MENU

Tag: title VII

Covid-19 Pandemic Related Caregiver Discrimination

August 26, 2022

For individuals with caregiving responsibilities (“caregivers”), the effects of the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic go beyond work obligations. While navigating hybrid work schedules and tighter shifts, they must also find time for their duties to spouses, children, and disabled relatives. These individuals may live with children too young to receive the vaccine or relatives who are immunocompromised. As they juggle work and caregiving duties, they may face employment related discrimination because of these pandemic-related caregiving responsibilities. Fortunately, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides regulations to protect employees from workplace prejudice because of any caregiving obligations they may have to family members and loved ones. This article will summarize those guidelines to assist employers and employees in addressing pandemic-related caregiving discrimination. 

When Does Workplace Caregiver Discrimination Violate US Employment Laws? 

According to the EEOC, employers violate US employment laws when they discriminate against an employee/applicant with caregiver responsibilities based on their sex (sexual orientation and gender identity), pregnancy status, race, age, national origin, religion, disability, or genetic information. It is also unlawful for an employee to discriminate against an employee/applicant based on their association or caregiving responsibilities to people with disabilities or other protected characteristics (race, ethnicity, etcetera). 

What About Caregiving Triggers Discrimination Considerations?

Making employment decisions based on gender stereotypes is also illegal. For example, when the company fails to hire female applicants because they assume they would focus more on caring for their children and elderly relatives than on their work. Even further, EEOC regulations prohibit punishing female employees more harshly than male colleagues for absences or missed deadlines because of pandemic-related caregiving obligations. These regulations apply to discrimination against male employees, as well. It is unlawful to discriminate against male staff who are caregivers based on gender stereotypes that women are caretakers while men are breadwinners. Employers may not deny male employees leave or requests for a flexible schedule to attend to family members or loved ones infected with COVID-19 if they grant such requests to female staff. 

What About LGBTQ Employees and Applicants?

EEOC regulations prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ employees and applicants with caregiving responsibilities because of their sexual orientation. Employers may not deny requests for flexible hours or office leave from these individuals because of their gender identity if they grant permission to such requests from other staff members. They may also not require these employees to grow through rigorous procedures before granting their leave requests if other workers do not go through such processes. 

What About Discrimination Against an Employee With Caregiving Responsibilities Based on Race and Ethnicity?

Discriminating an employee with caregiving obligations because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin is illegal under EEOC laws. 

For instance, managers may not require black or Asian employees to go through burdensome processes to obtain leave or a flexible work schedule to take care of a relative, while others have their requests granted without such procedures. 

Employers may also not deny an employee’s requests for leave to care for a loved one from another country with a COVID-19 infection because a COVID-19 variant was identified in the infected individual’s home nation. 

Caregiver workplace harassment or discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status is also unlawful under Department of Justice laws. 

What About Discrimination Because of Caregiving Responsibilities to an Individual With Disabilities?

Under EEOC regulations, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee who is a caregiver to an individual with disabilities because of their association with the care recipient. Some instances where such discrimination can occur include refusal to: 

  • promote or hire an applicant/employee who is a parent to a child with a mental health disability that escalated during the pandemic because the applicant/staff would not show commitment to their duties due to their caregiving obligations. 
  • hire an applicant who has a spouse with a disability that has a risk of severe illness from COVID-19 infection because the employer wants to avoid the increased health insurance costs when the company includes the ailing spouse in its healthcare plan. 
  • include the applicant’s spouse in the company’s health insurance plan after hiring the applicant because of the disability mentioned above.

Reasonable Accommodation for Caregivers Under US Federal Employment Laws

EEOC regulations do not give US employees a right to workplace accommodations (telework, flexible schedules, overtime, etcetera) because of their caregiving duties. 

However, other US laws make provisions for such employee rights, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act. The act allows workers to request office leave for caregiving purposes. 

Other state and local laws also provide reasonable accommodations for workers with caregiving obligations. That said, employers can grant workplace accommodations to staff who are caregivers at their discretion, as long as they do so in a non-discriminatory manner. 

How Employees Can Respond to Discrimination Based on Covid-19 Related Caregiver Status 

Employees with caregiver status who are victims of discrimination because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or affiliations with a person with a disability should report the harassment/discrimination to their employers. 

State, local government, and private sector employees should report discrimination incidences to the EEOC, state, or local government agencies responsible for employment discrimination. They may file their complaints with the EEOC within 180 in states without a local EEO agency and 300 days in states with a local EEO agency. 

Federal workers should report discrimination cases to their agency’s EEO office within 45 days. State and local government anti-discrimination agencies also have timelines for state and local government employees to report harassment cases. 

Employers and their staff can obtain further details on caregiver discrimination from the EEOC’s caregiver discrimination policy guidance, associated fact sheet, and employer best practices document. 

To sum it up…

US employment laws prohibit all kinds of workplace discrimination. If you’ve been a victim of workplace harassment because of your caregiver status, you can take steps to protect your rights and those of other employees. At the Law of Office of Sheri Oluyemi, we bring our experience in US employment laws to help employees get justice at work. Reach out to us today to request a free teleconference, and let’s safeguard your right to fair treatment in your workplace.

Discrimination Based on Hair?: The CROWN Act 

July 5, 2022

Crown Act passes US House of Representatives

On March 18, 2022, the US house of representatives passed the CROWN ACT banning “discrimination based on an individual’s texture or style of hair.” The bill, first introduced to the house in 2021 by Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, was passed in a vote of 235-189. It currently is being read in the US Senate.

While this is the first time the bill is getting approval at the federal level, it has already made its way into state legislation across several states in the US. In 2019, California became the first state to pass the CROWN ACT into law by a unanimous vote. Twelve other states, including New York, Washington, Nebraska, Delaware, Oregon, and Colorado, would eventually follow suit between 2019 and 2021. Here in Georgia, the CROWN ACT is not yet law.

What Is the Crown Act as Relates to Discrimination Based on Hair?

The CROWN ACT stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair. According to the bill, “Routinely, people of African descent are deprived of educational and employment opportunities because they are adorned with natural or protective hairstyles in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, or worn in locks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, or Afros.”

Black people have often faced racial discrimination across corporate America because of how they groom their natural hair. According to one study, employers perceive black women with natural hairstyles as less competent and professional (and less likely to be recommended for job interviews) than black or white women with straight hairstyles. In 2016, Sabrina Chiodo, assistant manager at Jack Astor’s Bar and Grill, sent home 20-year old Akua Agyemfra for wearing her hair in a bun (contrary to restaurant policy that all female staff wear their hair down). Elsewhere, in Louisiana, Imani Jackson lost her job at American Screening LLC within a month of wearing her natural hair in a bun instead of the wig she had worn during her interview and her first month working at the company. But it’s not only African-American women that suffer from racial discrimination because of their hair. In 2018, Andrew Johnson, a black high school wrestler, was told by a referee to cut his dreadlocks or forfeit a wrestling match. It is cases like these that the CROWN ACT seeks to address and outlaw. 

What Are the Effects of the CROWN ACT on Discrimination?

The CROWN ACT prohibits racial discrimination based on a person’s hair. This discrimination is often unspoken in US workplaces but ladened in employee handbooks that specify company policy. As such, the CROWN ACT would be a significant step to enabling a more diversified and inclusive corporate America. In the wake of the CROWN ACT, more companies will adopt new policies that allow women of color to groom their natural hair the way they deem fit without discrimination. Also, before the CROWN ACT, cases of race-based hair discrimination that have made it to US courts have failed to yield substantial results. For instance, in 2014, US District Court Judge Charles R. Butler Jr dismissed a race-based hair discrimination case involving Chastity Jones and Catastrophe Management Systems.  In 2016, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision and further attempts to get the US Supreme Court to intervene failed to yield results. 

However, if the US Senate passes the CROWN ACT into law, it would provide the necessary legal protection for victims of race-based hair discrimination, especially since there’s currently no other federal legislation in the US that protects people of color from stigmatization because of their hair. 

Furthermore, since its inception in California in 2019, the CROWN ACT has created awareness and kick-started healthy conversations about racial discrimination based on a person’s hair. These conversations will only become more mainstream once the bill becomes federal law. 

Conclusion

Workplace discrimination based on hair is more common than we realize for people of color. The stigma behind natural hair for black people has often deprived them of educational and employment opportunities. However, the narrative should change once the CROWN ACT becomes federal law. If you’re a black person in the US facing race-based hair discrimination at your workplace or school, hiring legal help is the best course of action to protect your rights.

Or, if you are an employer seeking to create an inclusive dress policy or dress code with specifications about hair, contact us.If you want to review your company’s policy surrounding natural hair in the wake of the CROWN ACT, our expert team of lawyers can also assist you throughout the process and ensure there are no grey areas that could get you into a potential lawsuit.

At the Law Office of Sheri Oluyemi, we have the best legal hands in US employment law to handle workplace discrimination. Reach out to us today; let’s look at your case and begin proceedings to get you justice.

Small Business Employment Law: A Guide to Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims

November 25, 2021

Sexual harassment is common in American workplaces. According to reports, five million individuals have been harassed in offices across the country annually. While this figure is alarming, the consequences for sexual harassment charges from employees are even more grave.

As such, you want to make sure your small business has measures to prevent sexual harassment around the office and deal with any claims that may arise. On that note, this article provides a comprehensive guide on dealing with sexual harassment cases around the office to avoid damages, liability, and Title VII lawsuits.

What Is Sexual Harassment?

Sexual harassment involves any unwelcome or inappropriate sexual advance or behavior exhibited towards an employee, employer, or client that has the potential to affect their employment (in the case of a staff member) if accepted or rejected, interferes with their performance, or makes them work environment hostile.

However, besides the obvious cases like company executives requesting sex from a junior staff member for a promotion, sexual harassment can also occur in several not-so-obvious scenarios.

For example, staff at a company may feel uncomfortable due to senior managers who are fond of sexually explicit jokes or one employee sending emails or IMs to coworkers that contain inappropriate sexual content.

That said, there are a couple of things you should know about sexual harassment, such as:

  • The victim doesn’t have to be a woman; men get sexually harassed in workplaces too
  • The offender isn’t always the opposite sex, as men throw unwelcome sexual advances at other men, and women do the same
  • The guilty party mustn’t be a staff; customers can sexually harass company employees
  • The victim can be a client or someone visiting the office
  • Sexual harassment can happen without the offender ( if they’re a senior staff) threatening the employee’s job

How to Prevent Sexual Harassment In The Office?

US Federal laws prohibit inappropriate sexual conduct towards employees, employers, or anyone else around the office. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the primary statute that provides guidelines on sexual harassment prohibition in the United States.

Therefore, with the law against it, you must create a work environment where sexual harassment can’t occur. But how do you do this? Let’s take a look:

  • Have a Sexual Harassment Policy

The first step to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace is to have specific regulations surrounding the subject. Consider having these company laws in a print and digital document and make them available to every employee.

These guidelines should define sexual harassment, state punishments or disciplinary measures for offenders, spell out procedures for filing sexual harassment claims, communicate the company’s commitments to investigating sexual harassment claims alongside specific investigative actions, and prohibit retaliation against employees who lodge sexual harassment complaints.

  • Conduct Annual Educative Training

It’d help if you train employees regularly on sexual harassment and its consequences in the office. These training sessions can occur bi-annually or annually. They should also involve reading out the company handbook on sexual harassment.

  • Conduct Separate Training Sessions for Managers and Senior Executives

Most sexual harassment complaints are usually against company executives; as such, you must hold separate meetings on sexual harassment with your senior staff. Emphasize clearly what sexual harassment is, the behaviors that constitute it, and the repercussions of such actions.

It’d be best to also educate senior managers on handling sexual harassment claims from employees since they’re typically the first point of contact in such scenarios.

How to Investigate Sexual Harassment Claims

Investigating sexual harassment cases is a complex issue, and you want to make sure your company doesn’t make any missteps in handling these claims.

That said, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidelines on conducting an inquiry into sexual harassment complaints advise that employees consider all the facts surrounding the situation, including the nature of the inappropriate sexual behavior and the context in which the events took place.

With that in mind, here are some tips on handling sexual harassment cases:

  • Treat All Claims With Urgency

It’s vital to treat sexual harassment allegations as a priority. Whenever an employee comes forward with a claim, ensure they know that the company will take deliberate steps to look into the matter and get justice.

  • Interview Both Parties

After receiving the victim’s complaints, interview both parties separately to get the full details of what happened. Make sure you ask for specifics, such as date, time, the nature of the sexually inappropriate behavior, and witnesses.

You should also hold talks with witnesses and corroborate their accounts with the parties involved. Document each of these discussions, as well. Finally, discuss the company’s steps during and after the investigation with the affected individuals.

  • Treat Both Parties With Respect

During the investigations, ensure you don’t discriminate against the victim. Doing this puts you at risk of a lawsuit that could be damaging for the business. Also, assure the harassed employee of their safety and ensure no other staff abuses them as retaliation during or after the investigations.

Furthermore, accord the same respect to the offender as well. Remember, they’re innocent until proven guilty; as such, don’t discriminate against them in any way. However, we recommend sending them on leave or transfer during the investigations to protect the victim.

  • Review the Result of the Investigation and Take Appropriate Action

After the inquiry, review the information gathered and decide the next step to take. The result should determine the disciplinary measure to take towards the offender or victim.

At this point, it’s vital to mention that you should probably work with your HR department or a specialized company committee for sexual harassment cases to review the investigation and make a decision.

Also, once you’ve decided on what to do, let each party know immediately.

Hire a Competent Employment Lawyer

Sexual harassment claims are serious issues that could lead to a lawsuit if you’re not careful. As such, you’ll probably need legal help to navigate these cases professionally and avoid any damaging actions.

An employment lawyer is your best bet in this regard. However, finding an experienced attorney might be a bit challenging. That said, if you’re struggling to find a lawyer to handle a sexual harassment claim in your company, we recommend you reach out to The Law Office of Sheri Oluyemi, LLC. With years of experience in employment law, we can help you navigate sexual harassment cases in your firm and get justice served.

Sexual Harassment In the Workplace: Steps for SMBs to Avoid Liability Under Title VII

November 4, 2021

When an employee comes forward with a sexual harassment claim, they expect their employers to respond constructively to get justice served. However, several small business company executives often dismiss these cases, with little or nothing done to find a resolution.

And when senior managers ignore sexual harassment complaints in this manner, the following line of action for the victim is a costly and lengthy lawsuit.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or harassment of any sort; thus, any litigation against your business will have you facing the law in its full wrath.

As a business owner, you want to avoid this scenario; as such, you should address sexual harassment in your workplace even before it rears its head. With that in mind, we provide you with some helpful tips to prevent sexual harassment in your business.

How to Address Sexual Harassment as a Small or Medium-sized Business

Sexual harassment cases are challenging to handle. Here are some constructive ways to deal with sexual harassment in the office:

  1. Set Internal Policies and Regulations

When there are no rules guiding employee conduct in your company, your staff can exhibit any form of inappropriate behavior because they feel anything goes. Thus, you need company policies and rules that define acceptable conduct within the office premises and prohibits sexual harassment or any discriminatory behavior. These corporate laws should also specify the consequences of harassing employees or clients sexually.

You should also have these regulations in print and ensure every employee has them, regardless of their role. New employees must get a copy immediately after employment, and you’ll need to have extensive training sessions with them on how workers should relate with and treat each other. Existing staff members should also receive regular training to re-emphasize the company’s stance on sexual harassment and the repercussions of such behavior.

1 Enforce the Rules

Don’t make laws and throw them out the window when the time comes to enforce them. Ensure you take every sexual harassment allegation in your company seriously, regardless of whether the offender is a senior staff or a junior employee.

Set up an HR committee or department to investigate these claims and take appropriate action when you discover the truth. When you show zero tolerance to sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace, your employees will conform to their attitudes accordingly.

2 Cultivate a Work Environment of Respect and Equality

While sexual harassment isn’t gender-neutral, we can all agree that women are victims of sexually inappropriate behavior more than men. As such, it’s vital to establish a work environment where everyone is respected, regardless of gender.

Ensure that every staff member receives equal treatment and has the same opportunities to thrive. It’d help if you also addressed gender-limiting biases head-on.

For example, some stereotypes that define women sexually according to what they wear or their race play significant roles in the high rate of sexual harassment towards the feminine gender.

