Last week, I highlighted an often overlooked EEOC enforcement effort: protecting vulnerable workers. Shortly after my post, the EEOC continued its efforts to support vulnerable workers by issuing this statement to address workplace discrimination against individuals who are, or are perceived to be, Muslim or Middle Eastern.
Good on ya, EEOC.
About a year ago, I blogged here about a dreadful Sixth Circuit opinion, in which the court concluded that the plaintiff may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested (after having interviewed for the position).
Now, if you read the comments on my post, you’ll see that some of my readers took issue with my analysis of the case.
Well, I see your comments and raise you a scathing Justice Alito dissent from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari:
If you entered a time machine a few months ago and came out today to read this post, you missed a lot.
The Kansas City Royals made the World Series. Grammy Award winning rapper Eve wed entrepreneur Maximillion Cooper at Cala Jondal Beach in Ibiza, Spain. And a big-time Ebola scare.
Yeah, that Ebola scare was really something. But, it kinda just came and went, didn’t it? We haven’t had a new Ebola case in the U.S. in months, which makes the timing of Monday’s release of “Public Guidance on Protecting Civil Rights While Responding to the Ebola Virus” from the U.S. Department of Justice a bit off.
But, hey, what do you have to lose by filing the lawsuit anyway, right? I mean, it can’t end up worse than the New York Giants on Sunday Night Football.
(Oh yeah, I went there).
More after the jump…
That may be sugar coating it a bit.
A county employee, who applied for a lateral transfer, and ultimately received that transfer, was able to convince two judges on a federal appellate court that the transfer was discriminatory.
That’s right. An employee may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested.
Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting in Washington, D.C. at which invited panelists spoke on national origin discrimination issues in today’s workplace.
Participants discussed various recruitment and hiring issues; discriminatory treatment in assignments; pay discrimination; language and accent issues; effective communication and access issues; harassment; and retaliation.
The EEOC’s event press release highlighted some comments and issues of which employers should take note. Most notably, one management-side lawyer, Douglas Farmer, testified that the multi-cultural workplace presents challenges for employers. For example, based on their cultural background, some men may find it difficult to have a female supervisor.
Then I suggest “ghetto.”
Consider this your performance review ProTip for Tuesday, courtesy of this recent decision from a Texas federal court, in which an employer’s summary judgment motion was denied, and a Mexican-American plaintiff’s race and national origin discrimination claims will proceed to trial.
The smoking gun, it seems, was an affidavit from one of the plaintiff’s supervisors filed in support of the employer’s motion for summary judgment, in which the supervisor stated, “I advised Ms. Garza that this ‘ghetto-ness’ would no longer be tolerated, and that she would be terminated if it continued.” The plaintiff argued that this statement was direct evidence of discrimination against her. The defendant countered with the argument that “cases in which comments containing the word ‘ghetto’ have been viewed as facially discriminatory generally involve African American employees, while Garza is Hispanic.”
This week, I am on vacation. The Supreme Court didn’t get my memo. Fine. But, I’m not putting down my beer to write this post. So, you get a one-handed rundown of the two employment-law decisions the court issued yesterday.
Pardon my typos after the jump…
* * *
[If you listen carefully, you can actually hear the sound of page-hits and prurient reader interest cascading at The Employer Handbook. It’s got a little funky Salt n’ Pepa beat to it…]
Last May, I slobbered over blogged here about a former Indianapolis Colts’ cheerleader who sued the team claiming that the Colts discriminated against her on the basis of her race (Asian) and national origin (Indonesian).
Earlier this week, the court ruled on the Colts’ motion to dispose of the case. While I think we can all agree that this sort of hard-hitting blog fodder is better suited for a Monday post, I’m going to blog the heck out of the Court’s decision…after the jump. (It’s a long post, but it’s soooooo worth it).
* * *
The Employer Handbook Blog