On Monday, I got into last week’s EEOC ruling that sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII. Yesterday, I took up the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.”
On Thursday, make way for the Equality Act, according to Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade (here). Continue reading
Oh, and it would allow businesses to fire LGBT employees too. Sorry EEOC.
It’s the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.” Continue reading
.jpg#/media/File:Showing_your_pride_-_DC_Gay_Pride_Parade_2012_(7356403050).jpg)
Last Friday, I briefly mentioned the EEOC’s recent decision, in which it concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination law that bans employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex, also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual). The EEOC concluded that sex discrimination also takes into account “sex-based considerations,” which includes sexual orientation. Continue reading
Unless you practice law or operate a business in New Jersey, you just don’t know.
You, the naive reader, may assume that California is the state with the most employee-friendly laws. And, while that may be true, New Jersey isn’t too far behind. For example, back in 2010, the NJ Supreme Court recognized (here) in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. that, under certain circumstances, an employee could legally swipe an employer’s confidential documents to prove her discrimination claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
But, late last month, the NJ Supreme Court revisited the issue…and the record scratched. Continue reading
You won’t find this one on the SAT’s. Continue reading
We all know that the Americans with Disabilities Act makes its unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual on the basis of his or her disability. But, the Act has even broader protections for employees. Continue reading
You can find it here.
I’d love to hang around and offer my commentary, but I’ve got a thing.
Ok, presumably, I’m not the only employment lawyer trying to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to the employer-employee relationship. But, I can guarantee that this will be the best post you read about it today.
#noguarantees Continue reading
A friendly reminder that, just because your job description might say what an employee is supposed to do, doesn’t mean that’s what your employee actually does. And, in an Americans with Disabilities Act case, here’s why that matters…
The Employer Handbook Blog