Late last month, I blogged here about some smoke signals from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it may be backpedaling on pursuing discrimination claims on behalf of a transgender employee, in a case where the employer had raised a religious-freedom defense.
Since then, other dominos have fallen, which indicate that the Trump administration is reversing course on transgender rights.
In a transgender-bias case with an employer-defendant concerned about having to violate its sincerely-held religious beliefs, the employee informed a federal appellate court last week that she is “reasonably concerned that the EEOC may no longer adequately represent her interests going forward.”
Wow! Wow! WOW!!!
After consuming a protein shake or two from a red Solo cup during my family’s Halloween escapades, I retired to the bloggerdome to visit the EEOC’s website. Halloween or not, I have the coolest Monday night routine in all of Cherry Hill, NJ. Oh, heck, probably in the whole state. Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
On the EEOC’s website, I found this tweet encouraging folks to beta test Worker.gov, a tool to help workers learn about and exercise their rights.
Huh…
As a corollary to yesterday’s post about David Lopez stepping down as EEOC General Counsel —
*** Googles “corollary” — swish! ***
— I bring you news of two recent court decisions advancing LGBT rights at work.
I teased it in Friday’s post.
Last week, a Michigan federal court held (here) that a workplace dress code that requires one gender to conform to a sex stereotype (e.g., men must wear suits, and women must wear dresses) is “direct evidence” of sex discrimination. But, the employer in the Michigan case refused to waver from the letter of the dress code, and avoided a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.
Why? Because Hobby Lobby.
Around this time last year, I blogged here about Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers. According to OSHA, “all employees should be permitted to use the facilities that correspond to their gender identity.” And, it’s up to the employee to determine for him- or herself “the most appropriate and safest option.”
It should come as no shock that the federal administrative agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination law has released a fact sheet, which reaches the same conclusions.
Yesterday, I blogged here about the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission‘s first lawsuits challenging sexual-orientation discrimination as sex discrimination. While part of the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan to address emerging and developing issues, getting federal courts to agree that sexual-orientation discrimination is unlawful under Title VII is an uphill battle.
But, that doesn’t stop American businesses from creating and enforcing their own rules in the workplace against LGBT discrimination.
On Tuesday, voters in Houston, TX took to the polls and said no to Prop 1. That’s a ballot measure that would have outlawed discrimination at work against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees and job applicants. Amanda Terkel at The Huffington Post reports here that, despite having widespread support from local and national politicians and businesses, the measure failed, in large part, because of the “bathroom” issue. That is, many voters did not want transgender women using the women’s restroom (and vice-versa).
Meanwhile, on Tuesday in our Nation’s Capital, the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights issued a “groundbreaking report” revealing a high rate of discrimination against transgender job applicants.
On Monday, I got into last week’s EEOC ruling that sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII. Yesterday, I took up the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.”
On Thursday, make way for the Equality Act, according to Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade (here). Continue reading
Caitlyn Jenner got the cover of Vanity Fair and a million new Twitter followers shortly after confirming that she was no longer Bruce Jenner. So, by riding that wave with a timely blog post, I should at least get page 5 — above the fold — in the latest edition of “Employment-Law Blog Hunks,” the one you all read for the articles.
(Actually, I will be on Knowledge@Wharton’s daily show on SiriusXM channel 111 – Business Radio Powered by The Wharton School today from 10-12 EDT, as a follow-up to yesterday’s post, discussing Monday’s Supreme Court decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.)
Now, before my ego explodes like a baseball off of Giancarlo Stanton’s bat, let’s revisit the issue of transgender employees and restroom access. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog