Employment Law Observer

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").

In a historic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer who discriminates against an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. 590 U. S. ____ (2020). This landmark decision provides LGBTQ+ employees across the nation protection from termination or other employment discrimination because of their LGBTQ+ status. The Supreme Court's decision resolved three cases: Altitude Express v. Zarda; Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion in which Justices Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a dissenting opinion.

After considerable anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear three cases involving questions of whether Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

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.

It's back! Hard to believe another year is coming to a close. It's even harder to believe that California has once again enacted a slew of employment laws  that go into effect in 2019. The Legislature certainly keeps California employers busy. In the spirit of the season, we are again using the "12 days of Christmas" song to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. So, on the first day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—a partridge in a pear tree and SB 826.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently decided two questions of first impression under Florida law: (1) whether a one-event sexual advance at a private, non-work sponsored party may support sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and (2) whether rejecting a supervisor’s sexual advance is protected “opposition.” The court answered both questions “yes.”

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.

Acknowledging the “changing legal landscape” surrounding Title VII protections against discrimination, the Second Circuit overturned prior precedent and held sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., examined the issue “from the perspective of sex stereotyping,” and unequivocally concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is predicated on assumptions about how persons of a certain sex can or should be,” which is “an impermissible basis for adverse employment actions.” In Zarda, a deceased skydiving instructor was allegedly fired for disclosing his sexual orientation to a client and not conforming to the “straight male macho stereotype.”

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 fourth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – four calling birds and AB 2337.

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.

On August 1, 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed An Act to Establish Pay Equity, which as the name aptly suggests, seeks to ensure equal pay for comparable work for all Massachusetts workers and equal opportunity to earn competitive salaries. The Act will take effect on January 1, 2018.

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.