Search
New report highlights rampant hiring bias against qualified transgender applicants
Hold up. I need to catch my breath after last night’s episode of The Walking Dead.
(Don’t worry. No spoilers ahead).
Hold up. I need to catch my breath after last night’s episode of The Walking Dead.
(Don’t worry. No spoilers ahead).
As a corollary to yesterday’s post about David Lopez stepping down as EEOC General Counsel —
*** Googles “corollary” — swish! ***
— I bring you news of two recent court decisions advancing LGBT rights at work.
I teased it in Friday’s post.
Last week, a Michigan federal court held (here) that a workplace dress code that requires one gender to conform to a sex stereotype (e.g., men must wear suits, and women must wear dresses) is “direct evidence” of sex discrimination. But, the employer in the Michigan case refused to waver from the letter of the dress code, and avoided a sex discrimination claim under Title VII.
Why? Because Hobby Lobby.
Just for today, head on over to LinkedIn, and check out my post about how strict application of your dress code could result in a nasty sex discrimination claim.
(And a little teaser for Monday — I’ll explain why the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision may trump Title VII and allow some employers to discriminate).
The lede comes directly from last Thursday’s much anticipated decision, in which the Seventh Circuit concluded in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (opinion here) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal workplace anti-discrimination statute, does not protect workers from discrimination based on LGBT status.
No, not that tea-bagging. And just when you thought that Your Blogness couldn’t possibly raise his game (raise, right?) after yesterday’s fart post.
(Yes, the next 1000+ words will either be my G.O.A.T. or my Waterloo, which, I’m told, is bad.)
According to Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed.com (here), 128 members of Congress filed a brief in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., urging the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to conclude the discrimination based on sexual orientation is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII.
So, yes, you should pay attention.
Late last week, one of those lawsuits settled.
The case is called Dilek Edwards v. Charles V. Nicolai and Stephanie Adams.
I’ll wait patiently while you take some time to Google the names.
[Cue music]
Yesterday, I blogged here about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s conditional veto of a bill which was intended to level the wage gap between men and women performing substantially similar jobs in the Garden State.
Serendipity.
Last night, I came across this survey from CareerBuilder, which examined the pay disparity between male and female sole breadwinners.