An employee who was allegedly fired for violating a company’s social media policy is going to have his day in court. And on this blog.
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.
Back in April, the EEOC concluded that transgender discrimination is discrimination based on sex and, therefore, violates Title VII. That same month, a federal court denied another employer’s motion to dismiss the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. However, in denying the motion to dismiss, the court did not conclude that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination. Rather, it reaffirmed that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping; i.e., when an employer takes action because an employee does not conform to the employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes.
One word: Outsource.
See you tomorrow.
Oh, you mean some of you actually do this yourselves?!? Ok. As you should know, in certain circumstances eligible employees may take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule. Intermittent leave is FMLA leave taken in separate blocks of time due to a single qualifying reason.
Here’s how to account for intermittent FMLA leave. Continue reading
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to accommodate an employee with a disability, if doing so will enable that individual to perform the essential functions of the job. The exception is if the accommodation would create undue hardship for the employer.
But when is that duty to accommodate triggered?
Yesterday, I asked you — and when I say you, I’m referring to the best change-agents in the entire universe — whether you were cool with the government requiring your businesses to provide a modest amount of paid family and medical leave to employees.
Of those who responded to the poll — I’m talking the thought-leaders here who clearly deserve a place at the table — 53% said yes; 41% said no.
The rest of you said “baba booey.”