Skip to content
Home
  • Careers
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • People
  • Business Services
  • Personal Services
  • The Latest

About Shulman Rogers

About Shulman Rogers
Diversity
Community
Careers

Our People

View All Attorneys
Attorneys
Paralegals
Key Administrative Staff
Women in Law
Careers

Business Services and Industries

View All Business Services & Industries
  • Business and Financial Services
  • Cannabis Law
  • Commercial Lending
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • Entertainment Law
  • Government Contracts
  • Hospitality Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • Startups and Emerging Growth Companies
  • Real Estate
  • Tax

Personal Services

View All Personal Services
  • Civil Litigation
  • Criminal Defense
  • Divorce and Family Law
  • Guardianship
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Personal Injury
  • Dental Medical Malpractice
  • Real Estate
  • Wills, Trusts, Estates and Probate
View Services A-Z
  • Home
  • About
    • About Shulman Rogers
    • Diversity
    • Community
    • Careers
  • People
    • Attorneys
    • Paralegals
    • Key Administrative Staff
    • Women in Law
    • Careers
  • Business Services
  • Personal Services
  • The Latest
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

The Latest

Employment Law Alert – EEOC Issues New Guidance on Caregiver Discrimination and COVID-19

March 21, 2022


On March 14, 2022, the EEOC issued new guidance regarding caregiver discrimination and the COVID-19 pandemic.  The guidance explains that although federal employment discrimination laws do not prohibit employment discrimination based solely on caregiver status, employers cannot discriminate against an applicant or employee who is a caregiver based on a protected characteristic (race, color, religion, age, disability, national origin, or genetic information).  The guidance also explains that caregiver discrimination is unlawful if it is based on an applicant or employee’s association with an individual with a disability or other protected characteristic of the individual for whom care is provided.

The guidance provides some examples of unlawful discrimination and harassment based on an applicant’s or employee’s pandemic-related caregiving responsibilities, including:

  • Refusing an employee’s request for unpaid leave to care for a parent with long-term COVID that is a disability, while approving other employees’ requests for unpaid leave to handle other personal responsibilities;
  • Refusing to promote an employee who is the primary caregiver of a child with a mental health disability that worsened during the pandemic, based on the employer’s assumption that the employee would not be fully available to coworkers and clients, or committed to the job, because of the employee’s caregiving obligations;
  • Declining to hire an applicant because the applicant’s wife has a disability that puts her at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, and the employer fears that its health insurance costs will increase if the applicant’s wife is added to its healthcare plan;
  • Criticizing or ridiculing male employees for seeking to perform, or performing, caregiving duties, such as taking leave to care for a child who is quarantining after potential COVID-19 exposure, or limiting overnight travel, based on gender stereotypes of men as breadwinners and women as caretakers; and
  • Questioning, without merit, the professional dedication of employees caring for individuals with disabilities who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, or mocking such employees on that basis for taking pandemic precautionary measures to avoid infection.

In addition, the guidance makes clear that federal employment discrimination laws do not provide employees with a right to accommodations to handle caregiving duties.  However, employees with caregiving responsibilities may have rights under other laws, such as the right to leave for covered caregiving purposes under the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Moreover, employers are not required to excuse poor performance resulting from employees’ caregiving duties, but they may not inconsistently apply workplace discipline policies based on an employee’s protected characteristic.  

If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work.

CONTACT

Meredith “Merry” Campbell

Joy C. Einstein

Alexander I. Castelli

MORE INFORMATION

The contents of this Alert are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact the Shulman Rogers attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Shulman Rogers Employment and Labor Law Group.

SUBSCRIBE

From time to time, Shulman Rogers shares Legal Alerts like this one to provide timely and valuable information to our clients and friends. If you would like to subscribe to receive Legal Alerts via email from Shulman Rogers, please click HERE.

Stay up to date with all the latest news and events.

Receive Our Newsletter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Receive our Newsletter
12505 Park Potomac Avenue
Potomac, MD 20854
PH: 301-230-5200
8200 Greensboro Drive
Suite 701
McLean, VA 22102
PH: 703-684-5200
1100 New York Avenue NW
West Tower, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
PH: 202-872-0400
277 South Washington Street
Suite 310
Alexandria, VA 22314
PH: 703-682-8267
The Banner Building at McHenry Row
1215 East Fort Avenue, Suite 301
Baltimore, MD 21230
PH: 410-520-1340
  • © 2025 Shulman Rogers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Careers
  • Contact Us