(a) Purpose: A job group analysis is a method of combining job titles within the contractor's establishment. This is the first step in the contractor's comparison of the representation of minorities and women in its workforce with the estimated availability of minorities and women qualified to be employed.
(b) In the job group analysis, jobs at the establishment with similar content, wage rates, and opportunities, must be combined to form job groups. Similarity of content refers to the duties and responsibilities of the job titles which make up the job group. Similarity of opportunities refers to training, transfers, promotions, pay, mobility, and other career enhancement opportunities offered by the jobs within the job group.
(c) The job group analysis must include a list of the job titles that comprise each job group. If, pursuant to § 60-2.1(d) and (e) the job group analysis contains jobs that are located at another establishment, the job group analysis must be annotated to identify the actual location of those jobs. If the establishment at which the jobs actually are located maintains an affirmative action program, the job group analysis of that program must be annotated to identify the program in which the jobs are included.
(d) Except as provided in § 60-2.1(d), all jobs located at an establishment must be reported in the job group analysis of that establishment.
(e) Smaller employers: If a contractor has a total workforce of fewer than 150 employees, the contractor may prepare a job group analysis that utilizes EEO-1 categories as job groups. EEO-1 categories refers to the nine occupational groups used in the Standard Form 100, the Employer Information EEO-1 Survey: Officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales, office and clerical, craft workers (skilled), operatives (semiskilled), laborers (unskilled), and service workers.
Notes of Decisions
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 114 F. Supp. 3d 110 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
“41 C.F.R. § 60-2.12 (b). Since Goldman Sachs was required to classify its employees into AAP job groups precisely on the basis of both similarity of duties, and responsibilities and opportunities for compensation .”
Legal Aid Soc'y v. Brennan, 608 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 8× “” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.12 (g). 18 Affirmative action programs “shall contain” the additional ingredients listed in 41 C.”
O'Connor v. Chrysler Corp., 86 F.R.D. 211 (D. Mass. 1980).
“41 CFR § 60-2.12 (a) states in part: The goals and timetables developed by the contractor should be attainable in terms of the contractor’s analysis of its deficiencies and its entire affirmative action program.”
['associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Shiu'], 30 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2014).
“” 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.12 . Construction contractors must group their workforce by “construction trade” and use those groups to fdllow “goals and timetables for minority and female utilization.”
Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Med. Grp., Inc., 178 F.R.D. 116 (S.D. Tex. 1997).
“11 (b); failure to submit adequate data to allow for a meaningful analysis of personnel activity, in violation of 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.12 (m); failure to develop and execute adequate action-oriented programs, in violation of 41 C.”
Bhd. of Midwest Guardians, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 9 F.3d 677 (8th Cir. 1993).
“First of all, we observe that the word “goals” is a narrow term of art, a word with a well-known and fixed technical meaning, in the context of affirmative action plans.”
Lawrence Aviation Indus., Inc. v. Reich, 28 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
“First, on January 12, 1983, the Department of Labor sent LAI a letter stating that it had failed to make a good faith effort to recruit women into its workforce and to meet any of the goals in its 1981 affirmative action program in conformance with 41 C.”
— 41 C.F.R. § 60-2.12(m) — 1 case
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.