Last night, I read about a black female educator and school administrator who claimed that her employer agreed to pay for her to attend a training session but later reneged, instead offering to pay for her to attend in two years. So, she paid for it herself.
And then she sued her employer. Continue reading
Last year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a long-term care facility claiming that certain White patients/residents repeatedly directed offensive racial slurs at black nurses and nurse assistants, including “n—-r,” “coon,” “monkey,” and “Black b—–s.” One patient repeatedly told Black employees to “go back to Africa,” followed Black employees throughout the facility to racially berate them, and physically assaulted Black employees because of their race.
I enjoy blogging about employment law. But occasionally, perhaps after a long day, I wish some of these blog posts would write themselves.
Last night, I got my wish. Continue reading
Many of you accumulate vacation days at work throughout the year. So did the plaintiff in this recent federal court decision. She alleged that when her employer denied her requests to use her unused, accrued vacation in 2018 and 2019, it discriminated against her based on her sex, seemingly because it allowed other men to use vacation on the dates she wanted.
Is that sex discrimination? Continue reading
Imagine a business that gives its employees two days off each week. There’s nothing abnormal about that.
However, the company uses a sex-based policy to determine which two days an employee can pick. Only men can select full weekends off—women cannot. Instead, female employees can pick either two weekdays off or one weekend day plus one weekday; they never get an entire weekend off.
Is that discriminatory? Yes, But does this system violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful to discriminate at work based on sex? Continue reading
When most people think of federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they associate them with employees suing employers for things like discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environments.
But Title VII covers more than just employers.
For every unicorn $25.6 million jury verdict you may read about online, thousands of discrimination cases fall well short of that mark. Way more never have a shot at making it to trial. And some don’t even have sufficient facts on the face of the complaint, which, if true, would establish a cause of action. They get dismissed right away.
Just like the case I have for you today.
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The next day, the Supreme Court concluded in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment superseded a state’s anti-discrimination law which would have forced a website designer who does not believe in same-sex marriage to create wedding websites for gay couples.
Since then, I’ve seen folks asking whether employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage can get a religious accommodation from their employer to refuse to work with a gay coworker? Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog
