Soon the name Bostock will join those of Brown (v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas), Miranda (v. Arizona) and Obergefell (v. Hodges) in the annals of US Supreme Court history as the Court on June 15, 2020 issued its decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, GeorgiaThe court decided in an opinion incorporating a trio of cases asking whether Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) status.[1]  The Court concluded in a 6-3 opinion that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Continue Reading US Supreme Court Rules That Title VII Protects Gay and Transgender Employees

Photo: Beatrice Murch via Flickr (CC by 2.0)

The US Supreme Court recently announced it accepted three cases that will determine the scope of “sex” discrimination under federal law.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the

A bill recently filed in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, if passed, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of height and weight.  The proposed legislation would add height and weight to the list of protected classes covered by the Commonwealth’s antidiscrimination law (G.L. Chapter 151B) and public accommodation laws (G.L. Chapter 272, Sections 92A and 98).

Continue Reading Will Massachusetts Outlaw Discrimination Based on Height and Weight?

In the United States, certain religious schools are legally permitted to limit or discontinue student enrollment if:

the atmosphere or conduct within a particular home, the activities of a parent or guardian, or the activities of the student are counter to, or are in opposition to, the biblical lifestyle the school teaches. This includes, but is not limited to contumacious behavior, divisive conduct, and participating in, supporting, or condoning sexual immorality, homosexual activity or bi-sexual activity, promoting such practices, or being unable to support the moral principles of the school. (Lev. 20:13 and Romans 1:27.)


Continue Reading The Most Famous Elementary School Art Teacher in the United States and What She Has to Teach us About Discrimination

On March 5, 2018 I reported that the EEOC announced a settlement in its first lawsuit alleging that parental leave policies which granted more rights to mothers discriminated against new fathers. Details on the lawsuit’s allegations can be found here. The EEOC’s press release was devoid of details about the terms of the settlement. On July 17, the details became public, and they are likely to send shock waves through HR departments and C suites.
Continue Reading Estee Lauder Agrees to Pay $1.1 Million to Settle Discrimination Suit Filed by EEOC on Behalf of New Dads

Photo: Caitlin Regan via Flickr (CC by 2.0)

The EEOC announced on February 27, 2018 that it had reached a settlement in the agency’s first lawsuit alleging that parental leave policies which granted more rights to mothers discriminated against new fathers.  Details of the settlement were not announced.


Continue Reading EEOC Settles Paternity Leave Case: Will Dads Be Getting Equal Time?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on October 4, 2017 issued a memorandum to all US Attorneys signaling a change in the previously articulated position of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)  on transgender employment discrimination.  The memorandum, entitled Revised Treatment of Transgender Employment Discrimination Claims, states that in pending and future cases, the DOJ will take the position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not provide protection against discrimination based on gender identity.  Sessions concedes that some federal courts have interpreted the law differently, and advises his US Attorneys to preserve the issue for “further review” or appeal.

Continue Reading DOJ Changes Course on Transgender Discrimination

Our April 5, 2017 post highlighted a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Title VII protections against discrimination on the basis of gender extend to sexual orientation.  That court referenced US Supreme Court decisions such as the 2015 same sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, in concluding that “[t]he logic of the Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases that have endeavored to find and observe that line.”

Continue Reading Department of Justice Contradicts EEOC in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case

In a highly-anticipated decision issued yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a suit filed by a woman who was fired because of her off-duty use of medical marijuana.  The SJC held that the woman’s claims for disability discrimination under the Massachusetts antidiscrimination statute, G.L. ch. 151B, could go forward.

Continue Reading Massachusetts High Court Reinstates Suit by Employee Fired for Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use