I’ll go ahead and file this one under: “Ya think?”
But perhaps I’m getting out over my skis. So, let’s see what you think. Continue reading
Yesterday’s post discussed how direct evidence “proves impermissible discriminatory bias without additional inference or presumption,” i.e., the proverbial smoking gun. But smoking gun evidence in discrimination cases is rare. Employers aren’t out there telling employees that their race will cost them their jobs.
Well, most employers, that is. Continue reading
Yesterday, we discussed unconscious bias training in the workplace. Today, we’ll talk about an employer that may need some if the allegations in a recently filed complaint against it are true. Continue reading
A federal appellate court recently breathed new life into the discrimination claims of a tanker driver alleging that his race motivated his employer to terminate his employment for it deemed reckless driving. His evidence? His employer had treated him differently than other tanker drivers who engaged in conduct that was similar enough to his.
So, let’s explore how other employees may be similarly situated to one another in the context of a discrimination claim. Continue reading
A single incident, like a supervisor calling a black employee the “n” word, may be enough to create a hostile work environment. But what if the victim doesn’t witness it? Continue reading
An employer recently learned the hard way that a proper response to an employee’s complaint of harassment involves more than simply investigating it.
I’ll explain. Continue reading
In 2013, a healthcare provider hired a white man—let’s call him plaintiff—as its Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. And he crushed it, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed.
And then, seemingly out of nowhere, he was fired. Continue reading
A white man filed a lawsuit against a company claiming that it denied him a high-six-figure executive position because of his race, age, and sex so that the company could search for more diverse candidates. Among the causes of action he asserted was one for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. A plaintiff suing under Section 1981 for a failure to hire must establish that “but for” his race, he would have gotten the job.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold up. Continue reading
Congress has considered legislation several times that would prohibit employers from discriminating based on an individual’s hair texture or hairstyle if that hair texture or that hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin.
But it has never passed.
Why? Because many believe that this law is unnecessary since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already forbids discrimination based on race and national origin. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog