....... ··~·- .. -~~..- · - --·--·--- ·-- .... ~.. - _ L Are you currently seeking to r·enew an existing o1· expired Urbana EEO certification? (If yes, you need to complete Table C.) ·-·~·-·-----~····· ~·--·--- -- .. L. _ _  SECTION Ill Employment Information Please complete the compa~y wnrk Ioree analysis on the bottom nf this page. Use the number of employees as ol the most rmnt payroll period. You must comple this farm in Rs entirety, as instructed and submH your arganimtian's (t) EED Statemont and (2) Sexual Harassment Policy in order to be eligible to do business with tho ~lty of Urbana. For detailed descriptions of the Job ~lassifications see attached descriptions. If minorities and females are current~ und represented in your workforce. please attach a copy of an exulanatian of your plan to recruit and hire oualified minorities and females. TABLE A- TOTAL CONTRACIDR/VENDDR WORKFORCE Black or African· American Indian White (Not af American (Nat ol Hispanic or Asian or Pacific or Alaskan Job Categories OveraiiTutals Hispanic Origin) Hispanic Origin) Latino Islander Native M F M F M F M F M F M F Officials &Mgrs Profession~;- I f ·--. -· .. • ·--T~chnicians -·---- Sales Workers ------ Office 6 Cleri~-;.T Craft Workers a... I I (Skilled) OperutivBs (Semi·Skilled) laborers (Unskillod) " ·-· Service Workers TOTAL ··- .. --··· -· ,?! :_) I M MAL£. Column Bis sum of Rows D. F. H. J and l. F " fEMAlE. Column~ IS sun10f Raws E. G. I. Kand M. --- ·-~ Date olabove Data: Lf2. -1'-/..3_ *Totals included under Table M F B should be a projection of Officl81s 6 Mgrs numbers of persons to be -·-p-~ofessionals employed in the 1echnicians performance of thn Cill' .. c---· contract. ~ales Wor·kars OfliceoCie;,~~~- - - ~-- · ~-- -+-----+-·-·····--+-~-~-1 c;:;;ftworkers · - -- - -- +------+~- · ·· ~--···· 1 For Contractors: ISkrll_e~L....... _ lJata provided in Table B Operatives will be verified bv (Semi-Skilled) -·-·+---+- ----'---~·-····-~---··· worksite inspections. Laborers (Unskilled) ---~- ---·~ SBrvice Workers TDTAL ·-- ---- ----~-- _ _ .J__ _.J.~--- TABLE C""' WORKFORCE TURNOVER SINCE PREVIOUS EEO REPORT Job Categories TOTAL MINORITY TOTAL MINORITY EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES SEPARATED SEPARATED HIRED HIRED M F M f •. M F. M F Olficials 6 Mgrs I i Prornssionals I . ··~ Technicians Sales Workm - OffiCB 8 Clerical I I Craft Workers (Skilled) ----~- Operatives (Semi-Skilled) -··-· """ laborers . (Unskilled) Service Workers TOTAL -- I I SECTION IV. Certification By signing below. the company certifms that it has answered all of the foregoing questions truthfully to the best of its knowledge and belief and agrees that it/he/she will comply and abide by the City of Urbana's Code of Ordinances (Section 2- 11~ .· . '/. f ;,'i·jl ;i {;.:)::i..>v~ 1 ,. ! •.{.er:.... ( ~.: (1} ,_/)_ ;_A1 1?:onn1eS tV¢e/ald, Signature Typed Name and Titlepy 6 ,;~-/rc;;f Date SECTION V. Verification Prior to submitting this form. please check the answers to the following questions to verify your completion of this form: I !lid you fill in all of the appropriate boxes in the table in Section Ill, includiny tha "TIJTAL" row? YES_~- NO ____ _ 2. Have you enclosed your company's EEIJ statement? YES·-"-- NO _ __ 3. Have you enclosed your company's Sexual Harassment policy? YES_...;...__ ND  EDUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY: }'/:t1 1;~-th:.,_ has undertaken a positive E.E.O Program to effectivel,y implement and enf~ce this, polic1\at ~II tim~. The 1EEO of· er or person designated for monitoring the company s E. E. D. Program is: l~?o-n niC ,J . ()} !~ JI a r a PROCEDU~ES FOR DISSEMINATION OF POLICY: A copy of this statement is posted in the main office at ill) 01: Ia rcl rna rfc!efz){;) and copies of the policy are available to employees. vendors and/or subcontractors. "-) UTILIZATION ANALYSIS: ~J J u/dY c/ fntti/t{Jfr 11 • will monitor its. worktorce and job classifications. It will analyze availability and under-utilization and respond ace& ngly. /:11 1.\ 1J l 1 rJ fJ'lu rfPh r " will attempt to advertise job vacancies in places where minorities and females may more likely become aware of the·j openings. GOALS AND TIMETABLES: ) J { t ArJ I rntt r li PA7tl, will identify those areas within its workforce in which minorities and women are being under-utilized and set up' system of goals and timetables for correcting the deficiencies. SYSTEM FOR MONITDRINe COMP lANCE AND RECRUITMENT OF WORKFORCE: When adding new employees t I Dl; {4 i cJ rrut r/ 1 ?Policy is to assure there are minorities and females in the applicant pool [lu ~ b /tJ l (YV{ t{Lf:· h llj suppo s EEO programs. . SYSTEM OF RECORDS AND ANNUAl SUMMARY: /'J oofdJ d' f1ttt r/l.JJ~ will monitor applicant data. employee records and job descriptions to assist in its Equal Employment efforts. r () i I ~~, (i . .i.J . !;) ,&v~,. - y V . . A O " - r / J I "') I Signature Date I. STATEMENT OF COMPANY POLICY This company is committed to providing a workplace that is free from all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment Any employee's behavior that fits the definition of sexual harassment is a form of misconduct which may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. Sexual harassment could also subject this company and, in some cases, an individual to substantial civil penalties. The company's policy on sexual harassment is part of its overall affirmative action efforts pursuant to state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, national origin, citizenship status, unfavorable discharge from the military, marital status, disability, and gender. Specifically, sexual harassment is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Urbana Human Rights Ordinance. Each employee of this company bears the responsibility to refrain from sexual harassment in the workplace. No employee, male or female, should be subjected to unsolicited or unwelcome sexual overtures or conduct in the workplace. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of all supervisors to make sure that the work environment is free from sexual harassment. All forms of discrimination and conduct which can be considered harassing, coercive or disruptive, or which create a hostile or offensive environment must be eliminated. Instances of sexual harassment must be investigated in a prompt and effective manner. All employees of this company, particularly those in a supervisory or management capacity, are expected to become familiar with the contents of this Policy and to abide by the requirements it establishes. II. DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT According to the Illinois Human Rights Act, sexual harassment is defined as: Any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when; (1) submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual's employment. (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. MODEL POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EMPLOYMENT.doc Page 1 of 4 The courts have determined that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991. Conduct commonly considered to be sexual harassment includes: * Verbal: sexual innuendos, suggestive comments, insults, humor and jokes about sex, anatomy or gender-specific traits, sexual propositions, threats, repeated requests for dates, or statements about other employees, even outside their presence, of a sexual nature. * Non-verbal: Suggestive or insulting sounds (whistling), leering, obscene gestures, sexually suggestive bodily gestures, "catcalls", "smacking", or "kissing" noises * Visual: posters. signs, pin-ups or slogans of a sexual nature. * Physical: Touching, unwelcome hugging or kissing, pinching, brushing the body, coerced sexual intercourse, or actual assault. Sexual harassment most frequently involves a man harassing a woman. However, it can also involve a woman harassing a man or harassment between members of the same gender. Ill. RESPONSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. Each individual employee has the responsibility to refrain from sexual harassment in the workplace. An individual employee who sexually harasses a fellow worker is, of course, liable for his or her individual conduct. The harassing employee will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge in accord with the company's disciplinary policy and the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement. rr , . .j ·Jr I . ! r/ .,. The company has designated [JO.Jnfltl.::'· ill ]0/aiQName), (t f!~tc t::>n( -J- (Title) to U9oordinate1 the company's sexual harass!Jlent H~licy compliance. Mr./Ms. r IV ,, DI 0 a can be reached at :J../7 -3 c;J "';)Lf c; J (Address and Telephone). [NOTE: Insert the name of the company's EEO Officer, Human Resource Administrator, Personnel Officer, or other person designated by company management to coordinate compliance with this policy] He/She is available to consult with employees regarding their obligations under this policy. IV. RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES. Each supervisor is responsible for maintaining the workplace free from sexual harassment. This is accomplished by promoting a professional environment and by dealing with sexual harassment as with all other forms of employee misconduct. MODEL POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EMPLOYMENT.doc Page 2 of4 A supervisor must address an observed incident of sexual harassment or a complaint, with seriousness, take prompt action to investigate it, report it, and end it, implement appropriate disciplinary action, and observe