The white woman many refer to pejoratively as “Central Park Karen,” after a videotaped dispute with a Black birdwatcher in Central Park went viral, was at it again. This time, appealing the “L” she took from a New York federal court in a race discrimination and defamation lawsuit against her former employer to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
How do you think that went? 😐
At a workplace in Nevada, “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music from artists like Eminem and Too $hort “blasted from commercial-strength speakers placed throughout the warehouse, the music overpowered operational background noise and was nearly impossible to escape.” Employees complained about it “almost daily.” But management brushed those complaints aside and defended the music as motivational. This went on for almost two years.
Then eight former employees sued. They claimed that routinely playing “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music throughout its warehouse created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Continue reading
Ok, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion wasn’t quite that colloquial when questioning the trial judge’s analysis. However, I’ll explain why the appellate court concluded that a jury should decide whether a black tool crib operator who testified that numerous coworkers used the N-word routinely while he was around was subjected to a hostile work environment.
The plaintiff in this federal court decision I read last night didn’t exactly come off as a model employee. Continue reading
The Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect employee use of illegal drugs. It does not prevent employers from testing applicants or employees for current illegal drug use or making employment decisions based on verifiable results. However, the ADA would protect an employee with a disability who fails a drug test if the employer bases its termination decision on the underlying disability rather than the test result.
But here’s the thing. Continue reading
A 30-plus-year employee found out the hard way that missing a deadline — by just 24 hours — to arbitrate her claim against her former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is enough to lose it forever when her brief delay violates the plain terms of an arbitration agreement.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers from discriminating against employees based on religion. As the EEOC points out, “the law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.”
While the law may not protect folks who pray to flying spaghetti monsters, Title VII can apply to others who are not members of conventional religious groups. As the EEOC notes, “just because an individual’s religious practices may deviate from commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the employer should not automatically assume that his or her religious observance is not sincere.” Continue reading
Have you ever heard of quid pro quo sexual harassment? Continue reading
If, like me, you deal with HR compliance and employment law issues regularly, you’ve yelled the title of this blog post at others.
(And if you don’t deal with HR compliance and employment law issues regularly, dude, WTH are you doing here?) Continue reading
Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a technical assistance document, “Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” which is focused on preventing discrimination against job seekers and workers. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog