Articles Posted in Sex

noun-prayer-3988748

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 The next day, the Supreme Court concluded in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment superseded a state’s anti-discrimination law which would have forced a website designer who does not believe in same-sex marriage to create wedding websites for gay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

noun-supreme-court-149365

Last week, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to establish that an employee’s request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 creates an undue hardship.

But there’s much more to Title VII than just religious accommodations. And the Supreme Court isn’t done with the statute yet. Last week, it agreed to determine whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage. Continue reading

noun-boombox-1127955-1024x1024

At a workplace in Nevada, “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music from artists like Eminem and Too $hort “blasted from commercial-strength speakers placed throughout the warehouse, the music overpowered operational background noise and was nearly impossible to escape.” Employees complained about it “almost daily.” But management brushed those complaints aside and defended the music as motivational. This went on for almost two years.

Then eight former employees sued. They claimed that routinely playing “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music throughout its warehouse created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Continue reading

noun-cake-1285908-1024x1024

So when the plaintiff in this federal court decision I read last night cited as evidence of her employer’s heterosexual animus that her gay coworker received a cake and party by gay supervisors on his 30th work anniversary, whereas she did not receive cake or party for the same occasion, my Spidey senses were really tingling. Continue reading

noun-rubber-band-15286-1024x1024I’ve seen weaker lawsuits. But let me explain why the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed that asking a female colleague to babysit, once hitting her posterior with a rubber band, and even failing to use her proper title is not enough to create a hostile work environment based on gender. Continue reading

noun-restroom-3377798-1024x1024

When employees allege discrimination, they must prove an employer’s discriminatory motive and connect it to a particular adverse employment decision. An adverse action requires evidence of a significant change in employment status, benefits, or pay. Usually, the proof comes in the form of failure to hire, a firing, failure to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or lost pay or benefits.

But, from a federal court decision I read last night, I’ve got a list of eight items that are not adverse enough on which to base a disparate treatment claim. Continue reading

noun-finish-line-4516561-1024x1024

The plaintiff in this action has worked as a human resource specialist. She claimed that, beginning in 2019, her male supervisor made unwelcome sexual comments to her, and, when she reported those comments to his direct supervisor, they were ignored. So the plaintiff says she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint. According to the plaintiff, nearly two years later, she faced a proposed letter of reprimand. 

A proposed what now? Continue reading

noun-equal-pay-3968499

When a longtime government agency employee sued her employer for violating the Equal Pay Act, she argued that the defendant paid her male coworker more for “essentially the same job.” In her mind, their roles “were complementary and [their] duties equal.”

But that’s not enough to show prevail under the Equal Pay Act. Continue reading

Posted in:
Updated:

noun-construction-2178637

On Wednesday, I blogged about a woman who worked as a “helper” for a construction company. She alleged that she had to endure misogynist comments from her general manager, who told her in front of others that, since she had “t*** and an a**,” she could not perform certain functions of her job that would otherwise position her for advancement within the company.

But that isn’t the half of it. Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information