join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Grooming Policies in the Workplace: 11th Circuit Upholds Employer’s Dreadlock Ban

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer’s policy banning dreadlocks did not constitute racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In doing so, the court rejected the argument that hairstyle can be a determinant of racial identity for purposes of Title VII. The court reasoned that Title VII protection extends to immutable characteristics but not cultural practices and that hairstyles are not immutable characteristics.

HR Intel: Dark Joint Employer Clouds Forming for Franchises

A series of sexual harassment complaints against McDonald’s in the past month has laid the groundwork for a potential new joint employer battle for the purveyor of patties.

EEOC Unveils New EEO-1 Report To Capture 2017 Pay Data

In furtherance of its commitment to combating pay discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently finalized its proposed changes to the Employer Information Report, commonly known as the EEO-1 Report. While the EEOC annually collects information about the number of employees by job category and by sex, race, and ethnicity, employers will also be required to provide summary pay data about their employees as of March 31, 2018.

Beware the Cat’s Paw: Employer Liability for Harassment Expanded

The Second Circuit has expanded a theory of liability that can be asserted against employers. Previously, the Second Circuit had not ruled on whether an employer can be held liable for the actions of a lower-level employee with a discriminatory motive who manipulates an unwitting manager or employer into engaging in an adverse employment action. In Vazquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Ms. Vazquez accused a co-worker of sexual harassment and outlined in detail obscene and blatant actions taken by the co-worker that constituted sexual harassment.

EEOC Publishes Final Pay Data Changes to EEO-1 Report

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued revisions requiring employers with at least 100 employees to submit annual EEO-1 reports that include W-2 pay and hours worked data for their entire workforces, nationwide.

EEOC Announces Approval of Revised EEO-1 Report

On September 29, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that starting in March 2018, it will collect summary employee pay data from certain employers on revised EEO-1 Reports. The announcement comes upon approval of the controversial new EEO-1 Report by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

New EEO-1 Form Approved—Pay Data Collection Starts March 2018

On September 29, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) officially announced that starting in March of 2018, it will collect summary employee pay data and total hours worked information from employers with 100 or more employees. The new data will be collected on the annual Employer Information Report (EEO-1) that is jointly coordinated by the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Employer's Dreadlock Ban Is Not Racial Discrimination, 11th Circuit Finds

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer's refusal to hire an African-American job applicant because she refused to cut her dreadlocks is not illegal. The federal appellate court reasoned that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects covered persons with respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their hairstyle.

Employer Wins Dreadlocks Deadlock

A federal appeals court recently ruled that a woman rejected from a job because she refused to cut her dreadlocks could not proceed with a race discrimination claim against the employer. The decision highlights the distinction between individual expression and inherently racial characteristics in the context of race discrimination claims under Title VII.

eLABORate: Eleventh Circuit Upholds Dreadlocks Ban in the Workplace

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a company’s race-neutral grooming policy did not constitute intentional race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rejecting EEOC’s theory, and providing important guidance on the difference between racial and cultural characteristics.