Most of you have either seen or heard about Mean Tweets from Jimmy Kimmel Live! That’s the segment where celebrities stand in front of the camera with smartphone in hand awkwardly reading the snippets of vitriol that Twitters users can spew about them in 140 characters or less. The celebrities have a good sense of humor about it. And the segment is generally good for some LOL moments.
We have an extra-special guest blogger today. It’s my mentee, Meaghan Londergan. (Sorry, folks, all of The Karate Kid images were copyright protected). Sadly, I no longer work with Meaghan. But, in her defense, there’s only so much Meyer that a young impressionable associate can take. Since then, Meaghan’s been a real mover and shaker. Now, she’s a Partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.
I also want to give a shout out to Meaghan’s law clerk Erika Mohr, a third-year law student at the Drexel University, Thomas R. Kline School of Law, graduating May 2016. If I taught Meaghan anything — Meaghan, did I teach you anything? Don’t answer that. — it’s to delegate responsibility, especially on law-related articles. So, let’s assume that Erika did all the heavy lifting on this guest post.
If you want to reach Meaghan, maybe hear some
blackmail old Meyer war stories, you should connect with her on LinkedIn. Ditto for Erika, less the dirt. And if you want to guest blog on an employment-law topic at The Employer Handbook, email me.
Like a couple of sexting rabbits, a female employee and her male supervisor carrying on like, well, a pair of sexting rabbits. And, then, after the defendant-company fires the plaintiff-employee, she sues and claims that she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment.
So, could it have gotten to the point that unwelcomed sexting became a required term or condition of the plaintiff’s employment?
Who would have guessed that, in a state without a state administrative agency to accept discrimination charges, where only age discrimination is against state law, a federal judge would rule that sexual orientation is considered sex discrimination and, therefore, a violation of Title VII.
Something else you may not know about me.
But then, on Sunday, it’s back the Bloggerdome for a new post. For this one, let’s talk about
R. Kelly a recent Fourth Circuit decision in which the appellate court recognized that a single incident — one touch — may create a hostile work environment.
Butt slaps are rarely appropriate. Not in the courtroom. Not in the workplace. Even Buttslaps, LLC in Butte, Montana frowns on butt slaps at work.
(I totally made that last part up. Don’t Google it).
Where am I going with this?
Hell When an employee sues for sexual harassment, he or she must prove several elements. One of those elements is that the employee was offended by sexual conduct directed at them.
You’re right, Commissioner Feldblum. Social media is awesome!
Last Friday, I posted here about a recent federal-court decision addressing the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. What drew my attention to the case was this Facebook status update from EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, in which she touted the court’s decision as further support for the EEOC’s position that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII. In my Friday post, I concluded that, while the court did allow the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims to proceed to trial, it wasn’t because of her transgender status. Rather, the court reasoned that the employer may have engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping. Sex stereotyping definitely violates Title VII.