Even without a federal law that specifically bans discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identify, it’s no secret that one of the EEOC’s top priorities is to protect LGBT workers from discrimination.
And the EEOC is being quite transparent about it, with a new guide for employers and employees.
I’ve got that for you after the jump…
Remember that Americans with Disabilities Act case involving Walgreens and the $1.39 bag of chips. In that one, the store appeared to really step in it by firing a diabetic who ate a bag of chips from the store without paying for it. The employee claimed that she needed the chips for her diabetes. The store defended its actions by arguing that the employee violated its no-grazing policy. $180,000 later, that case settled.
I don’t know how much the chicken poppers sell for at Wal-Mart. And the case I read over the weekend involving the company’s no-grazing policy didn’t settle either…
Click for more…
Bending iPhone6’s? Derek Jeter’s last home game in Yankee pinstripes? Attorney General Eric Holder to resign?
Bah!
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the one stealing the headlines yesterday — err, doing something that I decided to be most blogworthy.
Details on two historic lawsuits after the jump…
According to the EEOC, if men can only train men, and women only women, that may be discrimination.
But, let’s see what a federal court has to say about that after the jump…
This according to this survey released yesterday from CareerBuilder.com.
Working dads who were the sole breadwinners in their household were four times as likely to earn six figures, while working moms who are the sole breadwinners were nearly twice as likely to earn less than $35,000.
However, money may not be everything. That is, 78% of working moms reported they are happy in their current roles at work, with about 2/3rds of working moms having enjoyed the full amount of maternity leave available to them following childbirth.
Last night, I read this press release from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, announcing a $2 million recovery for 50 male employees of a New Mexico automobile dealership.
What happened, you say? From the press release:
“In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged a former lot manager, James Gallegos, under the direction of Charles Ratliff, Jr., then general manager, with subjecting a class of men to egregious forms of sexual harassment, including shocking sexual comments, frequent solicitations for oral sex, and regular touching, grabbing, and biting of male workers on their buttocks and genitals. The EEOC also alleged that Pitre retaliated against male employees who objected to the sexually hostile work environment. During the pendency of the lawsuit, the retaliatory actions of Pitre raised such concern that a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction against Pitre, prohibiting the dealership and all of its agents from threatening or engaging in retaliatory actions against case participants.”
Readers: A brony is a male fan of the children’s television show My Little Pony.
(This is the part where you let everything that you’ve read thus far sink in, as you watch this clip, close your office door, and laugh hysterically. Go ahead. It’s ok).
According to Gawker, the brony posted to Reddit that his co-workers gave him a raft of crap for setting his office computer screensaver to Applejack, a My Little Pony character.
A little over a year ago, I wrote here about a steel worker named Kerry Woods. Unfortunately for Mr. Woods, he was on the receiving end of a constant barrage of “raw homophobic epithets and lewd gestures” from his supervisor. Notwithstanding, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out a $500K jury award for Mr. Woods, holding that Mr. Woods’s same-sex sexual harassment claims failed because he failed to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc..
Oncale was another same-sex harassment case involving employees at an oil rig. In Oncale, the high court held that a jury may infer that same-sex harassment occurred because of sex when the plaintiff can produce:
So, by now, all of you must be familiar with the case in Iowa — I’ve blogged the heck out of it here and here — where the male dentist fired the attractive female hygienist, ostensibly because his wife was concerned that the hygienist’s continued employment might affect their marriage and because the dentist was concerned that he may eventually shag her.
Late last year, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously held (here) that there is no sex discrimination if a male employer terminates a long-time female employee because the employer’s wife, due to no fault of the employee, is concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee.
Then, a few weeks ago, and after a lot of public scrutiny, the high court agreed to reconsider its unanimous ruling, which it did with this new opinion issued on Friday.
The Employer Handbook Blog