Category: Civil Rights

“OK, Boomer!”: Not Okay In the Office

As recently highlighted by the New York Times, a new phrase emblematic of the real or perceived “War Between the Generations” has gone viral: “OK, Boomer!”  The phrase, popularized on the Internet and, in particular, Twitter by Generation Z and Millennials, has been used to dismiss baby boomers’ thoughts and opinions, sometimes viewed by younger generations as paternalistic or just out of step.

And, the phrase isn’t just living in Twitter feeds and the comments sections of opinion pieces.  There is “OK, Boomer!” merchandise and, just last week, a 25 year-old member of the New Zealand Parliament used the phrase to dismiss a fellow lawmaker’s perceived heckling during a debate about climate change.

While many may find “OK, Boomer!” a harmless way to point out generational differences, the phrase’s popularity could lead to problems once it creeps into the workplace.  Age (over 40) is a protected category under both California law (i.e., the Fair Employment and Housing Act) and federal law (i.e., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).  Whether the speaker is well-intentioned or not, dismissive attitudes about older workers could form the basis of claims for discrimination and/or harassment.  And, as one radio host recently opined, the phrase “OK, Boomer!” may be regarded by some as an outright slur.

Generation Z and Millennial employees understand that using derogatory or dismissive comments related to gender, race, religion, national origin, disability and sexual orientation are inappropriate.  Yet, for some reason, some may not have made the leap with regard to insidious/disparaging comments about a co-worker’s age.  Given the prevalence of age discrimination lawsuits, employers should take heed and consider reminding their workforce about the impropriety of this and other age-related phrases, and train their employees to leave the generation wars at the door.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on employment discrimination see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Can an Employee be Fired for Being Gay or Transgender?

HR Professionals will soon know the answer to this question.

The United States Supreme Court is preparing to settle a contentious debate on employee protections under federal employment discrimination laws.  On October 7th, the Court returned from its summer break to start the new term.  The Court did not have to wait long before it tackled a complex case because on October 8th, the Court heard two major oral arguments with potentially far-reaching implications for both employers and employees.  Both cases focus on the prohibitions in employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”).  Under Title VII, Congress made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”  The question that the Court will address is whether employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited employment discrimination “because of sex.”

The first case the Court heard was a consolidated matter involving cases from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia), both of which involve men who claim they were fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.

Second Circuit: “Sex” is Necessarily a Factor in Sexual Orientation

The plaintiff in Zarda, Donald Zarda, was a skydiving instructor, who died in 2014.  Prior to his death, a female client complained that Zarda inappropriately touched her during a jump.  At some point, Zarda communicated to the client that he was a homosexual and “had an ex-husband,” a practice that Zarda stated he often did with female clients to put them at ease.  Altitude Express terminated Zarda in connection with the complaint; however, Zarda insisted he was fired solely because of his reference to his sexual orientation.

A federal district court granted summary judgment against Zarda, reasoning that his claim was not cognizable under Title VII.  However, the Second Circuit reversed, with a majority of the court believing that sexual orientation discrimination is motivated by sex and, therefore, a “subset of sex discrimination.”  Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that federal law prohibits the firing of an employee on the basis of sexual orientation.  Notably, the court reached this conclusion by taking a broad interpretation of the meaning of the text “because of sex.”  Specifically, the court reasoned that Title VII must protect sexual orientation “because sex is necessarily a factor in sexual orientation.”

Eleventh Circuit: Discharge for Homosexuality Not Prohibited by Title VII

The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.  The plaintiff in Bostock, Gerald Bostock, was a Child Welfare Services Coordinator in Clayton County for over ten years.  Although Bostock had received good performance reviews for his work, an internal audit was conducted on his program’s funds.  Bostock, who is gay, claimed the audit was a “pretext for discrimination against him because of his sexual orientation.”  During an advisory meeting, where Bostock’s supervisor was present, at least one person criticized Bostock’s sexual orientation and his participation in a gay softball league.

After his complaint was dismissed at the district court level, Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.  Referring back to a 1979 decision, the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that it had already held that “[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”  While hinting that this earlier ruling may have been wrong, the court held that it had no choice but to follow precedent and affirm the dismissal of Bostock’s claim.

Sixth Circuit: Discrimination on the Basis of Transgender and Transitioning Status is Necessarily Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

The second case, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, presents a similar question to Zarda and Bostock.  That is, whether employees can be fired based on their status as transgender.

The case involves Aimee Stephens, who was a funeral director and embalmer for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes.  While working in this position for six years, Stephens dressed and presented herself as a man without issue.  However, once Stephens communicated that she wanted to live and work as a woman before having sex-reassignment surgery, she was terminated.  The owner of the funeral home, a devout Christian, admitted that Stephens was fired because she “was no longer going to represent himself as a man.  He wanted to dress as a woman.”  The owner believed this change would violate “God’s commands.”

After Stephens filed a discrimination charge, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) pursued a complaint on her behalf against the funeral home.  In ruling in favor of the employer, the district court reasoned that transgender status is not a protected trait under Title VII and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) precludes the EEOC from enforcing Title VII in this instance as doing so would substantially burden the employer’s religious exercise.  The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that “discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.”  The court further ruled that the RFRA did not apply to protect the funeral home’s actions because the funeral home was not a “religious institution,” and Stephens was not a “ministerial employee” excluded from Title VII’s protections.

Stakeholders: States, Federal Government, Employers, and Employees

The Supreme Court’s ruling in these cases, which is expected in the spring or summer of 2020, has the potential to be monumental because of the many stakeholders involved.  Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have barred sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination by statute or regulation, as have a number of counties and municipalities.  While a few other states provide protection from this type of discrimination either by agency interpretation or court ruling, the remaining states in the country offer no protection under their state laws.  This means that LGBTQ individuals who live in states such as Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and even North Carolina (at least with respect to private employers) may have no remedy to this type of employment discrimination outside of Title VII.

Additionally, states who have passed laws in this area may face challenges in enforcing those laws if the Supreme Court decides that Title VII does not protect gay and transgender status.  Many of these states lean on the EEOC’s authority to investigate claims of discrimination against companies that operate in multiple jurisdictions, and the EEOC has been successful in partnering with states to investigate discrimination claims and enforce such actions.  However, states would lose EEOC assistance should the Court decide that Title VII’s scope does not extend to sexual orientation or gender identification.

Although the EEOC traditionally has been on the side of expanding Title VII protections, the federal government in the most recent litigation has aligned itself with the employers.  In particular, United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” does not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity.  Accepting this interpretation, Title VII is limited to barring employers from treating women different from men in the same or similar position, and vice-versa.

Equally important to the states’ and federal government’s interest is the interest of employers.  Companies have lined up on both sides of the debate with over 36 briefs filed in support of Bostock and Zarda, and over 24 briefs filed in support of Clayton County and Altitude Express.  For example, one brief filed in support of Bostock and Zarda includes 206 companies representing businesses such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Walt Disney, Coca-Cola, and Uber.  These businesses argued that interpreting Title VII to “exclude sexual orientation or gender identity from protections against sex discrimination would have wide-ranging, negative consequences for businesses, their employees, and the U.S. economy.”  In contrast, the C12 group that represents “the largest network of Christian CEOs, business owners, and executives in the United States” filed a separate brief in support of the employers arguing that interpreting “because of sex” in Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity ignores the natural meaning of the law, “thereby bypassing the political process, shutting down debate, preventing any accommodation of divergent views, and precluding any compromise.”

Makeup of the Court: The Deciding Vote

Prior to his retirement, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote in several gay rights cases.  However, Justice Kennedy is no longer on the bench, and these cases present the first opportunity for the public to see how his successor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, will vote on these issues.  Also, Justice Neil Gorsuch, successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, may play a key role in deciding these issues.  Similar to Scalia, it is believed that Justice Gorsuch is more inclined to rule that courts should naturally interpret statutes as they were meant when enacted.  Should Justice Gorsuch hold firm to this view, then there is some thought that he may conclude sexual orientation and gender identity were not meant to be included as discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.  The perspectives of these new Justices are likely to dictate the Court’s ultimate decision – a decision which may directly impact the employment landscape for years to come.

© 2019 Ward and Smith, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more on Employment Protections, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment and Civil Rights law pages.

SCOTUS Case Watch 2019-2020: Welcome to the New Term

The Supreme Court of the United States kicked off its 2019-2010 term on October 7, 2019, with several noteworthy cases on its docket. This term, some of the issues before the Court will likely have great historical significance for the LGBTQ community. Among these controversies are whether the prohibition against discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses discrimination because of sexual orientation. In addition, the Court is slated to consider Title VII’s protections of transgender individuals, if any. Here’s a rundown of the employment law related cases that Supreme Court watchers can expect this term.

