Methodology & Sources

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, covering hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Title VII also covers hostile work environment claims (harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment) and retaliation against employees who engage in protected activity.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. The ADAAA (2008) significantly broadened the definition of disability, directing courts to construe coverage broadly.

Protected individuals include those with an actual disability, a record of disability, or those who are regarded as having a disability. The interactive process for accommodation requests is a legal obligation, not optional.

The ADEA prohibits discrimination against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. It covers hiring, discharge, pay, promotion, and other employment terms. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees.

Under Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009), ADEA plaintiffs must prove age was the "but-for" cause of the adverse action — a stricter standard than mixed-motive claims under Title VII.

The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. Jobs need not be identical — only "substantially equal" in skill, effort, and responsibility, performed under similar working conditions.

Employers may justify pay differences based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or any factor other than sex. These are affirmative defenses that the employer bears the burden of proving.

GINA prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information. This includes an individual's genetic test results, family medical history, and requests for genetic testing. GINA also restricts employers from acquiring genetic information about employees or their family members.

The PDA amended Title VII to clarify that discrimination "because of sex" includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Employers must treat pregnant employees the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA, 2023) further requires reasonable accommodations for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions — closing gaps left by the ADA and PDA.

The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for specified family and medical reasons. FMLA retaliation and interference claims are among the most common employment complaints.

FMLA is enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL), not EEOC. However, FMLA violations frequently intersect with ADA, Title VII, and ADEA claims — particularly when leave is taken for a disability or pregnancy-related condition.

CM-602 establishes how EEOC investigators evaluate and weigh evidence when investigating discrimination charges. It defines the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, establishes credibility standards for witness testimony, and sets out how investigators should assess the totality of evidence.

This section is the foundation of FairLens's evidence classification system. Every piece of evidence submitted to FairLens is scored against the CM-602 framework before factoring into the overall ACIF score.

Read CM-602 on EEOC.gov →

Section 2 covers threshold requirements: whether the employer is covered by the statute, whether the complainant is a covered employee, timely filing of charges, and other jurisdictional prerequisites. These issues must be resolved before merits analysis.

Read Section 2 on EEOC.gov →

This guidance defines what constitutes a high-quality, impartial investigation — covering investigative completeness, neutrality standards, documentation requirements, and the criteria for adequate factual development before making cause determinations.

Read Quality Practices on EEOC.gov →

Chapter 6 of MD-110 governs how federal sector investigators must develop factual records — defining what evidence must be gathered, how witness interviews should be conducted, and the standards for documentary evidence collection.

Read Chapter 6 on EEOC.gov →

This guidance covers the full scope of retaliation protections under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, the EPA, GINA, the PDA, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It addresses what constitutes protected activity, what adverse actions trigger the anti-retaliation provisions, and the causal standard for retaliation claims.

Retaliation is the most frequently filed charge with the EEOC — accounting for over 55% of all charges in recent years.

Read Retaliation Guidance on EEOC.gov →

The EEOC publishes guidance across dozens of specific subject areas, from national origin discrimination to religious accommodations to criminal background checks. FairLens incorporates relevant subject-specific guidance into its analysis modules for each covered basis.

Browse all EEOC guidance by subject area →

The McDonnell Douglas framework is the foundational analytical structure for employment discrimination cases lacking direct evidence of discriminatory intent. It establishes a three-step burden-shifting analysis:

1. Prima facie case — The complainant establishes a presumption of discrimination by showing: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position; (3) an adverse employment action; (4) circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (e.g., replaced by someone outside the protected class).
2. Legitimate, non-discriminatory reason — The burden shifts to the employer to articulate a lawful, non-pretextual reason for the adverse action. This is a burden of production only — the employer need not prove the reason was the actual motivation.
3. Pretext — The burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate that the employer's stated reason is pretextual — i.e., false, inconsistent, or insufficient to explain the action.

Disparate impact theory allows claims where an employer's neutral policy or practice disproportionately excludes members of a protected class, even absent discriminatory intent. Established in Griggs v. Duke Power and codified into Title VII by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The analytical framework: (1) complainant demonstrates statistical disparity; (2) employer must demonstrate business necessity; (3) complainant may still prevail by showing a less discriminatory alternative existed.

The Supreme Court held in Burlington Northern that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers any employer action that would "dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." This is a broader standard than the "ultimate employment decisions" test previously used by some circuits.

This means adverse actions don't have to involve termination or demotion to constitute retaliation — schedule changes, shifts, reassignments, and even threats or heightened scrutiny can qualify if a reasonable employee would be deterred from reporting discrimination.

The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has developed analytical frameworks for Title VI (prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal funding) that parallel and complement EEOC's employment discrimination frameworks. These include pattern-or-practice investigation methodologies, systemic discrimination analysis, and statistical evidence standards.

The standard EEOC investigation follows a defined procedural sequence:

1. Charge Intake — Employee files a charge (or FairLens complaint intake mirrors this); EEOC notifies the employer within 10 days
2. Respondent Position Statement — Employer submits a detailed written response to the allegations, including supporting documentation
3. Charging Party Rebuttal — Employee has the opportunity to respond to the employer's position statement
4. Evidence Gathering — EEOC may request additional information, conduct interviews, or issue subpoenas for records
5. Cause Determination — EEOC issues either a "Cause" finding (reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred) or "No Cause" dismissal
6. Conciliation / Right to Sue — If cause found, EEOC attempts conciliation; if unsuccessful, issues Right to Sue letter

The EEOC's Respondent Portal is the digital system through which employers submit position statements, supporting documents, and other responses to EEOC charges. Understanding the portal's requirements helps employers structure their internal documentation to match what the EEOC will actually need.

What to expect after a charge is filed — EEOC.gov →

The EEOC uses PCHP to categorize charges by merit priority: Category A (charges most likely to result in a cause finding, including systemic charges), Category B (charges requiring additional investigation), and Category C (charges with little likelihood of a cause finding, typically dismissed early).

Understanding how EEOC prioritizes charges helps employers understand which complaints warrant the most aggressive internal investigation and documentation — even before a formal EEOC charge is filed.

FairLens classifies every piece of evidence into one of four tiers based on its probative weight under the CM-602 framework. Evidence is never inflated above its proper tier, and final ACIF scores reflect the aggregate weight of all submitted evidence.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides significantly broader protections than federal law:

• Harassment threshold: California applies a lower bar — harassment need not be "severe or pervasive" to the same degree as Title VII; courts apply a "totality of circumstances" analysis that is more favorable to plaintiffs.
• Supervisor liability: California holds employers strictly liable for supervisor harassment — no affirmative defense available (unlike the Faragher/Ellerth federal framework).
• Extended filing window: AB 9 (2019) extended the deadline to file harassment complaints from 1 year to 3 years.
• Mandatory harassment training: SB 1343 requires all employers with 5+ employees to provide 2-hour harassment prevention training to supervisors and 1-hour training to non-supervisory employees.
• Pay transparency: SB 1162 requires pay scale disclosure in job postings and pay data reporting to the CRD.

New York's 2019 NYSHRL amendments and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) set among the highest employee-protection standards in the country:

• Harassment standard (NYCHRL): Treats any differential treatment based on a protected characteristic as a violation — no "severe or pervasive" requirement at all. Employers must show conduct was a "petty slight or trivial inconvenience" to avoid liability.
• NYSHRL (statewide): 2019 amendments removed the "severe or pervasive" standard; harassment is actionable if it subjects a person to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
• Extended filing window: 3 years for NYSHRL complaints (extended in 2019).
• Employer size: NYCHRL applies to employers with 4+ employees; some provisions cover all employers.
• Pay transparency: NYC and statewide pay transparency laws require salary ranges in job postings.

Illinois enacted significant workplace transparency reforms:

• Workplace Transparency Act: Restricts nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and mandatory arbitration clauses in settlement agreements for sexual harassment claims. Requires annual anti-harassment training for all employers.
• Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA): Covers employers with 1+ employees for sexual harassment (vs. federal 15+ minimum). Extends to independent contractors in many circumstances.
• Expanded bases: Illinois adds protections for order of protection status, arrest record, and unfavorable discharge from military service — bases not covered by federal law.
• Pay transparency: Illinois requires pay scale disclosure in job postings (effective 2023).

Multiple states have enacted protections exceeding federal minimums. Key categories include:

• Paid leave laws: Colorado (FAMLI), Washington (Paid Family & Medical Leave), Massachusetts (PFML), Connecticut, Oregon, and others require paid leave beyond FMLA — with their own anti-retaliation provisions.
• Pay transparency laws: Colorado, Washington, New York, California, Illinois, and others require pay scale disclosure in job postings. FairLens flags violations in pay equity analysis for applicable jurisdictions.
• Expanded accommodation requirements: Many states require reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions, domestic violence situations, or religious practices beyond federal minimums.
• Additional protected bases: States including New Jersey (credit history, domestic partnership status), Washington (citizenship/immigration status), and others cover characteristics not protected under federal law.