Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Articles Posted in Sex
EEOC sues “Bark If You’re Dirty” pet store for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Because of course.
I enjoy blogging about employment law. But occasionally, perhaps after a long day, I wish some of these blog posts would write themselves.
Last night, I got my wish. Continue reading
Could denying vacation requests be grounds for a . . . discrimination claim?!?
Many of you accumulate vacation days at work throughout the year. So did the plaintiff in this recent federal court decision. She alleged that when her employer denied her requests to use her unused, accrued vacation in 2018 and 2019, it discriminated against her based on her sex, seemingly because it allowed other men to use vacation on the dates she wanted.
Is that sex discrimination? Continue reading
Does Title VII only cover ultimate employment decisions? Another federal appellate court doesn’t think so.
Imagine a business that gives its employees two days off each week. There’s nothing abnormal about that.
However, the company uses a sex-based policy to determine which two days an employee can pick. Only men can select full weekends off—women cannot. Instead, female employees can pick either two weekdays off or one weekend day plus one weekday; they never get an entire weekend off.
Is that discriminatory? Yes, But does this system violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it unlawful to discriminate at work based on sex? Continue reading
Can labor unions be sued for sexual harassment? (Spoiler alert: Yes, and they are costly!)
When most people think of federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they associate them with employees suing employers for things like discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environments.
But Title VII covers more than just employers.
Oh, man! A guy accused TWICE of touching women inappropriately claimed sex discrimination.
For every unicorn $25.6 million jury verdict you may read about online, thousands of discrimination cases fall well short of that mark. Way more never have a shot at making it to trial. And some don’t even have sufficient facts on the face of the complaint, which, if true, would establish a cause of action. They get dismissed right away.
Just like the case I have for you today.
Can employees use their religion as an excuse not to work with LGBTQ coworkers?
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The next day, the Supreme Court concluded in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment superseded a state’s anti-discrimination law which would have forced a website designer who does not believe in same-sex marriage to create wedding websites for gay couples.
Since then, I’ve seen folks asking whether employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage can get a religious accommodation from their employer to refuse to work with a gay coworker? Continue reading
Can a lateral transfer be discriminatory? The Supreme Court is about to weigh in.
Last week, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to establish that an employee’s request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 creates an undue hardship.
But there’s much more to Title VII than just religious accommodations. And the Supreme Court isn’t done with the statute yet. Last week, it agreed to determine whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage. Continue reading
Can blasting Eminem’s music create a hostile work environment? A federal appellate court thinks so.
At a workplace in Nevada, “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music from artists like Eminem and Too $hort “blasted from commercial-strength speakers placed throughout the warehouse, the music overpowered operational background noise and was nearly impossible to escape.” Employees complained about it “almost daily.” But management brushed those complaints aside and defended the music as motivational. This went on for almost two years.
Then eight former employees sued. They claimed that routinely playing “sexually graphic, violently misogynistic” music throughout its warehouse created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Continue reading