On Monday, I blogged about President Biden’s first HR-compliance wish list, which focused on COVID-19 mitigation efforts.
On Wednesday, President Biden was sworn in. And, folks, he wasted no time making moves that will impact labor and employment law. Continue reading
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate based on sex, also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. It was a landmark opinion.
One of the actions consolidated into the Bostock action was EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. The EEOC argued specifically that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on transgender status. On November 30, 2020, it settled.
And I’ve got all the details for you. Continue reading
As you’ve no doubt heard by now, yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the federal workplace law that forbids discrimination based on sex.
Back in March of last year, the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (WNT) sued the United States Soccer Federation in federal court in California. The WNT asserted two claims, one of which was that the Federation violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) by paying them less than it did the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team (MNT).
On Friday, a federal judge dismissed the EPA claim, concluding that the Federation did not pay the WNT less than the MNT because of their gender.
Indeed, the WNT was paid more than the MNT! Continue reading
It’s bad enough when a federal judge refers to a plaintiff-employee’s behavior towards her manager as “harassing, stalking, disturbing, and menacing.” And, I apologize that I didn’t have enough room in the title of this blog post to mention the plaintiff’s profanity and fighting at work, or her arrests for drunk driving and drug possession.
So, you’d think that the plaintiff would cut and run after the district court dismissed her claims for pregnancy, sex, race, and religious discrimination claims. But, the plaintiff who referred to herself at work as “crazy” and “psycho” decided to appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
And how do you think that went for the plaintiff? Continue reading
After reading 133 pages of transcripts from yesterday’s two (1, 2) oral arguments in the three LGBT workplace rights cases pending before the Supreme Court, three things are clear to me: Continue reading