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!!!
It’s Victoria Lipnic, who was originally nominated by President Barack Obama to serve as an EEOC Commissioner back in 2010. Now, President Trump has named Ms. Lipnic the Acting Chair.
When last we visited the whirlwind saga of the City of Philadelphia’s proposed bill that would ban employers from asking about applicant salary history, I was waxing poetic about Animal House, suggesting here that Mayor Kenney was slowing his roll after City Council had unanimously approved the bill.
Yeah, about that…
When it comes to working for me as a blog minion, I don’t have many rules.
Actually, I do have many rules.
Seems appropriate to broach this trench-HR conundrum on a hump day, amirite?
(Don’t worry. I’ll be here all week).
The answer to this question, because I’m a lawyer, is “it depends.”
Naturally, of course.
You’ll have to pardon the headline.
I’m not nearly as articulate as the Third Circuit was in yesterday’s opinion in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, using words like “cognizable” and “disproportionate adverse impact.” And, even though the Third Circuit sits in Philadelphia, you won’t find local lingo like “old head” or “jawn” anywhere in the opinion.
Although, I’m pretty sure page 6 has a cheez whiz stain on it.
Nope, no clickbait here. And no irony in the lede either.
Plus, I feel like I’ve seen this one before.
Remember Hank the Septopus from Disney’s Finding Dory? I found his missing tentacle. And, my son ate it!
Tuesday’s Disney theme may have been germs and yuck, but we turned the corner on Wednesday.
The Employer Handbook Blog