Articles Posted in Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment

No, really. Demanding an employee’s social security number isn’t religious discrimination

January 29, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

Remember that blog post I had from July of last year, the one you contemplated getting tattooed on your back.

Yeah, you know the one. This one, silly. About the Fundamentalist Christian, who, upon filling out his new-employee paperwork, refused to provide a social security number because it would cause him to have the “Mark of the Beast.” So, he sought a religious accommodation, which the company refused to provide because obtaining a social security number is a federal requirement.

Welp, the employee appealed the decision to a federal appellate court?

How you think that turned out? Find out after the jump…

* * *

Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday. EEOC hung sex discrimination on you.

January 28, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

I’ve got some ~~apples~~ reverse sex discrimination on the menu today.

How you like dem apples?

More after the jump…

* * *

152,000 reasons for employers to consider discrimination with drug testing and haircuts

January 23, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

After the jump, what employers can learn from a possibly botched drug test and the failure to hire a Rastafarian

(Or an excuse for me to make gratuitous True Romance references).

* * *

#SOTU and the #Workplace: A full debriefing of last night’s Presidential address

January 21, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

I had every intention of watching the President address the Nation last night. I really did.

But, then I got sucked into the Director’s Cut of The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the one where the Washington Generals show up first and replace all the confetti with lice. Then poor Lovie Howell takes some shrapnel and, frankly, I didn’t realize that Thurston could order a hit squad so quickly to a remote Island.

By the time I remembered the SOTU, the Harlem Globetrotters were busting out a ladder — sorry, Krusty — and que sera.

Fortunately for me, and, by extension, you, the White House printed a copy of the SOTU, which I could ~~cut and paste~~ expertly analyze for you after the jump…

* * *

FACT OR FICTION: To protect a pregnant employee, a company can make her stay home.

January 20, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”

Oh, if I had a nickel for every time I got this question from an employer, “Hey Eric. We have this pregnant employee and she is very close to term. We’re concerned that if she continues working all the way up to childbirth, she may harm herself or the fetus. Can we require her to stay home?”

Eek! Check out this recent press release from the EEOC in which the agency announced that it is suing an employer, which allegedly required a pregnant employee to take unpaid leave until she was cleared by a doctor indicating that she could work despite her pregnancy. The EEOC further alleges, when the employee failed to provide a release, and after she and her mother disputed the legality of the requirement, the employee was fired in retaliation.

He filed for custody of the kids; she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit

January 19, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

I couldn’t make this set of facts up if I tried.

More after the jump…

* * *

I was right. This appellate court employment-law decision was one of the worst of 2014.

January 13, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

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:

Saks claims transsexual discrimination is legal. And here’s why they’re probably right.

January 12, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

Over the weekend, I joined a Facebook thread discussing a recent federal court complaint filed in Texas by a former Saks employee, Leyth O. Jamal. Ms. Jamal claims that Saks violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against her because she is transsexual.

Saks claims (here) that the complaint lacks merit because Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination against transgender employees.

Writing for Slate.com, Mark Joseph Stern calls out Saks’ “trans-bashing legal strategy” as “legally untenable.” Underscoring the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Mr. Stern notes that Title VII forbids sexual stereotyping. For example, in Price Waterhouse, the company allegedly treated Ms. Hopkins differently because she was “macho,” was “tough talking” and used “foul language.” That is, she didn’t conform to the company’s expectations of how a woman should act in the workplace.

It’s prolly not retaliation when you fire an employee who masturbates in your parking lot

January 5, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

Or, at least, when you honestly believe that one of your employees is masturbating in the parking lot.

(Unless, of course, you’re like by buddy Fred, who operates Parking Lot Self-Gratification, LLC).

Let’s just pretend that parenthetical remained in my head, ok?

After the jump, it’s a lesson on the law of retaliation involving the case of a school district employee who was fired for allegedly masturbating in a car…in the school parking lot…during school hours. And he claimed that his firing was retaliatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Allow that to sink in for a sec, then hit jump while I kiss the head of my golden blogging statuette and rub her belly…

* * *

“Your Asperger’s got in the way of your ability to interact with your boss, and we are tired of it.”

January 2, 2015 | by Eric B. Meyer

I tell you, folks.

When a school janitor, the plaintiff in this case, claimed that the school principal uttered the words in the lede above, I felt a stirring within.

Literally, the second those words (allegedly) formed on the principal’s lips, my ~~Spidey~~ Bloggy-senses told me that I’d be able to usher in the new year with a fine blog post.

Comin’ atcha after the jump…

* * *

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.