If national origin motivates an employment decision, that’s disparate treatment. Title VII forbids disparate treatment.
So, what if…
- nepotism motivates an employment decision, which
- involves favoring one nationality over another, then
- does national origin motivate the employment decision?
Or, put another way: could nepotism violate Title VII?
Last week, I highlighted an often overlooked EEOC enforcement effort: protecting vulnerable workers. Shortly after my post, the EEOC continued its efforts to support vulnerable workers by issuing this statement to address workplace discrimination against individuals who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern.
Good on ya, EEOC.
About a year ago, I blogged here about a dreadful Sixth Circuit opinion, in which the court concluded that the plaintiff may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested (after having interviewed for the position).
Now, if you read the comments on my post, you’ll see that some of my readers took issue with my analysis of the case.
Well, I see your comments and raise you a scathing Justice Alito dissent from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari:
If you entered a time machine a few months ago and came out today to read this post, you missed a lot.
The Kansas City Royals made the World Series. Grammy Award winning rapper Eve wed entrepreneur Maximillion Cooper at Cala Jondal Beach in Ibiza, Spain. And a big-time Ebola scare.
Yeah, that Ebola scare was really something. But, it kinda just came and went, didn’t it? We haven’t had a new Ebola case in the U.S. in months, which makes the timing of Monday’s release of “Public Guidance on Protecting Civil Rights While Responding to the Ebola Virus” from the U.S. Department of Justice a bit off.
But, hey, what do you have to lose by filing the lawsuit anyway, right? I mean, it can’t end up worse than the New York Giants on Sunday Night Football.
(Oh yeah, I went there).
More after the jump…