41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11

Organizational profile

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purpose. An organizational profile is a depiction of the staffing pattern within an establishment. It is one method contractors use to determine whether barriers to equal employment opportunity exist in their organizations. The profile provides an overview of the workforce at the establishment that may assist in identifying organizational units where women or minorities are underrepresented or concentrated. The contractor must use either the organizational display or the workforce analysis as its organizational profile:

(b) Organizational display. (1) An organizational display is a detailed graphical or tabular chart, text, spreadsheet or similar presentation of the contractor's organizational structure. The organizational display must identify each organizational unit in the establishment, and show the relationship of each organizational unit to the other organizational units in the establishment.

(2) An organizational unit is any component that is part of the contractor's corporate structure. In a more traditional organization, an organizational unit might be a department, division, section, branch, group or similar component. In a less traditional organization, an organizational unit might be a project team, job family, or similar component. The term includes an umbrella unit (such as a department) that contains a number of subordinate units, and it separately includes each of the subordinate units (such as sections or branches).

(3) For each organizational unit, the organizational display must indicate the following:

(i) The name of the unit;

(ii) The job title, gender, race, and ethnicity of the unit supervisor (if the unit has a supervisor);

(iii) The total number of male and female incumbents; and

(iv) the total number of male and female incumbents in each of the following groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives.

(c) Workforce analysis. (1) A workforce analysis is a listing of each job title as appears in applicable collective bargaining agreements or payroll records ranked from the lowest paid to the highest paid within each department or other similar organizational unit including departmental or unit supervision.

(2) If there are separate work units or lines of progression within a department, a separate list must be provided for each such work unit, or line, including unit supervisors. For lines of progression there must be indicated the order of jobs in the line through which an employee could move to the top of the line.

(3) Where there are no formal progression lines or usual promotional sequences, job titles should be listed by department, job families, or disciplines, in order of wage rates or salary ranges.

(4) For each job title, the total number of incumbents, the total number of male and female incumbents, and the total number of male and female incumbents in each of the following groups must be given: Blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives. The wage rate or salary range for each job title must be given. All job titles, including all managerial job titles, must be listed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1974–2001 · leading case: Legal Aid Soc'y of Alameda Cnty. v. Brennan, 381 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Cal. 1974).
Legal Aid Soc'y of Alameda Cnty. v. Brennan, 381 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Cal. 1974). · cites it 7× “nd convincing showing that each of the 29 affirmative action programs approved by the USDA for Alameda County contractors is in violation of the regulations in one or more of the following respects: (1) they contain inadequate utilization analyses which are designed to show each…”
O'Connor v. Chrysler Corp., 86 F.R.D. 211 (D. Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “” 41 CFR § 60-2.11 requires the employer to include in the plan a utilization analysis, and details the factors the employer must consider in determining whether minorities are being underutilized.”
Legal Aid Soc'y v. Brennan, 608 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 7× “The factors to be considered in analyzing minority and female utilization and in formulating goals and timetables for correcting underutilizations are spelled out in 41 C.F.R. §§ 60-2.11 and 2.12. Certain additional ingredients required of acceptable affirmative action programs…”
Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Med. Grp., Inc., 178 F.R.D. 116 (S.D. Tex. 1997). · cites it 2× “On July 13, 1995, the OFCCP issued a "Notice of Violation” to Kelsey-Seybold, finding that Kelsey-Seybold had violated several federal employment practice regulations primarily relating to: failure to list each job title as it appears on payroll records ranked from lowest paid…”
Timken Co. v. Vaughan, 413 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. Ohio 1976). · cites it 3× “In addition, the Company’s goals and timetables are unrealistic and not in consonance with requirements of 41 CFR 60-2.11 and 60-2.12 respectively.” Said letter concluded by informing Timken of its right to respond to said charges and to request a hearing thereon.”
Hannon v. Chater, 887 F. Supp. 1303 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 (b). "OFCCP rules do not give precise standards for judging underutilization, but three basic approaches are possible.”
Tharp v. Sivyer Steel Corp., 149 F.R.D. 177 (S.D. Iowa 1993). “40 (1992) (federal contractors with more than 50 employees and contracts worth more than $50,000 must develop a written affirmative action plan and file written reports on its implementation); 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 (setting out required utilization analysis to be performed by…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 419 F. Supp. 1022 (E.D. Pa. 1976). · cites it 3× “Both principles flow from the requirements of the Executive Order that goals and timetables be related to specific labor markets, 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 and 2.12, and that jobs be identified according to functional similarities, inter-relationships and wage levels, 41 C.”
Reid v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., 199 F.R.D. 379 (N.D. Ga. 2001). “See 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 (b). Lockheed argues that, because it can choose how to define its own job groups and how to weigh the eight factors, the process constitutes self-critical analysis.”
Hollander v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 450 F. Supp. 496 (D. Conn. 1978). “41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 (a). Once the self-analysis is completed, the employer is to identify obstacles to ■ the full utilization of minorities and women that may account for their representation in small numbers in particular categories.”
Honadle v. Univ. of Vermont & State Agric. Coll., 56 F. Supp. 2d 419 (D. Vt. 1999). “” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11 . 18. A “utilization analysis,” as it is called, generally requires contractors to determine the gender and ethnic/racial composition of employees participating in its workforce by job group, to estimate the availability of qualified individuals in the…”
— 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.11(a) — 3 cases
Legal Aid Soc'y of Alameda Cnty. v. Brennan, 381 F. Supp. 125 (N.D. Cal. 1974). “nd convincing showing that each of the 29 affirmative action programs approved by the USDA for Alameda County contractors is in violation of the regulations in one or more of the following respects: (1) they contain inadequate utilization analyses which are designed to show each…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.