Menu

Showing 24 posts in Sex Discrimination.

In Florida, One-Event Sexual Advance at a Non-Work Sponsored Party Can Support Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently decided two questions of first impression under Florida law: (1) whether a one-event sexual advance at a private, non-work sponsored party may support sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and (2) whether rejecting a supervisor’s sexual advance is protected “opposition.” The court answered both questions “yes.” More ›

6th Circuit First Appellate Court to Declare Transgender or Transitioning Status Discrimination is Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

In a milestone decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status violates Title VII. In addition, the court held as a matter of law that a religious employer “cannot rely on customers’ presumed biases to establish a substantial burden” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thus, the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs did not free it from the proscriptions of Title VII. More ›

Second Circuit Declares Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Sex Discrimination under Title VII

Acknowledging the “changing legal landscape” surrounding Title VII protections against discrimination, the Second Circuit overturned prior precedent and held sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., examined the issue “from the perspective of sex stereotyping,” and unequivocally concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is predicated on assumptions about how persons of a certain sex can or should be,” which is “an impermissible basis for adverse employment actions.” In Zarda, a deceased skydiving instructor was allegedly fired for disclosing his sexual orientation to a client and not conforming to the “straight male macho stereotype.” More ›

The 12 days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 4 "Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the fourth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – four calling birds and AB 2337. More ›

San Francisco Ordinance Prohibits Employer Salary History Inquiries

Beginning July 1, 2018, it will be illegal for San Francisco employers to ask job applicants to disclose their salary history. A number of similar laws have been enacted in cities and states across the country to address the gender and minority pay gaps. More ›

Evans Vows to Take Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court may soon answer the most significant question to arise under Title VII in recent years: is sexual orientation discrimination “sex discrimination” within the meaning of the statute? The case to watch: Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital. More ›

Seventh Circuit Opinion Highlights Importance of Proactively Addressing and Documenting Employee Performance

Every employer has faced the unfortunate experience of hiring an employee whose performance fell well below expectation. As highlighted in the Seventh Circuit’s recent Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District decision, employers faced with poor performing employees should carefully address and document such shortcomings to ward off potential Title VII charges. More ›

Delaware Follows Trend of Banning Compensation History Inquiries in Effort to Reduce the Gender Pay Gap

In a developing trend, Delaware followed Massachusetts, Oregon, New York City and Philadelphia, in enacting legislation directed at ensuring equal wages between genders.  On June 14, 2017, Governor John Carney signed legislation, which prohibits prospective employers from asking job applicants about their salary history.  The reasoning behind these laws is that wage disparities are perpetuated when current pay is based on past salary decisions that may have been based on gender.  Rather, employers are encouraged by these new laws to assess potential pay based solely on merit, experience of the job applicant and the market rates. More ›

The Seventh Circuit Clarifies Evidentiary Standards in Employment Discrimination Cases

In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar direct and indirect methods of proving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s instruction should apply with equal force to claims brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. More ›

Massachusetts Passes Radical Equal Pay Law

On August 1, 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed An Act to Establish Pay Equity, which as the name aptly suggests, seeks to ensure equal pay for comparable work for all Massachusetts workers and equal opportunity to earn competitive salaries. The Act will take effect on January 1, 2018.

The new law prohibits any wage disparity between genders for "comparable work." The statute defines "comparable work" as "work that is substantially similar in that it requires substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility, and is performed under similar working conditions; provided, however, that a job title or job description alone shall not determine comparability." More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email