Litigators often counsel witnesses to answer, “I don’t recall,” rather than guess or speculate the response to a question at a deposition. But, sometimes, that approach can backfire. Continue reading
During Thanksgiving week, I blogged about a Seventh Circuit decision and what makes a plaintiff alleging discrimination “similarly situated” to another employee outside of the plaintiff’s protected class whom the employer allegedly treated more favorably.
The Seventh Circuit concluded that a white man who was fired for effectively stealing from his employer was comparable to a black man with attendance issues. I told folks outside the Seventh Circuit to disregard this decision because I thought they got it wrong. But I never gave you any examples of cases upon which to rely instead. Well, let’s fix that today. Continue reading
.png)
GFDL, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Yesterday, we discussed why employers must adopt comprehensive, well-known anti-discrimination policies. That way, victims know what to do to get their complaints of harassment addressed.
Today, we’re going to focus on the importance of a prompt employer response that is reasonably designed to end the complained-of behavior. Continue reading
You guys remember ‘Central Park Karen,’ right? Continue reading
The former part-time Director of Operations for a college hockey team was sure that her employer fired her because she was gay. Continue reading
Who is my “source”?
I got the scoop from EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas, who updated us on LinkedIn over the weekend about a Tennessee federal judge who entered this preliminary injunction to stop the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from implementing this technical assistance document issued in June 2021 that purports to explain employers’ post-Bostock obligations under Title VII concerning dress codes, bathrooms, locker rooms, shows, and use of preferred pronouns or names.
So, where did the EEOC go awry? Continue reading
Yesterday, we covered whether the Family and Medical Leave Act allows women who have an abortion to obtain leave for a serious health condition.
Today, we’ll talk about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employers from taking adverse employment actions “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Continue reading
That’s effectively the argument the plaintiff, an openly gay man, made in this case.
Yesterday, I read many headlines, like this one in The Guardian: “Calling a man ‘bald’ is sex-related harassment, employment tribunal rules.”
Is it, though? Let’s take a closer look. Continue reading
Hopefully, this question doesn’t have you clutching your pearls. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog