Last week, five players on the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the U.S. Soccer Federation. The women claim that they paid up to four times less than their male counterparts for doing basically the same job.
YASSSSS!!!!
Oh, thank you blogging gods for this generous clusterfunked bounty. Please accept this offering from your humble minion.
Unless, of course, you’re filling server positions at Hooters. But, I’m not going there today.
As I type this post, I’m watching two of my kids — one dressed as Olaf; the other Elsa — yelling at each other to stop singing Frozen tunes. Now, they’re wrestling — I don’t remember that from the movie. For a snowman, that Olaf is pretty tough. Oh, damn! Parent of the year here has let it go — see what I did there — on too long.
brb…
Last September, for the first time ever, the EEOC sued two private employers for discriminating against employees who had transitioned from one gender to another.
One of those cases settled last week for $150K.
Yesterday, the other action survived the employer’s motion to dismiss the case. Continue reading
I intended to begin the week with a post about a company’s legal obligation to predict — yes, predict — an employee’s mental fitness for duty. Then, I started on a brief tangent on Ellen Pao, the former partner of a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, who just lost a highly-publicized gender discrimination claim against said former employer.
And a few hundred words later, that brief tangent became its own blog post — this one. (If you want a wild lawsuit brought by an airline captain who claimed that his former employer was negligent by failing to predict that he’d have a manic in-flight episode, come back tomorrow). Continue reading
I had every intention of watching the President address the Nation last night. I really did.
But, then I got sucked into the Director’s Cut of The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the one where the Washington Generals show up first and replace all the confetti with lice. Then poor Lovie Howell takes some shrapnel and, frankly, I didn’t realize that Thurston could order a hit squad so quickly to a remote Island.
By the time I remembered the SOTU, the Harlem Globetrotters were busting out a ladder — sorry, Krusty — and que sera.
Fortunately for me, and, by extension, you, the White House printed a copy of the SOTU, which I could cut and paste expertly analyze for you after the jump…
Because all the other blogs will say “paramour” or “lover” in the lede, and I need to remain relevant (or “down,” if you will) with my more trendy readers.
Over the weekend, I read this case in which a male plaintiff alleged discrimination because his supervisor was allegedly schtupping a female subordinate and treating her better.
(The court said “voluntary romantic affiliation,” but why say in three words, what you can say in one).
Terribly sorry about the confusion created by my sloppy use of possessive pronouns in today’s lede. The “his” wife refers to the employee’s wife. Otherwise, this post doesn’t make any sense, does it? (Don’t spend too much time contemplating the question, ok).
Yep, just another Tuesday at The Employer Handbook.
Click through for what should prove to be a cluster of a gender discrimination claim contain many valuable takeaways for proactive employers.
The Employer Handbook Blog