Just in time for Father’s Day, JPMorgan has agreed to pay $5 million dollars to settle a class action lawsuit based on a discriminatory parental leave policy. We previously blogged about this case when the ACLU announced that it was filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a JPMorgan dad. (and you can check out that blog post for a deeper explanation of the legal underpinnings of this issue, if you’re really interested). But this settlement provides an emphatic (and timely!) reminder to employers to take a look at their maternity/paternity or parental leave policies to make sure they don’t run afoul of the law. Continue Reading Hey – New Dads Need Leave Too!

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination before bringing a discrimination lawsuit is a procedural requirement that may be waived, as opposed to a jurisdictional one that would deprive a court of the ability to even hear the case. Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Finds Charge Filing Requirement to be Procedural, Not Jurisdictional

Governor Hogan announced on May 24, 2019 that he was vetoing HB994, the “Ban the Box” bill, as our partner Liz Torphy-Donzella predicted he would do in our webinar on Maryland’s recently enacted employment laws. This means that, absent a veto override, this bill will not become law. The bill, however, passed with veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, so we will likely see a veto override in the next General Assembly session.  Continue Reading Governor Hogan Vetos the Ban the Box Bill

Debt can alter one’s future trajectory for good or for ill.  The latter is reflected in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.  Although they are the most educated generation ever in the U.S., Millennials at the tail end of their generation incurred unprecedented debt for college – often six figure debt – then graduated into the Great Recession.  Their employment opportunities were truncated.  As a result, their income potential (and debt repayment capability) has been damaged, seemingly beyond repair. They have collectively put off home buying and starting families, which has ripple effects for the future, from reduced home buying opportunity to delayed or foregone child rearing.  Continue Reading Debt or No Debt? Your Employees’ Future in the Balance

A more conservative Supreme Court than we’ve seen in recent history is poised to consider whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on “sex” includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a trio of cases in the 2019-2020 term, which begins in October. We previously wrote on this topic here as the Circuit split was developing.

Not even the federal government tasked with enforcing employment discrimination laws agrees on whether Title VII covers sexual orientation. The Department of Justice reversed course during the Trump administration and now takes the position that sexual orientation is not covered, whereas the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is holding firm to its position, first adopted in 2015, that sexual orientation is covered, as is gender identity. Additionally, under an Executive Order signed by President Obama (not yet rescinded by President Trump) and enforced by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, federal contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to (and separate from) sex. Continue Reading Does “Sex” Encompass Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? The Supremes Will Soon Decide.

$3.8 million dollars. That’s what a Tucson, Arizona jury awarded to a former fire paramedic denied workplace accommodations required under the Fair Labor Standards Act for women who want to pump breast milk for their infants. Under the law, for the first year after the birth of a child, employers must provide non-exempt employees with reasonable breaks to pump. Employers also must provide a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from the view of others and that is free from intrusion by coworkers or others. Continue Reading Lactation Law Verdict Sends a Message: Don’t Mess With Mom!

I found a recent case to be a peculiar example of how Title VII is not a “general civility code” in the workplace. In Butto v. CJKant Resource Group, LLC, a male executive was terminated after complaining about being required to arrange female escorts for his married supervisor and perform other activities to facilitate his supervisor’s infidelity. It seems like a reasonable complaint, right? But does that mean it was protected under Title VII? Continue Reading Being Required to Hire Female Escorts Is Not Actually a Title VII Violation

On April 23, 2019, a divided U.S. Supreme Court answered a question that had been left open by the Court in 2010: namely, whether an agreement that is ambiguous on the availability of class-wide arbitration could form the basis for an order compelling the arbitration of such claims.  In Lamps Plus, Inc. et al. v. Varela, the Court ruled that such an agreement does not support an order compelling arbitration of class action claims. Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Holds Arbitration of Classwide Claims Not Required Where Agreement is Ambiguous