Title VII requires employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. When the statute was initially passed in 1964, there was no guidance from the EEOC on how employers were supposed to accomplish this goal. There was no caselaw or national #metoo movement. In contrast, today, there are well-established examples of what constitutes inappropriate physical contact, speech and other interactions in a workplace. While not all poor behavior can be avoided, employers can no longer hide behind a claim that “I did not realize the extent to which the lines had been redrawn” as recently proclaimed by Governor Cuomo. Employers must be knowledgeable about this law and proactively implement policies and protocols to prevent harassment from occurring in their workplace.
Continue Reading Five Takeaways for Private Employers Following the Cuomo Sexual Harassment Investigation
The Most Famous Elementary School Art Teacher in the United States and What She Has to Teach us About Discrimination
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.)
Department of Justice Contradicts EEOC in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case
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
EEOC to Issue Guidance On National Origin Discrimination: Public Comment Period to Open July 1
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced on June 2, 2016 its intention to issue a revised comprehensive enforcement guidance addressing national origin discrimination under Title VII. The proposed guidance will be open for public comment for thirty days only beginning July 1, 2016.
The EEOC has issued a number of guidance documents
What Do “Bathroom Bills” Mean for Employers?
Last month, national retail chain Target announced that it would allow transgender employees and customers to choose the restroom and fitting room facilities that correspond to their gender identity. Target took this step in response to laws, and proposed laws, in places like North
New Hampshire Supreme Court Holds that Individual Employees can be Liable in Workplace Discrimination and Retaliation Cases
Earlier this week, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the New Hampshire Law Against Discrimination, RSA Chapter 354-A, can impose liability upon individual employees for aiding and abetting discrimination in the workplace, and for retaliation against another employee in the workplace of a qualifying employer.
The issue came before the New