| by

noun-supreme-court-149365

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants based on sex. In 2020, the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination to include employer bias based on sexual orientation.

But, did you know that in about half the country, a heterosexual employee who believes that their employer discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation must also establish “background circumstances” on top of Title VII’s other requirements to establish that their employer is the “unusual” one who discriminates against the majority to sustain a claim?

What exactly are “background circumstances”? Continue reading

| by

noun-restroom-5983144-1024x1024

In 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that a federal agency that denied an employee equal access to a common bathroom/facility corresponding to the employee’s gender identity discriminated based on sex and could not restrict a transgender employee to a single-user restroom. About five years later, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced a lawsuit against several employers claiming that forbidding transgender workers from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity contributed to a hostile work environment based on their sex.
Continue reading

| by

noun-pregnant-1300007

Today’s lesson is about the interplay between the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to accommodate known disabilities absent undue hardship, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect last year and also requires an employer to accommodate known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions unless doing so will result in an undue hardship. Continue reading

| by

noun-no-7006952-1024x1024

I’ve read this post and this post about this recent lawsuit about seven current and former employees who claim they were forced to work with ‘Nazi sympathizers.’ They allege that the company hired and promoted a white employee with a swastika tattoo on his face and ties to a white nationalist group.

If true — and remember that these are just allegations in a complaint — that’s awful.

But let’s change the facts. Continue reading

| by

noun-nervous-5405395-1024x1024

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission filed a notice of appeal with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, signifying that it will ask the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a trial judge’s August 15 decision to enjoin enforcement of its sweeping noncompete ban.

Should this concern employers? I’ll give you three reasons why it shouldn’t.

Continue reading

| by

noun-paper-shredder-4947622-1024x1024

Last week, we discussed an FMLA policy that your business needs to rip from its employee handbook and burn with fire. This week, we revisit an Americans Disabilities Act policy that should end up on the paper shredder: the 100% healed policy.

Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Eric B. Meyer
| All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design