Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Indiana Ranks 13th In EEOC Charges Received by State

For the first time ever, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently released a state-by-state analysis of charges received.  The statistics cover 2009-2011 and the link can found here

The top five states receiving the most charges were, in order, Texas (9952), Florida (8088), California (7166), Illinois (6098), and Georgia (5599). Commentators have noted these states’ large populations generally, as well as high numbers of individuals most vulnerable to discrimination, as contributing to the charge numbers. 

Indiana ranked 13th in the number of charges filed with the EEOC with a total of 2940 charge filings in 2011.* Indiana’s total equaled 2.9 percent of all EEOC charges filed nationwide in 2011. According to the EEOC, 252 fewer charges were filed in Indiana in 2011 than were filed in 2010 (3192). 

Retaliation was the most common charge alleged in Indiana (filed in 33.5 percent of cases), followed by race discrimination (32 percent), sex discrimination (28.7 percent), disability discrimination (28.6 percent), age discrimination (22.2 percent), national origin discrimination (7.2 percent), and religious discrimination (2.8 percent). National origin discrimination is the only type of bias that saw a significant increase in charges from 2010 to 2011.

With almost 100,000 charges filed with the EEOC every year, and over 11 new EEOC charge complaints on average being filed every workday in Indiana, employers must remain vigilant with regard to their hiring, firing, and other employment decisions and practices.

*It is important to note that these statistics do not account for charges filed and processed solely by state agencies, such as the Indiana Civil  Rights C

ommission.  

 

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Associate

Holt Hedrick is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, where he is a member of the firm's Labor & Employment Law Department. Mr. Hedrick's practice focuses on a wide range of issues within the scope of labor and employment law, including discrimination suits, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, and employer consultations. Mr. Hedrick also has extensive experience as a commercial litigator, including defending companies against class actions, mass torts, federal privacy statutory claims, and breach of contract/warranty claims. Mr. Hedrick practices...

317-231-6438

About the Author

Partner

R. Anthony Prather is a partner in the Indianapolis, Indiana office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He has a full-service practice representing management interests exclusively in all aspects of labor and employment law and litigation including workplace investigations, audits, supervisory training, defense of discrimination and retaliation claims, preparation of and defense of affirmative action plans. Mr. Prather also negotiates and drafts executive employment, separation and non-compete agreements for clients.

Mr. Prather defends management in federal and state courts, before the...

317-231-7435

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.