Where a former employee alleged facts plausibly suggesting that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, retaliated against after she complained about the conduct and that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign, as she did, her claims survived the motion to dismiss.
VA Lawyers Weekly
Where a woman asserted a claim under the Equal Pay Act because she was allegedly offered less than similarly-situated employees, that claim was dismissed. The Equal Pay Act applies only to employees, and the woman never entered an employment relationship here and was thus never an “employee.”
Where a woman failed to name her actual employer in her charge of discrimination, and instead incorrectly named an affiliated entity, but her confusion was excusable and there was no prejudice to the actual employer, its motion to dismiss was denied.
Where an Amtrak employee alleged that she was subjected to discrimination made unlawful under Title VII, but her claims necessitated the “interpretation or application” of a collective bargaining agreement, they were subject to arbitration under the Railway Labor Act.
As every employer has seen, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused changes to employees’ work locations, schedules and job status, affecting their work and personal obligations.
A federal judge in Texas has ruled an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on LGBTQ+ protections is unlawful.