Title VII and Sexual Orientation

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 the Court will consider whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII. Oral argument for these consolidated cases is scheduled for October 8, 2019.

Transgender Employees

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107, the Court agreed to decide whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Oral argument for this case is scheduled for October 8, 2019.

Age Discrimination

In Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 the Court will consider a provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 regarding federal-sector coverage. The provision at issue requires employers taking personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older to free from “discrimination based on age.” The issue is whether the federal-sector provision requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action. A date has not yet been set for oral arguments in this case.

Employee Benefits

In Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 the Supreme Court agreed to settle an issue concerning the statute of limitation in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The three-year limitations period runs from “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation.” The question for the Court is whether this limitations period bars suit when the defendants in a case had disclosed all relevant information to the plaintiff more than three years before the plaintiff filed a complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information. Oral arguments, in this case, are scheduled for December 4, 2019.

We will report in further details on these cases once the Supreme Court issues its rulings.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

EEOC Provides Guidance on Reporting Non-Binary Gender Employees

Over the last few years, many employers have implemented diversity and inclusion programs, whether official or unofficial, emphasizing a work force that includes a wide variety of individuals based on, among other categories, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Internally, companies have updated employment policies, expanded the scope of anti-harassment trainings, created avenues for diverse mentorship, and implemented changes to create workplaces that include and support a diverse office culture.

Externally, a number of states too have begun to update government documents to accommodate diverse individuals, including those who identify their gender as non-binary. For example, California recently enacted legislation permitting individuals to identify as female (F), male (M), or non-binary (X) on their drivers’ licenses.

Yet many employers with non-binary employees have been concerned as to how to appropriately report all of their employees on the federal EEO-1 reports and still comply with the law. As we previously reported, in 2017, the EEOC made it clear that the protections offered by Title VII include an “individual’s transgender status or the individual’s intent to transition,” “gender identity,” and “sexual orientation.”

The EEOC guidance also went further, stating that “using a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s gender identity in a persistent or offensive manner” is sex-based harassment.  It is clear, therefore, that non-binary individuals must be afforded protections regarding their gender identity.  However, the EEO-1 report, which requires employers with over 100 employees to submit data specific to their employees’ gender and race/ethnicity, limits the gender categories to either male or female.  Employers with non-binary employees therefore have had no category to indicate the correct gender identity of these individuals, and several questioned whether it was appropriate (or even legally compliant) to request that non-binary employees choose a marker for which they do not identify.

Last month, the EEOC offered guidance by updating its Frequently Asked Questions to address this issue.  In the FAQ, the EEOC advises that employers “may report employee counts and labor hours for non-binary gender employees by job category and pay band and racial group in the comment box on the Certification Page,” and further provides examples as to how employers may comply with submitting the EEOC-required data in the future for those employees who identify as non-binary.

While describing these details in a comment box as opposed to checking a pre-marked gender identity box is not as streamlined or efficient as some employers would have hoped, it is at least a step toward ensuring that employers have a means to comply with reporting requirements and support their employees by acknowledging the gender identity of their choice.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more on diversity in the workplace, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

ICE May Visit Your Company or University Campus – a Quick Checklist and Guidance

Lately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been more active in making arrests of undocumented individuals. Statistically, however, the number of arrests are very small and the “bark” is much bigger than the “bite”. Nonetheless, it is helpful for employers and other stakeholders to know what the required protocols and duties are if ICE shows up, employee rights, and bystander rights. Below is a quick checklist to help you along with important guidance.

Major Points

  • Immigration is a civil matter, not criminal. The majority of ICE warrants are administrative civil warrants.

  • ICE priorities are arresting those with criminal convictions and those who have been previously ordered removed (absconders). ICE may pursue these activities in public areas.

  • Anybody arrested by ICE has the right to counsel.

  • ICE agents are federal employees that are working as directed. Nonetheless, it is the policy of most employers that ICE enforcement activities focusing on the  personal immigration issues of an individual shall not take place on company property.

  • If an ICE agent does attempt to arrest someone on company property, do not interfere as that will complicate matters. However, please contact your manager and they will coordinate with HR and Legal.

Public versus Private Property

  • Some parts of commercial property would be considered public property (i.e. parking lots shared by multiple employers) .

  • However, back office and areas where customers are not present are considered private property.

Arrest Warrants

  • Warrants come in many varieties.

