You already know the plaintiff won. What you might not know is what that means for your workplace policies, documentation practices, and DEI strategy. I broke it all down on this week’s On Record PR podcast. Continue reading
Heterosexual employees don’t have to clear a higher hurdle than gay employees to claim discrimination. The Supreme Court just said so—unanimously.
This case could reshape how Title VII claims are litigated—and it’s one employers should be paying close attention to. Continue reading
This week, lawmakers in both the House and Senate reintroduced the Equality Act, a bill that would explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity across numerous areas of federal law.
Although the bill has strong Democratic support, it lacks bipartisan backing—and given the political composition of Congress and the current administration’s stance, it is unlikely to become law during this session. Still, its reintroduction offers employers a timely opportunity to review existing policies and ensure compliance with current law. Continue reading
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a case where a heterosexual employee claimed her employer discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The key legal question isn’t whether she has a claim but whether plaintiffs in the so-called “majority” must clear an additional hurdle—proving “background circumstances” that show their employer is an unusual one that discriminates against the majority.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but maybe artificial intelligence does. I uploaded the oral argument transcript and asked three separate AI assistants (Harvey.AI, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot) to predict how each justice will rule and why. All three foresee a unanimous decision to scrap the “background circumstances” test. Here’s why:
On Saturday, the Associated Press reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) moved to drop several lawsuits related to gender identity discrimination. Let’s examine what caused this change in direction and the implications for employers. Continue reading
Earlier this week, I searched for LGBTQ+ resources on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website. On Google, I found a page titled “Moving Towards Equality in the Workplace for LGBTQI+ Employees.” But when I clicked the link, I got an error message: “The requested page could not be found.” The same thing happened with several other links.
Now I know why. Continue reading
The words “cisgender” or “non-transgender” employee appear nowhere in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal workplace law that outlaws gender discrimination. But, according to a Pennsylvania federal judge, “that does not preclude the possibility that discrimination against both a cisgender male and cisgender female may be independent Title VII violations.”
I’ll explain why. Continue reading
After taking a few days off and rocking out in Seattle, I’m back to blogging about employment law. 🤘🤘🤘
Today, we pull back the curtain and reveal how the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will address failure-to-accommodate claims under the Supreme Court’s new religious accommodation standard established last year in Groff v. DeJoy. Continue reading
One of the largest jury verdicts in recent memory for a claim of employment discrimination was a $25.6 million award to a white manager who alleged that her former employer fired her because of her race.
But these wins involving discrimination against the so-called “majority” are few and far between.
Just getting the case to trial is difficult. Continue reading
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
The Employer Handbook Blog