Employment Discrimination

Since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 in 1965, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been charged with ensuring nondiscrimination and affirmative action for females in employment. In 1970, regulations were issued to further this goal, known as the Sex Discrimination Guidelines, codified at 41 CFR Part 60-20. Those guidelines have not been substantially updated in the 46 years since. Until now, that is. The DOL acknowledges the Guidelines have become “out of touch with current law and with the realities of today’s workforce and workplaces.” See: OFCCP Fact Sheet on Sex Discrimination Final Rule. So, the OFCCP is bringing the Guidelines “from the ‘Mad Men’ era’ to the modern era.’”
Continue Reading DOL Updates Sex Discrimination Guidelines For First Time In 46 Years

On March 1, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued employers for the first time for sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC filed lawsuits in federal courts in Pittsburgh and Baltimore against manufacturing and health care employers for unlawful sex discrimination on behalf of employees alleging they were harassed and discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.
Continue Reading EEOC Brings First Sexual Orientation Discrimination Lawsuits

In February of 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released detailed information and statistics summarizing the charges of discrimination that the agency received throughout its 2015 fiscal year. The recently released report provides helpful information regarding the types of charges that employees filed in the 2015 fiscal year, which ran from October 1, 2014 to September 20, 2015.
Continue Reading EEOC 2015 Litigation Statistics – Retaliation Claims Lead Pack

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is asking the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize that discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation constitutes unlawful discrimination “because of . . . sex,” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Continue Reading EEOC Argues Title VII Prohibits Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In its recent decision in David Baldwin v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015), the EEOC ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that Title VII does not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity in its list of protected bases.
Continue Reading EEOC Rules Title VII Prohibits Sexual Orientation Discrimination

More and more employers are faced with the following question — can a transgender employee use the restroom associated with his or her gender identity? According to federal governmental agencies, the answer seems to be yes.
Continue Reading Can a Transgender Employee Use the Restroom Associated With His or Her Gender Identity?

The Supreme Court recently held in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. that Title VII prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship, even where the applicant has not informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Employers Can Violate Title VII’s Religious Discrimination Provisions, Even Where Applicants Have Not Disclosed Need for Accommodation

The Texas Supreme Court is considering a case that could have important implications to disparate impact analysis, including on criminal background checks. The case also foreshadows further challenges from the Texas Attorney General to aggressive positions taken by federal enforcement agencies in regard to disparate impact.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Case Foreshadows Texas Attorney General Attacks on Disparate Impact Analysis

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. Oral argument was heard on October 8, 2014. This case will resolve a circuit split on whether time spent by warehouse workers going through security is paid time. The Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal to Portal Act, does not require an employer to compensate for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principle work.
Continue Reading Key Labor And Employment Cases Currently Pending Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Less than two months ago, on July 29, 2014, the National Labor Relations (NLRB) made an announcement that it intends to hold franchisors legally responsible for unfair labor practices committed by its franchisees.  A recent Fifth Circuit opinion follows this trend by potentially expanding the number of discrimination and harassment suits corporate parent franchisors may face for discrimination and harassment committed by franchisees. EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd.

Continue Reading Corporate Parents May Face More Claims By Franchisee Employees (Says the Fifth Circuit)