Name that Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

in the EEO Plan itself. By distinguishing between part-time and full-time faculty in the annual survey, and referencing the results in this component of the EEO Plan, districts will satisfy these statutory requirements. With respect to breaking down the full-time faculty category, districts should balance the need to create EEO Plans that are effective tools for diversification with the need to create EEO Plans that are workable and afford flexibility. If breaking down the full-time faculty category will likely provide information that is useful to the district in developing effective recruitment strategies or getting particular disciplines or departments to recognize the need for diversification, then further breakdown should be considered. However, districts that do not have an apparent need for this level of precision in the data should weigh its benefits against the additional effort involved in gathering and tracking data by these subcategories. k. Model Plan Components 11,13 & 15 For readers who are tracking the Model Plan in developing current EEO Plans, we note that the “old” components 11, 13 and 15 no longer exist. Components 11and 13 are those that relied on availability data to implement pool certification processes. As discussed above, neither availability data nor pool certification are part of the revised regulations. The Chancellor’s Office’s June 2016 Legal Opinion emphasizes districts' obligation to collect, analyze and utilize longitudinal data regarding hiring of monitored groups. 232 It also discusses districts' continued obligation under the revised regulations to conduct statistical analyses regarding adverse impact on significantly underrepresented groups, and where adverse impact is identified, to determine whether or not it is based on job-related factors. The Opinion provides two measures that districts should use to analyze whether or not hiring practices have an adverse impact on monitored groups: 1) whether actual representation among employees is less than 80% of "projected representation"; and 2) whether the selection rate for a monitored group is less than 4/5ths (or 80%) of the selection rate for the group with the highest rate (“80 Percent Rule”). The Opinion also advises that data should be collected at each stage of the hiring process. In an “80 Percent Rule” analysis, the District compares the percentage of individuals from a monitored group in a job category with the District’s projected representation for the same group. Title 5 does not define “projected representation” for purposes of the 80 Percent Rule – it is a local decision. Districts have the discretion and authority to establish projected representation based on one or more factors, including student demographics at the college or district, community demographics in the district’s service area, labor market availability for the job category or previous demographics of job applicants.

In designing EEO Plans and hiring practices in this area, we recommend consulting with legal counsel. In particular, districts should be cautious in the following areas:

As discussed above, the revised regulations were adopted in part because the State Chancellor's Office determined that it is currently impossible to develop availability data needed to determine projected representations. Unless and until the State Chancellor is able to produce reliable availability data, it is not clear that districts are required to analyze current work force against

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2020 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 76