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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: OTA Photos via Flickr (CC by SA 2.0)
Photo: OTA Photos via Flickr (CC by SA 2.0)

One of the key provisions of the new Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (which goes into effect on July 1, 2018) is that it prohibits employers from requiring prospective employees to disclose their salary history.  The reasoning behind this provision is as follows:  if employers are allowed to ask applicants about their salary history, and base compensation on the answers to those questions, applicants who have been on the receiving end of discriminatory pay practices in the past will continue to be hampered by past pay inequity throughout their careers.  If employers cannot base pay on what an applicant made previously, so the thinking goes, employers will have to set pay based on what the job is worth.


Continue Reading

Photo: Uber.com/media
Photo: Uber.com/media

On June 13, 2017, Uber released to its employees excerpts of a damning independent investigation report authored by independent investigators Eric Holder and Tammy Albarran, attorneys with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.  On February 19, 2017, former Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a blog post detailing allegations of harassment, discrimination and retaliation at the company during her tenure.  She also decried the ineffectiveness of Uber’s policies and procedures in addressing such workplace issues.  The very next day Uber hired Former Attorney General Holder and his law firm to conduct a review of  the issues raised by Fowler as well as diversity and inclusion more broadly at Uber.
Continue Reading