Ogletree Deakins • August 11, 2019
On August 6, 2019, in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its limited rulemaking and enforcement power when it issued its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While this ruling and its related injunction are limited on their face to the State of Texas, the decision opens the door to future challenges to the validity of the EEOC Guidance by other employers, in and outside the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • March 21, 2019
On March 19, 2019, Facebook settled several lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Communications Workers of America, and various housing groups related to the placement of employment advertisements on Facebook’s website aimed at selected users based on their age or gender.
Franczek Radelet P.C • March 04, 2019
Employers across the country are on watch after a recent flurry of news about hairstyle discrimination. Earlier this year, a black news anchor in Jackson, Mississippi, alleged she was fired after wearing “unprofessional” natural hair. Then, in February, the New York Human Rights Commission issued guidance—the first of its kind—prohibiting workplace grooming and appearance policies that limit “natural” hairstyles such as “cornrows” and “Afros.” The guidance focuses on race discrimination, but also recognizes that such policies can lead to discrimination based on religion, disability, age, and gender. What should employers outside of New York know about the current laws with respect to hairstyle discrimination?
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 22, 2017
Cindy-Ann Thomas and her guests Littler Shareholder Allan King, and author and historian Carroll “C.R.” Gibbs provide a multi-faceted examination of the label “People of Color.” In this podcast, Cindy-Ann, Allan, and C.R. address the following, head-on:
Ogletree Deakins • August 01, 2017
After being sued for race discrimination, an employer/company filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that a single use of the n-word was not sufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment.
Ogletree Deakins • June 07, 2017
In a recent decision, Buntin v. City of Boston, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no implied private right of action for damages against state actors under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. In reaching that conclusion, the court of appeals determined that Congress, when it amended the statute in 1991, did not overrule the Supreme Court of the United States’ 1989 holding in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989), that Section 1981 affords no such right of action and that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is the exclusive source for federal damages actions against state actors alleged to have violated Section 1981. The First Circuit’s ruling in Buntin is consistent with that of eight other federal appellate courts, and the Ninth Circuit remains the only federal appeals court to have held that Congress overruled Jett by amending the statute.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • May 24, 2017
One strike, you’re out?
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 06, 2017
A municipal employer that conducted hair follicle drug testing on police officers was not entitled to summary judgment on a Title VII disparate impact claim, because a reasonable jury could conclude that an alternative to hair follicle drug testing would have met the employer’s legitimate needs, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Ogletree Deakins • August 08, 2016
Most—if not all—employers are aware that federal and state laws preclude employment discrimination based upon the race or national origin of an employee, and they know that illegal activity can include both discriminatory actions and biased statements. Most employers, however, are unaware that certain of these laws also preclude discrimination by a customer, client, or patient of an employer against an employee.
Ogletree Deakins • April 25, 2016
Most – if not all – employers are aware that both federal and state laws preclude employment discrimination based upon the race or national origin of an employee, and know that illegal activity can include both discriminatory actions and biased statements. Most employers, however, are unaware that certain of those laws also preclude discrimination by a customer, client, or patient of an employer against an employee.