It would be best to ensure these prejudiced views aren’t found in your firm. You shouldn’t even tolerate them as workplace banter. Men also face some of these biases, so they shouldn’t be left out of the conversation.

Furthermore, there should be consequences whenever an employee is disrespected in any way.

3 Empower Your Employees

Often, the victims of sexual harassment face discrimination and abuse whenever they come forward, even from coworkers who should know better and treat them with empathy. On that note, ensure to create a work environment where your staff members can speak up without retaliation from anyone, including their offenders.

Make your staff know that they can trust the company to act in their best interest whenever they’re victims of any form of discrimination, regardless of their gender or social status. With so many sexual harassment cases swept under the carpet, your company should stand out and make a difference.

Conclusion

Sexual harassment is still prevalent in American workplaces, despite having more media coverage with several conversations to see victims get justice. That said, if you’re battling with a sexual harassment case in your workplace or would like to take proactive measures to prevent them, we recommend you seek legal representation to help you out. Reach out to us today at The Law Office of Sheri Oluyemi, and let’s bring our extensive experience in employment law to your aid.

Is Black Lives Matter a “Matter” of Concern for Federal Employers and Employees under the Hatch Act?

August 1, 2020

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. The law ensures that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion. It intends to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation. Read more on the Hatch Act here.

Today, July 10, 2020, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) issued guidance on two questions relevant to current events. In this post, we focus on the first—whether Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a partisan political organization for purposes of the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from certain political activities.

The short answer is no. OSC determined that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is not a partisan political organization at this time. Thus, federal employees are free to express their support through personal expression. However, it is important to note that the phrase “at this time” potentially serves as an exception should components of the BLM Movement actively endorse or solicit support for political candidates in upcoming elections.

How does this impact federal employees who advocate for BLM?

Currently, employees are not prohibited by the Hatch Act from expressing support for, or opposition to, the BLM movement while on duty or in the workplace. However, employees should understand that this assessment is subject to a fact specific analysis where advocacy for specific political candidates may arise. For example, if on duty, an employee may not use his or her support for the BLM Movement to advocate for or against a particular candidate or political party.

How did OSC arrive at this conclusion? 

In determining whether an organization serves or acts in furtherance of a partisan political purpose, OSC considers: (1) Whether the organization is affiliated with a political party or candidate; (2) Whether the organization is organized for partisan political purpose, or; (3) Whether the organization engages in engage in partisan political activity. More specifically, the OSC asks does the organization identify itself as supporting or opposing a political party or candidate?  Do the contents of the organization’s charter, bylaws, mission statement, or amendments refer to a political party or candidate?

Provided there is no change in the current status of the BLM Movement or its chapters. Federal employees should not be subjected to scrutiny or disparate treatment as a result of their support or engagement in BLM activities provided they do not violate any laws or other terms of employment.

“Sex” Means “Sex”: SCOTUS Extends Anti-Discrimination To LGBTQ Employees

June 18, 2020

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), by a vote of 6-3, ruled that the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex”; however, members of the LGBTQ community have not enjoyed this protection through federal legislation because some courts, including the 11th Circuit in which Georgia courts sit, had interpreted “because of sex” to exclude sexual orientation and sexual identity.

The Bostock ruling is a landmark decision. LOSO, LLC, had appraised our readers about the Bostock case here. To summarize briefly, Mr. Bostock’s employment with Clayton County, Georgia was terminated when his employer discovered that he was a gay man. Both lower courts upheld the termination.

Upon appeal to SCOTUS, in the majority’s opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch framed the question before the Court as a straightforward one:  “Today,” the Court stated, “we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”  The Court found that the answer to that question “is clear.”  When an employer fires an employee “for being homosexual or transgender,” that employer “fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.  Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justice Gorsuch explained that the Supreme Court generally interprets a law by looking at how the public would have understood the law when it was passed — “the ordinary public meaning” of the law.  The Court noted that the word “sex” means either male or female. Thus, under the plain terms of Title VII, then, an employer violates Title VII “when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex,” even if “other factors besides the plaintiff’s sex contributed to the decision” and even if “the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group.”  All that matters, the Court emphasized, is whether “changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer.”

As an example, the Court cited the case of an employer with two employees who are both attracted to men and are, for purposes of comparison, identical but one is male and one is female. If the employer fires the male employee only because he is attracted to men, while keeping the female employee who is also attracted to men, the employer has violated Title VII by treated the sexes differently.

The Court rejected the idea that because Congress did not address sexual orientation or transgender status specifically in Title VII, the law does not protect LGBTQ employees. Instead, the Court made clear that discrimination against LGBTQ employees, “necessarily entails discrimination based on sex”.  The decision noted that if Congress establishes a broad rule of “sex” in all its variations, without any exceptions, then “courts apply the broad rule.”

The Bostock decision may not have an earth shattering effect on employers who are located in jurisdictions where protection for LGBTQ employees have already recognized. But for all others, Bostock requires an immediate revision company policy and accompanying training for managers and supervisors. Contact us to see how we can help.

Does Title VII Include Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation?

May 23, 2019

By Hauwa Adamu

In Bostock v Clayton County and Evans v Georgia Regional Hospital, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that reliance on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation failed to state a claim recognizable under law. 

Background

Evans v Georgia Regional Hospital

Jameka Evans worked at the Hospital as a Security Officer from August 2012 to October 11, 2013. During her time at the Hospital, she was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and targeted for termination for failing to carry herself in a “traditional womanly” manner. She experienced a hostile work environment. She was denied equal pay or work, harassed and physically assaulted.

Although she was a gay woman, she did not broadcast her sexuality. However, it was evident that she identified with the male gender, because of how she represented herself. Evans was punished because her status as a gay female did not comport with the Hospital’s gender stereotypes.

Evans lodged a complaint with the Human Resource department about some adverse treatment at work. Shortly thereafter she also complained that she was harassed and retaliated against because of her complaint. HR indicated that the Hospital had investigated Evans’ complaint, and had found no evidence that she had been singled out or targeted. Evans voluntarily resigned.

Bostock v Clayton County

Gerald Bostock, a gay man, began working for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare service coordinator in 2003. During his 10-year tenure at Clayton County, Bostock received positive performance evaluations and numerous accolades. In 2013, Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. 

During a meeting in which Bostock’s supervisor was present, at least one individual openly made disparaging remarks about Bostock’s sexual orientation and his participation in the softball league. Around the same time, Clayton County informed Bostock that it would be conducting an internal audit of the program funds he managed as part of his job.

Shortly after, Clayton County terminated Bostock allegedly for conduct unbecoming of its employees. Bostock filed a charge of discrimination with EEOC following which, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the County alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII.

The Courts

In Evans, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Magistrate judge Smith issued a report and recommendation (R&R) dismissing Evans Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Judge concluded that while same-sex harassment can be actionable under Title VII, Title VII discrimination claims based upon the plaintiff’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation is not. Judge Randall Hall concurred with Judge Smith’s R&R and dismissed Evan’s case. 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Evans request for an en banc rehearing, stating that Evans’ pro se Complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to create a plausible inference that she suffered discrimination. It stated: “Evans did not provide enough factual matter to plausibly suggest that her decision to present herself in a masculine manner led to the alleged adverse employment actions.” 

Evans then filed a petition for certiorari, requesting review from the SCOTUS. Regardless of the fact that several friends-of-the-court briefs were filed urging the SCOTUS to hear the case, including briefs from 79 businesses and organizations, the Court denied review of the case, leaving for another day resolution on whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In Bostock, the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case in the same grounds.

After more than nine conferences during which the US Supreme Court could have acted on the petition for review, the SCOTUS has granted review in this case and two others that concern anti-LGBTQ employment discrimination. The cases will be heard in the Court’s 2019-2020 term to create a binding precedent and decide the issue for all courts.

