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?
Brody and Associates, LLC • August 15, 2018
A former car salesman at Lee Partyka Chevrolet in Hamden, Connecticut, is suing the dealership claiming he lost his job after complaining about the general manager’s alleged use of the word “boy” to refer to his black employees. In his suit, plaintiff Dennis Bellamy alleges the dealership violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating him because he spoke up for what he perceived was a hostile work environment resulting from his general manager’s racially disparaging language.
The recent incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks holds valuable lessons for employers when it comes to managing and training a workforce. What was a bad situation quickly became a terrible one as the shop’s manager called the cops and had two black men arrested for trespassing when they were arguably waiting for a friend at the store.
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:
XpertHR • August 13, 2017
A supervisor's single use of the "n-word" is sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment, racial harassment lawsuit, a federal appellate court has ruled. In Castlebury v. STI Group, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the proper standard to apply in hostile environment cases is whether discrimination is severe or pervasive, rather than pervasive and regular.
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.