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).
* * *
And if anyone wants to get me this iPad case for Christmas…
Wait, what was I supposed to be writing about? Oh yeah, national-origin discrimination. I’ll get it together for you after the jump…
Yesterday, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin). You can read a full press release on the updated Enforcement Guidance here.
The press release includes a link to questions and answers about the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance. However, I will summarize the most important points for employers after the jump…
Unfair treatment because of one’s language may be related to race or national origin discrimination. Indeed, language may be used as a covert basis for discrimination.
But that’s not always so. A recent case and some helpful nuggets on English-only rules after the jump…
Now in autotune.
(Betcha didn’t expect that).
Yesterday, we were rapping (without the benefit of autotune) about immigration status and unlawful discrimination and concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of immigration status (although national-original discrimination is unlawful). And we know from a super-hot “Fact or Fiction” post last year that Title VII covers Americans who are employed abroad. It was so hot.
I had this song in my head for about two hours on Sunday.
Then I listened to the Trent Reznor version, ick….
I had trouble sleeping last night.
If you read yesterday’s post, you know that when deciding between a post about an NFL cheerleader who was fired for risque pictures mailed to the Indianapolis Colts versus labor law and Twitter, I chose labor law and Twitter.
***stupid Twitter!***
I won’t make the same mistake twice. So, without further ado, I have the pictures federal-court complaint of the fired cheerleader and a brief rundown of her chances of success.
***Oh, Twitter. I can’t stay mad at you. I’ll give you a foot rub — right after I finish this can of Four Loko.***
Don’t judge me. Just skip past the jump. TGIF, yo.
The Employer Handbook Blog