My EEOC Charge is 1 in 90,000 – EEOC Fiscal Year 2018 Enforcement and Litigation Data

April 18, 2019

On April 10, 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released detailed breakdowns of its work in fiscal year 2018 which ended on September 30, 2018. You can find details on its website but some remarkable statistics are as follows:

  • Received 76,418 charges of workplace discrimination

  • Resolved 90,558 charges of discrimination (including those filed in prior years)

  • Secured $505 million for victims in private sector, state and local government, and federal workplaces

  • Handled over 519,000 calls to its toll-free number, 34,600 emails and more than 200,000 inquiries in field offices

  • Filed 199 merits lawsuits alleging discrimination, including 117 individual suits and 45 suits involving multiple victims or discrimin­atory policies and 37 systemic discrimination cases

  • Achieved a successful outcome in 95.7 percent of all district court resolutions

Often, people inquire whether the #MeToo movement spurred more legal disputes. EEOC data demonstrates this was indeed the case. The agency also received 7,609 sexual harassment charges – a 13.6 percent increase from FY 2017 – and obtained $56.6 million in monetary benefits for victims of sexual harassment.

However, leading the pack as the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination with 51.6% of all charges filed, was “retaliation”, followed by “sex”, then “disability” then “race”, then “age”.

So You Think You’ve Been Discriminated Against Based on Your Race? Prove It.

September 4, 2018

We’ve all had that feeling we’ve rubbed someone the wrong way. This is a feeling that starts in our gut; it is our subjective understanding of the circumstances. Next, we try to objectively examine the way we are being treated relative to the treatment of others around us. We ask, is it me or are people of a different race being treated differently? This analysis is the same one demanded by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) in racial discrimination cases. 

Racial discrimination is often manifested subtly and is difficult to detect.  It can also be extremely difficult to prove. However, one thing is certain, black Americans have faced discrimination in the workplace for the past 25 years. In fact, juries around the country are routinely awarding large sums of damages to African Americans who have demonstrated that they suffered racial discrimination in their respective workplaces. 

To prove race discrimination in the workplace, an employee must be able to demonstrate that they were subjected to an adverse job action based on their race. Generally, an employee has to prove race discrimination using direct evidence. An example of direct evidence would include, among other requirements, a memorandum, email or audio recording expressly stating something to the effect of: “Demote Jane because she is black; we only promote employees who are not black”. However only in rare cases does an employee actually have direct evidence of discrimination. Therefore, courts have accepted circumstantial (also known as indirect) evidence of discrimination. Where there is a sufficient amount of indirect evidence, the court will accept the entire compilation of evidence as proof of discrimination. An example of circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination in the workplace could include, among other requirements, a scenario where all the demoted employees were black, and all the promoted employees were white; without reason.

In order to prevail in a race discrimination lawsuit, the employee must demonstrate that:

  • They are in a protected class;
  • Qualified for a job or performing it adequately;
  • Were denied a job benefit or subjected to a negative job action.
  • The person who got the benefit or who was not subject to the negative job action, was of a different race or the company continued to search for qualified applicants. 

Proving a race discrimination case can be challenging. Additionally, there are strict timelines for reporting and filing racial discrimination claims. 

If you feel you have been discriminated against retaining the professional services of an employment law attorney will prove beneficial to assist you. 

That’s Racist!: Racial Discrimination Defined

August 28, 2018

Race in America is that ever-present white elephant in the room which creeps into every conversation and influences our most subconscious thoughts. Congress considered this fact when it enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) which does its best to keep racial biases out of the workplace by prohibiting employers from:

  • Failing or refusing to hire or promote an employee based on their race; 
  • Firing or discipling an employee because of race;
  • Paying an employee less or providing them fewer benefits on account of their race;
  • Failing to provide benefits, promotions, or opportunities to an employee because of their race; and
  • Improperly classifying or segregating employees or applicants by race. 

Although employers may inquire about race and affirmative action programs, they are prohibited from allowing race to be part of the decision-making process. 

Furthermore, Title VII prohibits employee segregation that is based on race, it also prohibits assigning primarily minorities to certain positions or groups or to categorize employees or jobs so that certain jobs are generally held by minorities. Race or color is never a bona fide occupational qualification under Title VII. 

Racial discrimination and employment policies must apply to everyone, regardless of race or color and Title VII prohibits race/color discrimination against all persons, including Caucasians. Although race and color overlap, they are different. While Title VII does not define “color,” the courts and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission read “color” to have its commonly understood meaning-pigmentation, complexion, or skin shade or tone. Racial discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.

Yes, we have all engaged in the discussion about race. Living in America makes this fact undeniable. It would serve us well to define the terms being used in order to use them properly. I hope the foregoing was helpful. – SEO

12