On September 22, 2020, President Trump signed Executive Order 13950, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (the “EO”), which indicates that it seeks to “combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating,” and end so-called “divisive concepts” promulgated in workplace employee trainings.
Articles Discussing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues In The Workplace.
What Does President Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping Mean for Government Contractors?
On September 22, 2020, President Trump signed Executive Order 13950, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (the “EO”), which seeks to “combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating,” and end so-called “divisive concepts” covered in some of these workplace trainings.
Additional Information Released on ‘Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping’ Order; ‘Hotline’ Established
Following the “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” Executive Order (EO), which requires the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to set up a hotline and investigate complaints of violations, OFCCP has issued a press release providing additional information and reporting the launch of the hotline.
Providing Benefits to LGBTQA+ Employees After Bostock
San Francisco Littler attorneys Julie Stockton and Courtney Chambers address gender identity and sexual orientation issues in the workplace. In this episode they are joined by Anne Sanchez LaWer, an employee benefits attorney in Littler’s San Jose office, as they discuss the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling
Protections Under Title VII
In this first of a series of podcasts, San Francisco Littler attorneys Julie Stockton and Courtney Chambers explain Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing protections for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as outline immediate next
Practical Questions for Employers Following the Bostock Decision, Part 3: Pronouns and Honorifics
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, covered employers may not discriminate against applicants or employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
Practical Questions for Employers Following the Bostock Decision, Part 1: Sex-Segregated Facilities
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, covered employers may not discriminate against applicants or employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
Health Plans Post-Bostock: Mixed Signals on Sex Discrimination?
Most employer-sponsored health plans will be exempt from the primary Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision governing race, color, age, sex, disability, and national origin discrimination under new final rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Only plans (or other covered programs and activities) that receive
‘But-For’ Causation Under Bostock
The recent Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia decision, in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an employer that fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has received a tremendous amount of attention. The Court’s decision
Affordable Care Act No Longer Interpreted to Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Patients
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) contains anti-discrimination provisions, which include prohibitions on sex discrimination, that apply to certain health care providers and insurers receiving federal funding. On June 13, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) published a final rule walking back protections for transgender
Supreme Court Justices Dissent: The Opposition to Extending Title VII’s Protections to Gay and Transgender Employees
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision, held Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompassed discrimination against gay and transgender individuals. Two dissents followed the majority’s opinion—Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.’s, with whom Justice Clarence Thomas
In Landmark Decision, Supreme Court Rules That Title VII Prohibits Employment Discrimination of Gay and Transgender Individuals
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of sex discrimination encompasses discrimination against gay and transgender individuals. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice
Supreme Court Rules that Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Individuals Are Protected Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court published its opinion resolving three cases, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., Bostock v. Clayton County, and EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects LGTBQ+ Employees From Employment Discrimination
In a landmark ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that LGTBQ+ employees are protected from workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An article by our colleagues discussing the case and its implications can be read here. A copy of The Court’s decision can
U.S. Supreme Court: Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees From Discrimination
Today, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status in the workplace. The […]
Social Profiles