Last night, I read about a black female educator and school administrator who claimed that her employer agreed to pay for her to attend a training session but later reneged, instead offering to pay for her to attend in two years. So, she paid for it herself.
And then she sued her employer. Continue reading
Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a long-term care facility claiming that certain White patients/residents repeatedly directed offensive racial slurs at black nurses and nurse assistants, including “n—-r,” “coon,” “monkey,” and “Black b—–s.” One patient repeatedly told Black employees to “go back to Africa,” followed Black employees throughout the facility to racially berate them, and physically assaulted Black employees because of their race.
I mean, sure. It’s a free country. This isn’t Communist Russia.
But if your company is concerned about a subsequent retaliation claim, read on.
Imagine a business that gives its employees two days off each week. There’s nothing abnormal about that.
However, the company uses a sex-based policy to determine which two days an employee can pick. Only men can select full weekends off—women cannot. Instead, female employees can pick either two weekdays off or one weekend day plus one weekday; they never get an entire weekend off.
Is that discriminatory? Yes, But does this system violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful to discriminate at work based on sex? Continue reading
A few weeks ago, I blogged here about how a federal appellate court concluded that firing someone who isn’t a ‘good fit’ isn’t necessarily a coded phrase for discrimination. Still, I generally recommend to clients that they be more direct when terminating someone’s employment by explaining the legitimate business reason(s) for the decision.
Similar issues may arise when companies make hiring decisions. Code words used to describe protected classes that reflect a company’s hiring preferences generally aren’t hard to crack. And then they become costly. Continue reading
When employees allege discrimination, they must prove an employer’s discriminatory motive and connect it to a particular adverse employment decision. An adverse action requires evidence of a significant change in employment status, benefits, or pay. Usually, the proof comes in the form of failure to hire, a firing, failure to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or lost pay or benefits.
But, from a federal court decision I read last night, I’ve got a list of eight items that are not adverse enough on which to base a disparate treatment claim. Continue reading
Litigators often counsel witnesses to answer, “I don’t recall,” rather than guess or speculate the response to a question at a deposition. But, sometimes, that approach can backfire. Continue reading
This one (unlike that one) wasn’t even worth five cents. Continue reading
You guys remember ‘Central Park Karen,’ right? Continue reading
The Equal Pay Act (EPA) prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on sex by paying lower wages than are paid to employees of the opposite sex for performing equal work. We usually see women assert EPA claims.
But men can have them too. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog