It was déjà vu all over again yesterday.
In its much anticipated decision in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. (opinion here), the Second Circuit concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.
On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, generally considered one of the more conservative appellate courts, issued a mixed-bag ruling in a high-profile LGBT-rights case. Continue reading
Serendipity may be one of the worst movies of all time. Of this, I am sure.
Then again, I can’t stand John Cusack movies, especially that pretentious piece of one-know-what, High Fidelity. But, I’m not writing today to bash John Cusack. And, I’m not made of stone. Hot Tub Time Machine was pretty freaking good.
Rather, I found it serendipitous that I never really talk about Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Then, you get Tuesday’s post about the similarities between Title IX and Title VII.
And, I’m gonna give you another Title VII / Title IX post today.
I received a bunch of reader emails yesterday with requests for future blog posts.
One reader requested a follow-up to yesterday’s post about service animals and the ADA, asking that I address what happens when a service animal causes allergy issues for co-workers. Another reader sought input on heated political discussions at work as a gateway to a real hostile work environment. Both good ideas; I’ll get to them.
Today, however, I want to talk about Gavin Grimm and yesterday’s announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court to send his transgender rights case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.
Late last month, I blogged here about some smoke signals from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it may be backpedaling on pursuing discrimination claims on behalf of a transgender employee, in a case where the employer had raised a religious-freedom defense.
Since then, other dominos have fallen, which indicate that the Trump administration is reversing course on transgender rights.
In a transgender-bias case with an employer-defendant concerned about having to violate its sincerely-held religious beliefs, the employee informed a federal appellate court last week that she is “reasonably concerned that the EEOC may no longer adequately represent her interests going forward.”
Wow! Wow! WOW!!!
When last we visited the whirlwind saga of the City of Philadelphia’s proposed bill that would ban employers from asking about applicant salary history, I was waxing poetic about Animal House, suggesting here that Mayor Kenney was slowing his roll after City Council had unanimously approved the bill.
Yeah, about that…
Out of 276,376 page views in 2016 — thanks for reading and clicking refresh, dad — these five were straight fire!!!
5. The new DOL overtime rules are here. You’ve got HR questions? I have answers!
4. Foul! Nasty tweets to Steph Curry’s family cost a Cavs fan his job.
Actually, I’m not talking about the drink.
No, the case I’m addressing today has actual sex on the beach. And allegations of sexual harassment and disparate treatment.
It involves an outside sales representative — let’s call her “Plaintiff” — and the son of the company President, during a boat trip in Mallorca, Spain.
Hey, if you ever want to hear some good stories at a lawyer cocktail party, seek out the employment folks. Just sayin’.
The Employer Handbook Blog
