Search
The Employer Handbook BlogWhen a hostile work environment isn’t a hostile work environment
Every so often, I get a call from an employee. The call goes something like this:
“I need an employment lawyer. Are you an employment lawyer?”
“Yes.”
Articles Posted in Sex
Firing a woman for lactating at work is against the law
Allow me to be serious for a moment…
Moment’s passed, eh? Ok. Let me bring it back…
Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (here) that discharging a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
Horniest boss ever? His employee still can’t prove sexual harassment.
I’ve been searching for gold recently. So, I knew I was on to something good when I started reading this opinion last week, and wasn’t sure whether what I was reading was a sexual harassment case or a porno script.
What can I say? I like the plots.
Folks, if you click through, I promise you a great read after the jump…
* * *
Irresistible attraction, three-ways, and more fun and games
Just another Friday here at the ole Handbook. Oh, get your head out of the gutter! This is a family blog.
(Y’all have families, right?)
For serious, today’s lede isn’t just gratuitous, there is an employment-law connection here.
Four ways to successfully defend an Equal Pay Act claim
This blog is nearly 2 1/2 years old and we have our first Equal Pay Act post. The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for equal work on jobs the performance of which require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Any wage discrimination on the basis of sex violates the Act.
The EEOC celebrated “Equal Pay Day” last week. So, now is as good a time as any to address the Act through this recent case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Puchakjian v. Township of Winslow, Deborah Puchakjian filled a Municipal Clerk vacancy within the Township of Winslow which came about a result of the retirement of the male incumbent. His salary at retirement was $85,515; Ms. Puchakijan’s salary to replace him was $55,000.
The importance of addressing sex stereotyping in the workplace
Many states and localities have laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (LGBT).
But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, one of the federal laws barring discrimination in the workplace, law does not prohibit it.
What Title VII does make unlawful, however, is stereotyping based on a person’s gender non-conforming behavior (i.e., a man who appears effeminate, or a “manly” woman). As a Virginia federal court (here) re-emphasized last week, sex stereotyping is central to all discrimination:
POLL RESULTS: Here’s what you said about the #Donglegate firing
For much of the week, I’ve blogged about Adria Richards, the employee who got fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination. On Monday, I offered my legal analysis (here).
On Tuesday, I followed that up with this simple poll that purported to remove the law from the equation: Was the decision of Ms. Richards’s employer, SendGrid, to fire her “fair” or “unfair”? “Fair” and “unfair” were the only two answers and they were randomized such that either one could have appeared as the top choice when taking the poll.
Now the results are in. 129 of you responded and 70 of you (54%) said that the firing was fair. 59 respondents indicated that the firing was unfair (46%).
POLL: Was the #Donglegate firing fair?
Whew!
Got a little carried away with yesterday’s post about the employee who got fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination, didn’t I?
Then again, I’m not the one who came up with the hashtag #donglegate.
Employee gets fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination
Is this Retaliation 2.0?
Two weeks ago, Adria Richards attended an industry conference at which she overheard sexual jokes from two attendees sitting behind her during a session. So, she complained…on Twitter:
Not cool.Jokes about forking repo’s in a sexual way and “big” dongles.Right behind me #pycon twitter.com/adriarichards/…
— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 17, 2013
And then she blogged about it here. The social-media complaints resulted in one of the joke tellers getting fired. And, last Wednesday, Ms. Richards tweeted that her employer supported her.
Hey @mundanematt, it’s clear from the last 24 hours you’re a bully.@sendgrid supports me.Stop trolling.
— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 20, 2013
That same day, SendGrid, Ms. Richards’s employer, fired her.
(Jon Brodkin at arstechnica.com has the full story here).
We can argue about the propriety of using social media to publicize a harassment complaint, especially when a private complaint could have sufficed. Still, the SendGrid response certainly seems harsh and unfair.
But did SendGrid go so far as to retaliate (as a matter of law) against Ms. Richards?
Find out, after the jump…
* * *
The most blunt same-sex sexual harassment judicial opinion…evah!
So captivating that, at 35 pages long, it held my attention for 24 of them. Winning!
I’ll whet your whistle with the opening paragraph of EEOC v. The McPherson Cos., Inc.:
This Title VII case revolves around repeated churlish, childish, gross, sordid, vulgar, foul, disgusting, profane utterances in the workplace. The question in the case, however, is not how vile and obnoxious this workplace language was. It was vile and obnoxious enough to score nine on a scale of ten. This will become apparent as the story unfolds. The question for the court is rather whether this verbal mayhem morphed from a competition to see who could beat whom in the foul-mouth game into a cause of action under Title VII by an offended employee for same-sex sexual harassment.
After jump, I’ll keep my babbling to a minimum and, instead, highlight the matter-of-fact prose of Judge William M. Acker, Jr. from the Northern District of Alabama. And we’ll answer the question: Does the reach of Title VII preclude same-sex sexual harassment where offensive workplace language is not directed at a man because he’s a man?
* * *