Update to EEOC Mandatory Posters: New QR Code for Filing Charges

October 20, 2022

On October 19th the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released the ‘Know Your Rights’ poster. The new poster is meant to replace the former mandatory signage commonly known as the “EEO is the Law” poster. Under Federal law, every employer covered by the non-discrimination and EEO laws is required to post on its premises the "Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law" poster. The old “EEO is the Law” posters stressed several fundamental components of the law enforced by the EEO, including the prohibition of discrimination based on:


  1. Race, color, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, religion,
  2. Age (40 and older),
  3. Equal pay,
  4. Disability,
  5. Genetic information (including family medical history or genetic tests or services), and includes
  6. Retaliation for filing a charge, reasonably opposing discrimination, or participating in a discrimination lawsuit, investigation, or proceeding.


In addition to the information on the old poster, the new “Know Your Rights” poster includes a QR code for applicants or employees to link directly to instructions on how to file a charge of workplace discrimination with the EEOC. Employees are now able to use their smartphone cameras to directly access the website to begin the process of filing a complaint with the EEOC. Charlotte A. Burrows, Chair of the EEOC, also stated that, “by using plain language and bullet points, the new poster makes it easier for employers to understand their legal responsibilities and for workers to understand their legal rights and how to contact EEOC for assistance. The poster advances the EEOC’s mission both to prevent unlawful employment discrimination and remedy discrimination when it occurs.”


As well as the inclusion of the QR codes, the new posters also stresses that harassment is a prohibited forms of discrimination and clarifies that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy and related conditions, sexual orientation, or gender identity.



Additionally, the EEOC’s release reiterated the requirements for displaying the poster, stating, “the posters should be placed in a conspicuous location in the workplace where notices to applicants and employees are customarily posted.”


In conjunction with displaying physical copies of the poster on premises, employers are now encouraged to post a notice digitally on their websites in a conspicuous location. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that the posters be placed in a location that is accessible to person with limited mobility. In most cases, electronic posting supplements the physical posting requirement. In some situations (for example, for employers without a physical location or work remotely and do not visit the employer's workplace on a regular basis), it may be the only posting.


If you have questions about the updated EEOC guidelines, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

April 25, 2025
Case Overview: An Asian-American postal worker, Dawn Lui, allegedly became the target of a racial and gender-based harassment campaign after being assigned to lead a new location in 2014. Lui started working at the United States Postal Service (USPS) in 1992 and was promoted to postmaster in 2004, without issue or complaints. Both Lui and her supervisor agree that the coworkers at her new location called her racially motivated names, created false complaints and racially based rumors like that she couldn’t read or speak English, and created a rumor that she was engaging in a sexual relationship with her supervisor. Lui states that she was interviewed in an internal investigation about the alleged sexual relationship. She believes the allegations were created because the supervisor in question is married to an Asian woman. The supervisor claims that HR disregarded his complaints about racial bias regarding the employee. Where They Went Wrong: HR and labor relations officials proposed a demotion for Lui based off of the contested allegations. The demotion required Lui’s supervisor’s signature to move forward. The supervisor refused to sign the demotion and again brought up his concerns that the allegations were baseless and racially motivated. Because of his refusal to sign the demotion paperwork, he was temporarily removed from his position and replaced. His replacement signed off on the demotion and an investigation was not launched after the supervisor’s refusal. Lui appealed the demotion internally and a “neutral” official started an “independent” investigation. USPS argued that this investigation cleared them of making racial and sex based discriminatory actions. Given the possible racial bias and demotion that occurred in this case, Lui filed suit against USPS alleging disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. After the United States District Court for the District of Washington granted summary judgment to USPS on all of the Plaintiff’s claims, the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the USDC’s granting of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, but they found the USDC erred in their finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination when they issued summary judgment on the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. The Ninth Circuit found that Lui had been removed from her position and demoted to a smaller location with a pay cut, and she was replaced by a white man with less experience. The Ninth Circuit also found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the decision to demote Lui was independent or influenced by subordinate bias. The official never interviewed witnesses, ignored the reports about racial bias, and solely went off the existing reports used in the original decision. The concerns that the employee’s supervisor raised that the allegations were fabricated and racially motived had not been investigated or addressed. The court ruled that a jury could reasonably find that the “independent” investigation wasn’t truly independent. The Court relied heavily on the Cat’s Paw theory of liability. The Cat’s Paw Theory is an employment discrimination doctrine name after the fable “the Monkey and the Cat” by Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable the cat is enticed by the monkey to retrieve chestnuts from the embers of a fire so they both can share. In the fable the monkey eats the chestnuts while the cat has nothing but burned paws. It came to refer to someone doing dirty work on another’s behalf. It made its way into employment law in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.C. 411 (2011). An employer can be held liable for discrimination if the information used in the employment decision was based off a biased supervisor, or other biased employee. Even if the ultimate decision maker was not biased, the information remains tainted. Employer Takeaways: Independent investigations are only independent when an independent investigator re-reviews the information available and interviews witness(es) directly. Having an investigator blindly sign off on an investigation that others allege to be racially motivated without due diligence to verify a lack of bias allows bias to seep into employment decisions. If a separate investigation had been conducted, with fresh interviews from a non-biased 3 rd party, the decision would have been free of the original allegations, and the employer would have avoided liability in subsequent suit. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.