Recently, a federal lawsuit was filed against Amazon and T-Mobile, among others, for discriminating against older employees in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA). According to the complaint, these companies posted recruitment advertisements on Facebook, a social media platform, which targeted only specific age groups.
Continue reading “Age Discrimination Is Illegal”
According to federal anti-discrimination laws, gender identity and gender expression are not protected categories. However, New York City’s statute on employment anti-discrimination includes gender identity and gender expression as protected categories. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex stereotyping, which may now provide a basis for claims. Continue reading “Sex Stereotyping In The Workplace”
On November 1, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched a public portal that will give people online access to inquiries about discrimination. “The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information.” The public portal will make EEOC information, as well as personal charge information, easily accessible. The features included in the public portal are currently available for all newly filed charges and any charges that were filed on or after January 1, 2016 that are currently in investigation or mediation. Continue reading “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Public Portal”
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was put in place to prevent discrimination against a woman for being pregnant. The PDA states that there can be no discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Related medical conditions are used as an overreaching term and therefore includes the issues that come with breastfeeding, as it is intrinsically intertwined with pregnancy. Stephanie Hicks, the plaintiff in Hicks v. Tuscaloosa case, was denied accommodations because of her pregnancy-related medical condition and ultimately resigned from her position.
Continue reading “Hicks v. Tuscaloosa”
Recently, a New York State Court of Appeals restored a gender discrimination case against a wellness clinic. Both defendants were co-owners of the establishment and were husband and wife. The husband had hired the plaintiff in the case as a massage therapist and yoga instructor. The husband acted as the plaintiff’s supervisor and had a professional relationship during her tenure. However, he told Plaintiff that his wife was jealous because she was “too cute.”
Continue reading “Don’t Fire An Employee Because Of A Jealous Spouse”
Recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that a civil rights law from 1964 protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees from workplace discrimination. The 8-3 decision is the first ruling by the federal appeals court to recognize that law as protecting the rights of LGBT individuals in the workplace.
Continue reading “U.S. Appeals Court Rules That LGBT Workers Are Protected From Bias”
The top executives at The New York Times have come under a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit for creating “a culture of discrimination” at the company based on age, gender and race. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two African-American female employees in their 60s who worked in the paper’s advertising department. The two women alleged that they were paid less than younger, white employees and were overlooked for promotions within the Times.
Continue reading “New York Times Top Executives Face Lawsuit For Racial, Age and Sexual Discrimination towards Employees”
In the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in the case of Young v. UPS, the Court remanded the case back to the 4th Circuit. Although the Supreme Court did not directly decide the issue of whether UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in not offering Young a disability accommodation due to her pregnancy, it held that Young’s claim should at least be heard. Advocates celebrated this as a victory because at least Young would have her day in court that had been denied by the lower courts. Young’s attorney considered the decision to be a “big step forward towards enforcing the principle that a woman shouldn’t have to choose between her pregnancy and her job.”
Continue reading “Women Celebrate Victory in Supreme Court Young v. UPS Decision”