Articles Discussing General Sex Discrimination Issues Under Title VII.

A case involving a former jail officer shows how keeping detailed, contemporaneous records of complaints of discrimination and unfair treatment can help defend against employee claims.

On the heels of the “Day Without Immigrants” protest, thousands of women may take the day off from work on March 8, 2017, to underscore the value of working women to the economy. The organizers of “A Day Without a Woman” cites national political issues as the key reason for this “general strike” action.

Employers in education are familiar with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and its applicability to all schools receiving federal funding. Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX applies to students and employees, and impacts decisions pertaining to admissions, athletics, funding, employment of women as faculty and administrators, sexual harassment, and testing. For employees (including faculty), Title IX is an additional overlay to other federal laws protecting employees from gender-based discrimination, including Title VII.

Executive Summary: On June 14, 2016, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published its updated sex discrimination rule for federal contractors and subcontractors. The Final Rule, “Discrimination on the Basis of Sex,” takes effect today, August 15, 2016. The Rule implements the requirements of Presidential Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246), which prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against their employees on a number of grounds, including sex. The OFCCP’s sex discrimination rule was last updated in 1970, and the new rule incorporates many legal developments that have occurred since that time.

In a decision handed down last week, the Second Circuit reaffirmed its long-standing holding that a “paramour preference” — a situation where a supervisor shows favoritism towards one employee over another due to the existence of a romantic relationship between the supervisor and the favored employee — does not give rise to claims for sexual discrimination under either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the New York State Human Rights Law. Moreover, the court also held that retaliatory acts allegedly taken in response to complaints about the existence of such a paramour relationship were similarly not actionable.

Executive Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases involving the issue of same-sex marriage; the Second Circuit’s decision finding the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional and a Ninth Circuit Decision striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

On October 18, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman,” is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) joins the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island) in holding that DOMA’s definition of marriage unconstitutional.[1] The ruling sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court potentially to hear the issue in the coming months.