Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment

Have you ever heard of an “intersectional” discrimination claim?

April 12, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-intersection-6461631-1024x1024

A white man filed a lawsuit against a company claiming that it denied him a high-six-figure executive position because of his race, age, and sex so that the company could search for more diverse candidates. Among the causes of action he asserted was one for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff suing under Section 1981 for a failure to hire must establish that “but for” his race, he would have gotten the job.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold up. Continue reading

When is an employer AUTOMATICALLY liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment of a subordinate?

April 11, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-guilty-5604887-1024x1024

Often, an employer has affirmative defenses when an employee accuses a supervisor of sexual harassment. But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes liability automatic in two ways.

Hair discrimination isn’t unlawful. But, firing a black employee because of her natural hair texture is.

April 10, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-hair-6744506-1024x1024

Congress has considered legislation several times that would prohibit employers from discriminating based on an individual’s hair texture or hairstyle if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

But it has never passed.

Why? Because many believe that this law is unnecessary since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already forbids discrimination based on race and national origin. Continue reading

Can employers legally favor transgender employees over cisgender employees?

April 9, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-advantage-5289641-1024x1024

The words “cisgender” or “non-transgender” employee appear nowhere in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal workplace law that outlaws gender discrimination. But, according to a Pennsylvania federal judge, “that does not preclude the possibility that discrimination against both a cisgender male and cisgender female may be independent Title VII violations.”

I’ll explain why. Continue reading

Must employers excuse workers with strong religious beliefs from respect-in-the-workplace training covering LGBT topics

April 8, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

IMG_1995-768x1024

After taking a few days off and rocking out in Seattle, I’m back to blogging about employment law. 🤘🤘🤘

Today, we pull back the curtain and reveal how the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will address failure-to-accommodate claims under the Supreme Court’s new religious accommodation standard established last year in Groff v. DeJoy. Continue reading

Some complaints of sexual harassment aren’t protected at all

April 2, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-complaint-6698952-1024x1024

Suppose an employee gets fired after complaining about sexual harassment at work. If that person later claims retaliation, they will have to establish a nexus between the two events, and the complaint also arises to the level of what we call a “protected activity.” Continue reading

Court to employers: Don’t wait too long to arbitrate employments claims

April 1, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-delay-1757910-1024x1024

A recent federal appellate court decision is an important reminder to confirm early—not later—whether the employee suing your business signed an arbitration agreement. Continue reading

Folks, misgendering an employee can be severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.

March 29, 2024 | by Eric B. Meyer

noun-sad-2411303-1024x1024
I’m going to tell you about a transgender man who worked for three years as a sergeant for a state prison. While working at the prison, he began the process of medically and socially transitioning to align with his gender identity. He underwent hormone replacement therapy, obtained a legal name change, and decided to live openly as a man.

Since he had to disclose his gender identity at work, the employee contacted Human Resources. On a phone call with the HR director, during which the employer inquired if he “had the surgery,” the employee could hear people laughing.

As others learned about the man’s transition, he endured what the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals described as “constant and humiliating harassment.”