strict confidentiality. This also applies to cases where an employee tells the supervisor about behavior that constitutes sexual harassment but does not want to make a formal complaint. In addition, supervisors must ensure that no retaliation will result against an employee making a sexual harassment complaint Supervisors in need of information regarding their obligations under this policy or p~ . ceduresjo f_f?lloy.t upon receipt of a complai .of __sexual arassment should contact n/JI f . {;Uczta 1r:1 (Name), · ·rGS., d.;;_, (Title) at n ::7\ -,3t;'LJ "''::; Y0j (Address and telephone). [NOTE: Insert name of company EEO Officer, Human Resource Administrator, Personnel Officer, or other person designated by company management] V. PROCEDURES FOR FILING A COMPLAINT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT A. INTERNAL An employee who either observes or believes herself/himself to be the object of sexual harassment should deal with the incident(s) as directly and firmly as possible by clearly communicating her/his position to the supervisor, EEO Officer*, and to the offending employee. It is not necessary for the sexual harassment to be directed at the person making the complaint. Each incident of sexual harassment should be documented or recorded. A note should be made of the date, time, place, what was said or done, and by whom. The documentation may be augmented by written records such as letters, notes, memos, and telephone messages. No one making a complaint of sexual harassment will be retaliated against even if a complaint made in good faith is not substantiated. Any witness to an incident of sexual harassment is also protected from retaliation. The process for making a complaint about sexual harassment falls into several stages. 1. DIRECT COMMUNICATION. If there is sexually harassing behavior in the workplace, the harassed employee should directly and clearly express her\his objection that the conduct is unwelcome and request that the offending behavior stop. The initial message may be verbal. If subsequent messages are needed, they should be put in writing in a note or a memo. 2. CONTACT SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL. At the same time direct communication is undertaken, or in the event the employee feels threatened or intimidated by the situation, the problem must be promptly reported to the immediate supervisor or the EEO Officer. If the harasser is the immediate supervisor, the problem should be reported to the next level of supervision of the EEO Officer. MODEL POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN EMPLOYMENT.doc Page 3 of4 3. FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINT. An employee may also report incidents of sexual harassment directly to the EEO Officer. The EEO Officer will counsel the reporting employee and be available to assist with filing a formal complaint. The Company will fully investigate the complaint, and will advise the complainant and the alleged harasser of the results of the investigation. B. EXTERNAL The Company hopes that any incident of sexual harassment can be resolved through the internal process outlined above. All employees, however, have the right to file formal charges with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or the Urbana Human Relations Commission (UHRC). A charge with IDHR must be filed within 180 days of the incident of sexual harassment. A charge with EEOC must be filed within 300 days of the incident. A charge with UHRC must be filed within 90 days of the incident. Name, Title and Date Authorized Company Official MODEL POLICY ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT fN EMPLOYMENT.doc Page 4 of 4  MONTHLY COMPLAINT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE RESPONSE DAYS FROM DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION CASE # FILED RECEIVED DATE RESPONSE TYPE TYPE STATUS/DISPOSITION UC1106-03 6/15/2011 8/30/2011 11/12/13 805 RACE, SEX, AGE, RETALIATION EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULING MEDIATION SETTLED - COMPLAINANT RECEIVED UC1303-02 3/1/2013 4/30/2013 11/12/13 196 PRIOR CONVICTION EMPLOYMENT FULL BACK WAGES PREPARING 2ND REQUEST FOR UC1301-01 3/27/2013 4/29/2013 11/12/13 197 RACE EMPLOYMENT INFORMAITON UC1303-03 3/15/2013 4/30/2013 11/12/13 196 RETALIATION (UC1106-03) EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULING MEDIATION UC1304-06 4/26/2013 6/14/2013 11/12/13 151 SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER EMPLOYMENT FACT-FINDING MEETING RESCHEDULED UC1307-09 7/17/2013 8/31/2013 11/12/2013 73 RACE EMPLOYMENT SCHEDULING FACT-FINDING MEETING UC1310-10 10/31/2013 NA 11/12/2013 #VALUE! PRIOR CONVICTION EMPLOYMENT AWAITING INITIAL RESPONSE UC1311-11 11/52013 NA 11/12/2013 #VALUE! SOURCE OF INCOME (SEC 8) HOUSING ISSUE RESOLVED Page 1 DEC 2013 CASE STATUS  MONTHLY COMPLAINT ACTIVITY REPORT.xlsx TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION ALLEGED PROTECTED CLASS BASIS DISPOSITION DATE EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW Oct-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT FILED Nov-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT FILED Nov-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE NO JURISDICTION Nov-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT FILED Dec-11 EMPLOYMENT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND COMPLAINT FILED Dec-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT DID NOT SHOW TO 1ST MEETING Dec-11 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT FILED Jan-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO CHAMPAIGN Jan-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO CHAMPAIGN Feb-12 HOUSING NATIONAL ORIGIN/RELIGION RESOLVED Mar-12 EMPLOYMENT RETALIATION INTAKE MEETING SCHEDULED Mar-12 EMPLOYMENT NO BASIS NO JURISDICTION Mar-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE IDHR CASE Apr-12 EMPLOYMENT MILITARY STATUS WAITING FOR CONTACT FROM COMPLAINANT Apr-12 EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL ORIGIN REFERRED TO IDHR Nov-12 EMPLOYMENT NO BASIS NO JURISDICTION Nov-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE COMPLAINT TO BE FILED Nov-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE/GENDER COMPLAINANT DID NOT SHOW TO 1ST MEETING Nov-12 EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, ETC COMPLAINT FILED Dec-12 EMPLOYMENT RELIGION COMPLAINT FILED Dec-12 EMPLOYMENT GENDER, RETALIATION COMPLAINT FILED Dec-12 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE Jan-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE WAITING FOR DECISION FROM COMPLAINANT Jan-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE NO SHOW Feb-13 EMPLOYMENT AGE IDHR CASE Feb-13 HOUSING NO BASIS NO JURISDICTION Feb-13 EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT BEING DRAFTED Mar-13 EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL DISABILITY/RETALIATION COMPLAINT BEING DRAFTED Mar-13 EMPLOYMENT PRIOR CONVICTION COMPLAINT FILED Mar-13 EMPLOYMENT RETALIATION COMPLAINT FILED Mar-13 EMPLOYMENT GENDER REFERRED TO CHAMPAIGN Apr-13 EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT/RETALIATION COMPLAINT FILED Apr-13 EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION COMPLAINT FILED Apr-13 HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT NATIONAL ORIGIN COMPLAINT DID NOT SHOW TO COMPLAINT SIGNING May-13 EMPLOYMENT GENDER NO JURISDICTION; REFERRED TO CHAMPAIGN May-13 HOUSING NO BASIS NO JURISDICTION; REFERRED TO TENANTS UNION Jun-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE NO JURISDICTION; REFERRED TO IDHR Jun-13 EMPLOYMENT UNKNOWN WAITING FOR CONTACT FROM COMPLAINANT May-13 HOUSING NO BASIS NO JURISDICTION Jun-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE/ETHNICITY WAITING FOR CONTACT FROM COMPLAINANT Jun-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO CHAMPAIGN/IDHR Jul-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE NO JURISDICTION Jul-13 HOUSING RACE/ETHNICITY/CREDIT ISSUE RESOLVED Aug-13 HOUSING RACE/ETHNICITY/CREDIT ISSUE RESOLVED Aug-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO IDHR Aug-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE REFERRED TO IDHR Sep-13 EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT SCHEDULED INITIAL MEETING Oct-13 HOUSING SECTION 8 ISSUE RESOLVED Nov-13 HOUSING NATIONAL ORIGIN WAITING FOR CONTACT FROM COMPLAINANT Nov-13 EMPLOYMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT NO JURISDICTION REFERRED TO IDHR Nov-13 HOUSING SECTION 8 NO INJURY Dec-13 EMPLOYMENT RACE WAITING FOR DECISION FROM COMPLAINANT Dec-13 DEC 2013 SUBST CONTACTS Page 1  Human Relations Commission Budget FY 2013-2014 Line Item Date Description Debit Credit Balance 020-3-1200-2012 (Books - Commission Budget) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 200 020-3-1200-2016 (HR Meeting Expenses) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 150 020-3-1300-3027 (Training - Commission Budget) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 1500 020-3-1300-3060 (HR Hearing Officer/Legal) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 9500 10/11/2013 Donald R. Jackson 170.67 9329.33 020-3-1300-3062 (Traffic Stop Stat. Study) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 500 020-3-1300-3102 (Grants/Sponsorships - Commission) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 1500 020-3-1300-3120 (Community Education - Commission) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 1500 020-3-1300-3422 (Printing - Commission Budget) 7/1/2013 Beginning Balance 400