Search
The Employer Handbook BlogIt’s legal to fire a female employee because of her “irresistible attraction”
Articles Posted in Gender
Boy meets girl, dates girl, breaks up, calls girl “whore,” gets fired, sues for discrimination
Image credit: atom.smasher.org, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
When a male employee texted his female co-worker and former girlfriend that she was a “whore” and later ignored two protective orders that the female co-worker had taken out against him, I wonder if he was thinking, “Maybe, I’ll get fired and parlay that into a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim.”
Indeed, the guy’s actions violated a number of work rules and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. But a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim? Not so much according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (opinion here):
New equal-rights rules for NJ employers take effect next month
I’d better remember to post this now before I get bitten and turn into a zombie and munch on your face..
[Note to self: Less of “The Walking Dead,” more sleep].
On November 19, 2012, this new law will take effect in NJ, which will require employers of 50 or more employees (zombies not included) to notify their workforce about “the right to be free of gender inequity or bias in pay, compensation, benefits or other terms or conditions of employment under the ‘Law Against Discrimination.”
Is an employee with managerial duties “similarly situated” to a manager?
Maybe it’s the luck of the draw, but most of the discrimination cases I defend are hostile work environment cases, where an alleged harasser supposedly has made an employee-victim’s life miserable with certain comments, jokes, gestures, touchings, you name it.
Far less often do I encounter disparate-treatment claims. A disparate-treatment claim is one where an employee claims that another similarly-situated employee in another class was treated more favorably because of his/her protected class. For example, a female employee claims that similarly-situated male employees are paid more because they are men.
Sounds like the facts of a recent case decided right in my backyard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case provides a great opportunity to go back to school on what it means to be similarly-situated…after the jump…
* * *
“How can I keep the white girl?”
[Editor’s Note: Because “Playing the Race Card” was already taken]
The title of this post is comprised of the seven poorly-chosen words from a Vice President of Operations at a Detroit casino right before the casino terminated a white employee for allegedly botching supervision of a dealer card shuffle.
What do you think? Do we have a live race-discrimination claim? Oh yeah, we do! Details after the jump, as well as thoughts on employers who strive to maintain racial balance in the workplace…
* * *
D-I-S-M-I-S-S-E-D! Court punts Playboy-posing cheerleader’s bias claims.
[If you listen carefully, you can actually hear the sound of page-hits and prurient reader interest cascading at The Employer Handbook. It’s got a little funky Salt n’ Pepa beat to it…]
Last May, I slobbered over blogged here about a former Indianapolis Colts’ cheerleader who sued the team claiming that the Colts discriminated against her on the basis of her race (Asian) and national origin (Indonesian).
Earlier this week, the court ruled on the Colts’ motion to dispose of the case. While I think we can all agree that this sort of hard-hitting blog fodder is better suited for a Monday post, I’m going to blog the heck out of the Court’s decision…after the jump. (It’s a long post, but it’s soooooo worth it).
* * *
4 pending bills that could change the NJ employment landscape
One of my favorite reads on NJ employment law is Ogletree Deakins’s New Jersey eAuthority. The June 2012 issue highlights several pieces of legislation now pending in NJ of which employers should take note. I’ve summarized four of them after the jump…
* * *
Paycheck Fairness Act fails in the Senate, plus other news…
Billed as a way to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, the Paycheck Fairness Act, did not make it out of the Senate yesterday. The Paycheck Fairness Act earned 52 votes in favor of proceeding to final consideration, eight votes shy of the 60 votes necessary for cloture. The vote came down strictly along party lines, with the two independent senators voting with the Democrats and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) not voting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) changed his vote so that he could bring the bill up again.
In other news…
- The Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals ruled on Monday that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits claims for retaliatory hostile work environment. The decision brings the Eleventh Circuit in line with everyone else.
That’s what they said: “Naked ambition” and a “voyeur boss”? (And more…)
As evidenced by the nature of this blog post and the picture on the right, it’s best not to leave me in the office alone, unsupervised, with an iPhone, and App Store credits, as I punch this out at 10:52 at night on a Thursday. (And yet, somehow, the Wall Street Journal deems me quotable).
Rest assured, everything I do, I do it for you. And, best of all, it’s all employment-law related. Love my job!
(My wife has to be cool with me using our wedding song for this blog post, right? Love ya, baby! “Take me as I am….”)
More office romances; more anti-harassment training
A recent survey by Workplace Options, shows that most Generation-Y employees believe that an office romance will have a positive influence on performance and overall workplace morale.
Sounds like a Cialis commercial.
Who says I need to wait for Valentine’s Day for this post? Losers, that’s who. Lock the broom closets and click through for more on this survey and ways to address the office romance…
* * *