You know, being a client of the Blogger King has its perks. (That’s me. I’m the Blogger King). When I’m not litigating and counseling on employment-related issues, I’m taking blog post requests and emailing weekly updates of HR goodies that don’t make it onto the blog.
But, with my DropBox and Pocket chock full of recent cases, I’ll summarize the recent biggies.
On Tuesday, I had a great sandwich. You see, I made a turkey and swiss sandwich at home and, in a moment of brilliance, I added some of the leftover guacamole from Taqueria La Veracruzana.
Oh, right, you’re here to learn about sexual-orientation discrimination.
On Tuesday, voters in Houston, TX took to the polls and said no to Prop 1. That’s a ballot measure that would have outlawed discrimination at work against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees and job applicants. Amanda Terkel at The Huffington Post reports here that, despite having widespread support from local and national politicians and businesses, the measure failed, in large part, because of the “bathroom” issue. That is, many voters did not want transgender women using the women’s restroom (and vice-versa).
Meanwhile, on Tuesday in our Nation’s Capital, the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights issued a “groundbreaking report” revealing a high rate of discrimination against transgender job applicants.
Mr. Gaff worked as a custodian at a University. He claimed that, on several occasions, his subordinate called him a “fa***t.” So, Mr. Gaff complained to his supervisor. Then, Mr. Gaff was later fired.
Retaliation?
Back in April, the EEOC concluded that transgender discrimination is discrimination based on sex and, therefore, violates Title VII. That same month, a federal court denied another employer’s motion to dismiss the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. However, in denying the motion to dismiss, the court did not conclude that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination. Rather, it reaffirmed that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping; i.e., when an employer takes action because an employee does not conform to the employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes.
On Monday, I got into last week’s EEOC ruling that sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII. Yesterday, I took up the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.”
On Thursday, make way for the Equality Act, according to Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade (here). Continue reading
Oh, and it would allow businesses to fire LGBT employees too. Sorry EEOC.
It’s the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.” Continue reading
.jpg#/media/File:Showing_your_pride_-_DC_Gay_Pride_Parade_2012_(7356403050).jpg)
Last Friday, I briefly mentioned the EEOC’s recent decision, in which it concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination law that bans employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex, also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual). The EEOC concluded that sex discrimination also takes into account “sex-based considerations,” which includes sexual orientation. Continue reading
Ok, presumably, I’m not the only employment lawyer trying to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to the employer-employee relationship. But, I can guarantee that this will be the best post you read about it today.
#noguarantees Continue reading
Caitlyn Jenner got the cover of Vanity Fair and a million new Twitter followers shortly after confirming that she was no longer Bruce Jenner. So, by riding that wave with a timely blog post, I should at least get page 5 — above the fold — in the latest edition of “Employment-Law Blog Hunks,” the one you all read for the articles.
(Actually, I will be on Knowledge@Wharton’s daily show on SiriusXM channel 111 – Business Radio Powered by The Wharton School today from 10-12 EDT, as a follow-up to yesterday’s post, discussing Monday’s Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.)
Now, before my ego explodes like a baseball off of Giancarlo Stanton’s bat, let’s revisit the issue of transgender employees and restroom access. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog