noun-hair-6744506-1024x1024

Congress has considered legislation several times that would prohibit employers from discriminating based on an individual’s hair texture or hairstyle if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.

But it has never passed.

Why? Because many believe that this law is unnecessary since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already forbids discrimination based on race and national origin. Continue reading

noun-advantage-5289641-1024x1024

The words “cisgender” or “non-transgender” employee appear nowhere in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal workplace law that outlaws gender discrimination. But, according to a Pennsylvania federal judge, “that does not preclude the possibility that discrimination against both a cisgender male and cisgender female may be independent Title VII violations.”

I’ll explain why. Continue reading

IMG_1995-768x1024

After taking a few days off and rocking out in Seattle, I’m back to blogging about employment law. 🤘🤘🤘

Today, we pull back the curtain and reveal how the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will address failure-to-accommodate claims under the Supreme Court’s new religious accommodation standard established last year in Groff v. DeJoy. Continue reading

noun-wrestling-550541-1024x1024

Like The Rock laying the smack(eth) down on Cody Rhodes in a Chicago parking lot, a federal appellate court recently pummelled the National Labor Relations Board. Although to be clear, no one was harmed as part of the DC Court of Appeals’ recent ruling about the contours of employee surveillance.

I’ll tell you what happened.

Continue reading

noun-sad-2411303-1024x1024
I’m going to tell you about a transgender man who worked for three years as a sergeant for a state prison. While working at the prison, he began the process of medically and socially transitioning to align with his gender identity. He underwent hormone replacement therapy, obtained a legal name change, and decided to live openly as a man.

Since he had to disclose his gender identity at work, the employee contacted Human Resources. On a phone call with the HR director, during which the employer inquired if he “had the surgery,” the employee could hear people laughing.

As others learned about the man’s transition, he endured what the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals described as “constant and humiliating harassment.”

Posted in:
Updated:
“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information