Posts tagged LGBT.

This is a G-rated post. PG at worst. Continue Reading ›

And opens up a can of worms. Continue Reading ›

EEOC takes a stand on bathrooms and gender identity. Continue Reading ›

For $250 grand. Continue Reading ›

In light of his Supreme Court win in June. Continue Reading ›

The case will go on. Continue Reading ›

Almost all good news for employers. Continue Reading ›

A bit of impeachment/employment law trivia. Continue Reading ›

Who's the "swing vote," the "parade of horribles," and more. Continue Reading ›

He's a talented guy. He hardly said a thing. Continue Reading ›

The position has been vacant since late 2016. Continue Reading ›

Happy holiday weekend! Continue Reading ›

The status, the arguments, and my predictions. Continue Reading ›

Most charges were down, but sex harassment, LGBT charges were up. Continue Reading ›

Jack Phillips and the state of Colorado are going their separate ways. Continue Reading ›

Prudent employers will make sure their policies cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Continue Reading ›

This case will blow your mind. Continue Reading ›

As long as it's the principle (and I think it is). Continue Reading ›

Here's a summary of what you may have missed over the holiday break. Continue Reading ›

UPDATED 12/4/18: I was right to be skeptical. Continue Reading ›

No exaggeration! Register now! Continue Reading ›

Delayed again! Continue Reading ›

What are you thankful for this year? Here is my list. Continue Reading ›

We may know by the end of this month. Continue Reading ›

Nah. They'll just agree to disagree. Continue Reading ›

Hurry up and wait. Continue Reading ›

Commission adopts an expansive view of "sex." Continue Reading ›

C'mon, Supreme Court: Settle this one! Continue Reading ›

The Colorado baker is going on offense. Continue Reading ›

Hively v. Ivy Tech is ovah! Continue Reading ›

But will the EEOC be allowed to defend? Continue Reading ›

And one judge is not pleased. Continue Reading ›

Another federal appeals court will soon decide whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. Continue Reading ›

The employer in the "gay skydiver case" has reportedly asked for Supreme Court review. Continue Reading ›

The state Civil Rights Commission broadens its interpretation of "sex discrimination." Continue Reading ›

After all, Fiscal Year 2017 ended just about the time that #MeToo began. Continue Reading ›

The issue of whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation bias will have to be resolved another day. Continue Reading ›

Asserting that the U.S. Department of Justice “must interpret Title VII as written by Congress,” the DOJ is reversing the Obama-era interpretation of Title VII, taking the position that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

In a memorandum issued this week by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the DOJ formally withdrew a 2014 memorandum by then-Attorney General Eric Holder taking the contrary position.

Attorney General Sessions contends that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination based on sex, but not based on “gender identity per se.” He noted that Title VII refers only to discrimination based on “sex,” which is “ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female.” He also noted that Congress had specifically referred to gender identity in other contexts, indicating that it would have done so in Title VII had that been its intent. Finally, he said that Title VII did not prohibit treatment “that [took] account of the sex of employees but [did] not impose different burdens on similarly situated members of each sex,” specifically referencing sex-specific bathrooms.

The memorandum concludes as follows:

The Justice Department must and will continue to affirm the dignity of all people, including transgender individuals. Nothing in this memorandum should be construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity, or to express a policy view on whether Congress should amend Title VII to provide different or additional protections. Nor does this memorandum remove or reduce the protections against discrimination on the basis of sex that Congress has provided all individuals, including transgender individuals, under Title VII. . . . The Department of Justice has vigorously enforced [federal laws specifically protecting transgender individuals], and will continue to do so, on behalf of all Americans, including transgender Americans.

The DOJ position is not a surprise, given that it recently submitted a “friend of the court” brief making roughly the same arguments in a sexual orientation discrimination caseContinue Reading ›

With President Trump in office for nine months now, it is hard to believe that none of his people are yet on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The four current Commissioners, including the Acting Chair, Republican Victoria Lipnic, and former Chair Jenny Yang, were all appointed by President Obama.

But that may change soon. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held hearings this week on the nominations of Janet Dhillon for EEOC Chair and Daniel Gade for EEOC Commissioner.

(The Senate confirmation vote for William Emanuel, whose nomination as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board has been pending for quite some time, is expected to take place imminently.)

Here’s what we have learned about Ms. Dhillon and Dr. Gade from this week’s HELP Committee testimony, according to an article in Bloomberg BNA’s Daily Labor ReportContinue Reading ›

How much can you do - and not do - about your employees' personal appearance and grooming? Take this quiz and find out! As usual, I'll have the answers at the end, so if you get one wrong, no one but you will know.

QUESTION 1: If I operate in a jurisdiction that doesn't have a law against appearance discrimination, I can make any rules about appearance and grooming that I want. 

TRUE

FALSE

QUESTION 2: My employees are required by OSHA to wear masks on the job. The masks are no good unless there is a proper seal around the employee's mouth and nose. Since facial hair prevents a good seal from forming, we have a no-beard policy. I have one employee who is Sikh and wears a beard for religious reasons. What should I do?

A. Let him keep his beard and pray that the mask will work without the proper seal.

B. Tell him he has to shave the beard off or lose his job.

C. Meet with him and explain that the mask is required by OSHA and the safety rationale for the rule. Talk with him about reasonable accommodations, which might include use of a different type of mask that works with a beard, or transfer to another position that doesn't require use of a mask. After you've talked and perhaps consulted with vendors or safety experts, make a determination of what to do that won't violate the law or endanger his safety while accommodating his beliefs as much as you can. Continue Reading ›

This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Legal Influencer Lexology Badge ABA Web 100 Badge
Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek