This past week, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that it was filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a male J. P. Morgan employee because the company denies fathers paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers. Now this is an issue that has been percolating for awhile – and one that is not necessarily on the radar screens of smaller employers, many of whom may offer maternity – but not paternity – leave benefits to their employees. Continue Reading Maternity/Parental Leave Policies – A Trap for the Unwary
As you may know, I am a die-hard management-side attorney. Typically, I cheer on federal courts that rule in favor of employers – but there are the rare occasions where I think the court gets it unquestionably, unutterably wrong. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s decision in Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corp. is one of these.
In this case, the plaintiff, a Palestinian immigrant, was employed by a third party, MarketSource, to work at a mobile phone sales kiosk at a Target store. He only worked there for about two months before he was terminated. During his employment, he did not get along with the MarketSource sales manager at that store, and at one point she supposedly told him, “Go back home, go to your country.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that Target employees (from behind shelves) called him names such as camel jockey, Muslim, Arab, terrorist, and sand nigger, and that this occurred at least ten times during the two months of his employment. Also, he overheard another employee say, “[y]ou should be rounded up in one place and nuke[d].” He was terminated, ostensibly for issues with the sales manager, Target employees and guests. He then sued MarketSource and Target under Title VII for subjecting him to a hostile work environment and national origin discrimination, among other things. Continue Reading “Go Back to Your Country” Is Not Evidence of National Origin Discrimination?
A colleague recently brought to my attention a 2014 employment case written by then-Circuit Judge Gorsuch for a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit – a particularly interesting opinion that may give us hints as to how Justice Gorsuch may rule in future employment cases before the Supreme Court.
In Hwang v. Kansas State University, an assistant professor was diagnosed with cancer and received a six-month leave of absence. (In the opinion, Judge Gorsuch specifically noted it was a “(paid) leave.” Whether or not it was paid is irrelevant to the legal analysis, but his express mention of payment suggests approval of the employer’s actions as exceeding the norm). Towards the end of the six months, she requested additional leave of apparently another few months. The University, however, had an inflexible policy limiting leave to six months, and it denied her request. The professor then sued, claiming that the University’s inflexible leave policy violated the Rehabilitation Act. Continue Reading Justice Gorsuch and the ADA?
The issue of transgender rights has been the recent focus of much media attention, and Senior Circuit Judge Andre Davis has added an elegant and eloquent contribution to the conversation through his concurring opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s order vacating the preliminary injunction it had previously issued in the case of G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board.
A transgender high school student, G.G. (Gavin Grimm), sued the Gloucester County School Board and asked for a preliminary injunction to allow him to use the bathroom consistent with his transgender status. The federal district court denied the request for preliminary injunction, but on appeal, the Fourth Circuit disagreed and ordered that the injunction be issued. Continue Reading Judge Davis’ Paean to G.G. and Other Brave Individuals Who Opposed Discrimination
In January 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released proposed guidance regarding workplace harassment. Because guidance does not carry the same weight as regulations do, which require a formal notice and comment period, there is no legal requirement to solicit public comment on guidance. However, the practice of voluntarily doing so began under former Chair Jenny Yang and provides employers a valuable opportunity to make their concerns known before the Commission finalizes guidance.
To that end, Shawe Rosenthal, in conjunction with four other law firms, led the effort on behalf of the Employment Law Alliance* to submit written comments to the Commission’s proposed harassment guidance. The comment period has closed, and we expect revised guidance to issue—hopefully factoring in some of our comments below!—in a few months. Continue Reading Reflections on the EEOC’s Proposed Harassment Guidance
As I discussed in a blog last month, the Trump Administration rescinded joint Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) guidance (a “Dear Colleague” letter) that had been issued under the Obama Administration on how the agencies interpret Title IX (the non-discrimination law that applies to schools and students) in the context of bathroom use by transgender students. The guidance had stated that transgender students should be allowed to use the gender-specific bathroom consistent with their stated gender identity. The rescission of this guidance occurred just weeks before the Supreme Court of the United States was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (Gavin Grimm) case this month. Continue Reading Supreme Court Kicks Transgender Case Back – What Does This Mean for Employers?
Yesterday, February 22, 2017, the Trump Administration rescinded Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) guidance that had been issued to schools on May 13, 2016 in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter. The letter stated that it was the DOJ’s and DOE’s interpretation of Title IX (the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education) that schools must allow transgender students to use the gender-specific bathroom with which they identify and that schools could not force students to use bathrooms based on their biological sex. The DOJ and DOE stated that schools that did not follow the guidance could risk losing federal funding. Continue Reading Trump Administration Rescinds Transgender Student Guidance – What Does This Mean for Employers?
Following up on my recent post, “Employer May Change Essential Functions of the Job,” I thought we’d discuss another little-mentioned aspect of essential job functions under the Americans with Disabilities Act – job functions that are rarely performed can still be essential!
As we’ve previously discussed, the ADA protects employees with disabilities who, with or without reasonable accommodations, are able to perform the essential functions of his/her job. The ADA regulations define “essential function” as “a fundamental job duty of a position.” But how do you determine what are the essential functions of a particular job? According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (which is the federal agency charged with enforcing the ADA) and the regulations, the following factors should be taken into account in determining whether a job function is essential: Continue Reading Rarely Performed Job Functions May Still Be “Essential” Under ADA
A few recent events provide employers a peek behind the curtain of the Trump administration’s position on whether Title VII provides protection to LGBT individuals.
First, some background. Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” among other things. In the past, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the federal agency enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws) acknowledged that Title VII did not cover sexual orientation discrimination, although it did prohibit discrimination based on sex/gender stereotyping (which could overlap with sexual orientation claims to the extent the gay or lesbian employee did not conform to male or female stereotypes). Continue Reading What is the Future of Sexual Orientation and Transgender Status Under the Trump Administration?
As a company’s workforce ages, some thoughtful managers may be concerned about business continuity and planning. And it seems pretty obvious that much of that planning will depend on when certain older workers plan to retire. Or a manager may see an older worker becoming less productive, and begin thinking that the person should retire. But, asking about an employee’s retirement plans – or even requiring an employee to retire – can be very problematic. I thought it might be helpful to review the rules on retirement under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Generally, ADEA prohibits employers from forcing employees to retire because of their age. The only exception to this prohibition for private employers is certain bona fide executives or high policymakers. For those individuals, ADEA allows employers to require mandatory retirement at age 65 if the individual has been:
- Employed in that capacity for at least two years prior to retirement; and
- Is entitled to immediate and non-forfeitable annual retirement benefits from the employer that total at least $44,000.