Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
In the post on Sunday 3/25/18 we asked: Is sexual orientation protected by federal anti-discrimination laws? 2nd, 6th and 7th say yes, 11th says no. There is currently no federal law barring discrimination because of sexual orientation. But some courts have held that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex covers sexual orientation. So does the EEOC (but not the current Justice Department). See more in the post.
TAKEAWAY: The federal appellate court governing PA has not yet ruled, but the tide seems to be turning in favor of protecting people form discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The post on Monday 3/26/18 noted tattoos at work: more acceptance. Yet still some legal risk. What does that mean? It means that employers still have discretion as to dress and grooming policies. But those policies must be evenly applicable and evenly enforced. Examples of when that did not happen with tattoos are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t treat tattoos any different than other dress or grooming “parts”; apply any policy to all employees.
In the post on Tuesday 3/27/18 we talked about new rules condo and HOA boards (and owners) need to know about. The rules aren’t new – they were effective October 2016 – but they can be important. They recognize both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act. Both are defined in the post. They are pretty easily understood. However, the kicker is the other part: third-party liability. As noted in the post, if the third party occupies a certain position relative to the Association, then the Association might be liable for conduct of the third party. The post also gives some pointers on how to deal with all of the rules.
TAKEAWAY: Have a knowledgeable attorney when dealing with condo/HOA issues. Contact me for assistance if needed.
The post on Wednesday 3/28/18 noted employee are also required to engage in the interactive process under the ADA. Yes, the interactive process is a two-way street. Here, Sloan was a production manager for a label manufacturer and printer. He used heavy machinery. The company policy required notification of nonprescription or prescription medication. Sloan began taking medicines while at work – not always according to his prescription. He didn’t inform the employer when discovered, he had to undergo a drug test. What happened next is in the post. After termination, he sued for disability discrimination. The court ruled against him for the reasons in the post.
TAKEAWAY: look both ways – interact – or don’t expect protection by the ADA.
In the post on Thursday 3/29/18 we reaffirmed that dogs rule at work! What we can learn from dogs and take to the workplace. Some of the things we can learn are to respect and treat people regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, veteran status, or sexual orientation; to be selfless and look to please others; and more in the post.
TAKEAWAY: In the workplace, think how a dog would act and emulate it.
The post on Friday 3/30/18 told us female employees at Microsoft filed 238 discrimination and harassment complaints over a 7-year period. Wow. That came to light as part of a suit filed by employees alleging gender discrimination. And Microsoft admitted to one prior complaint being well-founded (one too many in this author’s opinion). More background is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Even big, progressive companies find themselves on the receiving end of discrimination and harassment complaints – every employer should take action to prevent discrimination and harassment.
Finally, in the post yesterday 3/31/18 we break down Adrienne Lawrence’s lawsuit against ESPN and the company’s possible defenses. A former ESPN employee filed a sex discrimination suit in federal court. It alleges broad actions, including that male executives, producers and on-air talent keep scorecards listing and ranking female colleagues based on sexual attractiveness and more in the post. Many of the allegations are based on witness allegations. The suit was filed against the company and 4 individual defendants (named in the post). Some of the defenses ESPN might assert are also listed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Plaintiffs always have the burden of proof; but a past pattern will go a long way toward what they need to show.
York, Pennsylvania 17403