Search
EEOC reaches historic $200K settlement on its first sexual orientation bias lawsuit
Late last week, one of those lawsuits settled.
Late last week, one of those lawsuits settled.
In this unanimous 6-0 decision on Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that employers cannot let any of the following motivate an employment decision:

Welp, it looks like there’s still plenty of time for me to get my money’s worth on creepy Wikipedia stock images of sexual harassment — Thank you By Leon israel – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38824206. Continue reading
![]()
Want to sit at the cool table next week at SHRM16? Well, I’ll be there. So, if you’d like the secret password or just want to meet a real blogging-employment-lawyer legend in person, email me. (Yes, I’ll have some swag).
Or, head over the EEOC’s website, print out this Sample ADA Notice for your employer-sponsored wellness program, and memorize the EEOC’s “Questions and Answers: Sample Notice for Employees Regarding Employer Wellness Programs.”
Then, while the rest of those nerds are Snapchatting about Strategizing Radical Change by Becoming a Disruptive Leader, show ’em some side eye, and bask in your ADA/GINA compliance.
About two years ago, I blogged here about this decision from the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, where the court held that an employer and employee could agree to shorten the statute of limitations on employment claims. For example, in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., conspicuously placed in its application materials, was language requiring that any employment-related lawsuit against Raymours be filed within six months of whenever the claim arose. Thus, if one of these employees was later discriminated against, he would have to file his lawsuit within six months (rather than within two years, as New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination permits).
Head on over to the EEOC’s website (here) to check out:
Since all of you have mastered reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this post seems rather unnecessary.
Oh, that’s weird. Why is the there smoke billowing from my blog servers?
(Although that could still be there from last Friday).
There is a growing trend across the country for employers to remove job-application questions about criminal-record history. Ban the Box notwithstanding, other common job application no-no’s continue to trip up certain employers.
Last week, the EEOC announced (here) that it had filed this lawsuit against a Massachusetts employer, in which it alleges that the company violated federal law when it refused to effectively accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs.
It’s a wicked pissah!
Kinda like this blog. I’d settle for a sandwich to call it even. Maybe some ketchup packets.