Employment Law Observer

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 Days of California Labor and Employment" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on employers. On the third day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me three French hens, AB 1815, and SB 1137. 

On August 12, 2024, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff's hostile work environment claims were subject to the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"), even though the plaintiff's claims arose before the EFAA's enactment.

On March 20, 2024, the Second Circuit dismissed a remote employee's discrimination claim brought under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The Court held that the employee's discrimination did not meet the "impact test" because the impact was only incidentally felt in New York.

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion.

On March 14, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals held that nonresident prospective employees who seek employment opportunities in New York State or New York City and are denied due to discriminatory conduct are eligible to assert claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the eleventh day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—eleven ladies dancing and AB 3109.

In a milestone decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status violates Title VII. In addition, the court held as a matter of law that a religious employer “cannot rely on customers’ presumed biases to establish a substantial burden” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thus, the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs did not free it from the proscriptions of Title VII.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the Third Day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – three French hens and SB 396.

Beginning July 1, 2018, it will be illegal for San Francisco employers to ask job applicants to disclose their salary history. A number of similar laws have been enacted in cities and states across the country to address the gender and minority pay gaps.

The Supreme Court may soon answer the most significant question to arise under Title VII in recent years: is sexual orientation discrimination "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the statute? The case to watch: Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital.

Every employer has faced the unfortunate experience of hiring an employee whose performance fell well below expectation. As highlighted in the Seventh Circuit’s recent Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District decision, employers faced with poor performing employees should carefully address and document such shortcomings to ward off potential Title VII charges.

In a developing trend, Delaware followed Massachusetts, Oregon, New York City and Philadelphia, in enacting legislation directed at ensuring equal wages between genders.  On June 14, 2017, Governor John Carney signed legislation, which prohibits prospective employers from asking job applicants about their salary history.  The reasoning behind these laws is that wage disparities are perpetuated when current pay is based on past salary decisions that may have been based on gender.  Rather, employers are encouraged by these new laws to assess potential pay based solely on merit, experience of the job applicant and the market rates.

In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar direct and indirect methods of proving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s instruction should apply with equal force to claims brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that Title VII does not protect employees or offer redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation.  As a result, discrimination against an employee based solely on sexual orientation is not prohibited by federal law, while discrimination against an employee based on gender non-conformity claims is prohibited.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge begins to run on the date of resignation, not the date of the employer’s last discriminatory act, resolving a circuit split. As a result, in determining the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, constructive discharge cases will be treated the same way as actual discharge cases.

Bathroom use by transgender individuals is today’s hot-button civil rights issue. The often strong and disparate opinions about the subject creates a conundrum for employers: How do we make everyone comfortable while ensuring a safe and inclusive environment? And how do we do that without violating the law?

It is not uncommon for companies to contract their daily business operations to third-party companies. In Motta et al v. Global Contact Services, Inc., the court addressed whether such relationships relieve the outsourcing company of any duties to address discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints make up nearly half of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC today. Thus, it is critical that employers, their managers, supervisors, and employees understand who the laws protect and what constitutes retaliation.

The Sixth Circuit recently upheld a Michigan district court's decision to dismiss a 52-year-old African-American female security guard's age, race, and sex discrimination claims arising from her discharge following an incident with a combative psychiatric patient at the hospital where she worked.