.jpg)
The case is called Dilek Edwards v. Charles V. Nicolai and Stephanie Adams.
I’ll wait patiently while you take some time to Google the names.
[Cue music]
Yesterday, I blogged here about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s conditional veto of a bill which was intended to level the wage gap between men and women performing substantially similar jobs in the Garden State.
Serendipity.
Last night, I came across this survey from CareerBuilder, which examined the pay disparity between male and female sole breadwinners.
%2C_Oklahoma_City%2C_OK_May_2015_by_Michael_Vadon_130.jpg "Image Credit: By Michael Vadon (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons")
There’s an equal-pay-for-women movement going on nationwide. Maybe you’ve heard of it. The most-commonly cited statistic is that full-time American female employees are paid only 79 cents for every dollar paid to men.
Locally, here in New Jersey (technically, I’m typing this post in Cherry Hill, NJ in a diner located between two jughandles), the battle has waged on for some time. On Monday, on Governor Chris Christie’s desk sat a bill, which purported to foster equal pay for men and women.
He vetoed it.
Around this time last year, I blogged here about Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers. According to OSHA, “all employees should be permitted to use the facilities that correspond to their gender identity.” And, it’s up to the employee to determine for him- or herself “the most appropriate and safest option.”
It should come as no shock that the federal administrative agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination law has released a fact sheet, which reaches the same conclusions.
Most of you have either seen or heard about Mean Tweets from Jimmy Kimmel Live! That’s the segment where celebrities stand in front of the camera with smartphone in hand awkwardly reading the snippets of vitriol that Twitters users can spew about them in 140 characters or less. The celebrities have a good sense of humor about it. And the segment is generally good for some LOL moments.
Well, the folks over at Just Not Sports took Mean Tweets to another level with #MoreThanMean tweets.
Last week, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made headlines by filing its first lawsuits against private-sector businesses challenging sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination.
Meanwhile, yesterday, another federal court in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. (opinion here) concluded just the opposite: sexual orientation discrimination is “reprehensible,” but does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
YASSSSS!!!!
Oh, thank you blogging gods for this generous clusterfunked bounty. Please accept this offering from your humble minion.
On Tuesday, I had a great sandwich. You see, I made a turkey and swiss sandwich at home and, in a moment of brilliance, I added some of the leftover guacamole from Taqueria La Veracruzana.
Oh, right, you’re here to learn about sexual-orientation discrimination.
Who would have guessed that, in a state without a state administrative agency to accept discrimination charges, where only age discrimination is against state law, a federal judge would rule that sexual orientation is considered sex discrimination and, therefore, a violation of Title VII.
On Tuesday, voters in Houston, TX took to the polls and said no to Prop 1. That’s a ballot measure that would have outlawed discrimination at work against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees and job applicants. Amanda Terkel at The Huffington Post reports here that, despite having widespread support from local and national politicians and businesses, the measure failed, in large part, because of the “bathroom” issue. That is, many voters did not want transgender women using the women’s restroom (and vice-versa).
Meanwhile, on Tuesday in our Nation’s Capital, the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights issued a “groundbreaking report” revealing a high rate of discrimination against transgender job applicants.
The Employer Handbook Blog