  • Immigration warrants are civil administrative actions, not criminal.

  • Immigration warrants are signed by ICE Officers, not a Judge.

  • Immigration warrants do not allow ICE to enter private areas without consent.

  • If an ICE agent is seeking entry to a private area, it is the policy of most companies to deny such access. You should ask the ICE agent for a copy of the warrant, their name, and contact your manager.

  • In very rare instances, ICE may invoke “exigent circumstances” and make entry without a warrant.

Your Rights

 Generally speaking if you have a personal encounter with ICE:

  • You should not grant entry to any private areas.

  • You have the right to remain silent.

  • You have the right to ask “Am I free to go?” If they say “yes,” you may walk away.

  • If detained, you have the right to counsel.

  • If you are a foreign national, you have the right to contact your Embassy or Consulate.

  • You do not have to sign any document that you do not understand.

  • If you are stopped for questioning but not arrested, you may refuse a search. But the Officer may pat you down if they suspect you have a weapon.

Non-Immigrants must Carry Evidence of Legal Status

Section 264 (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires every foreign national 18 years of age and over to carry with them and have in their personal possession at all times evidence of their status such as an I-94, work permit, or green card at all times.

ICE and Foreign Students   

  • ICE has jurisdiction over F-1 foreign students and J-1 exchange visitors.

  • ICE will routinely meet with the Designated School Official (DSO) who oversees F-1 and J-1 students on campus.

  • ICE may obtain limited private information about F-1 and J-1 students including their home addresses.

UNIVERSITY AB-21 REQUIREMENTS  

In 2017, the California Legislature passed AB-21 (codified in Education Code Section 66093) requiring Universities to take certain affirmative steps to notify students on at least a quarterly basis of ICE activities on campus. This includes the following:

  1. Quarterly E-Mail Update: E-mail to students, faculty, and all employees advising them about ICE activities and reminding them of their rights and obligations should ICE seek to take enforcement actions on campus against individuals.
  2. The University Intranet should include the following required information for students, faculty, and employees to access:
    • Notify University of ICE Activities:  Encourage those on campus to report an ICE visit.
    • Point of Contact at University for Personal ICE Issues: The University must designate a contact for students, faculty, and staff to contact if they need assistance
    • Emergency Family Contact: Can proactively notify the University in case they need to notify someone that a student, faculty, or staff has been detained by ICE.
    • ICE Detainee Locator: Should you need to find where an individual is being held in ICE custody, you can try the ICE detainee locator here. You will need their 9 digit Alien Registration Number (aka A#) and Country of Birth, or name, country of birth, and date of birth.
    • Legal Assistance: List of organizations that can assist with detention and removal issues.
    • Accommodation for Student Absence due to ICE Matter: Should a current student be unable to attend classes due to an ICE action, the University must take reasonable efforts to accommodate the students, including whenever possible  maintenance of financial aid and a seamless transition back to school.
    • Confidentiality: The University must refrain from disclosing personal immigration information about students, faculty, and staff to the greatest extent possible consistent with state and federal requirements.

GUIDANCE TO EMPLOYERS IF ICE INITIATES AN ICE AUDIT

  • If ICE issues a civil subpoena for an I-9 Notice of Inspection to an employer, the employer should request an extension of time to surrender the I-9’s. Absent an extension, ICE will require that they be ready 3 days later.

  • At a later time (frequently 6 to 12 months later), ICE will give the employer an opportunity to make technical corrections for minor errors on the I-9’s. There will be no monetary fines for technical errors that are corrected.

  • For substantive errors (i.e. the form is not signed or dated by the employee or employer, or failure to itemize the documents that HR looked at the time of hire etc.), ICE will fine – typically $2,000 per I-9 with a substantive error. A missing I-9 is also a substantive error.

  • If ICE determines that some of the employees are not work authorized (and their documents are not genuine), they will issue a Notice of Suspect Documents. The employer must then must meet with each employee on the list, and absent an error or misunderstanding, must timely terminate the employee. If a large number of employees will need to be terminated, the employer can request ICE for additional time to find replacement workers – ICE will sometimes grant an extension to do this.

  • Then ICE will issue a Notice of Intent to Fine for those I-9’s that have substantive violations. If the employer feels that the fines are excessive, they may appeal to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer.

California AB 450 Notice Requirements After an ICE I-9 Audit Begins

  • If your company receives an I-9 Notice of Inspection from ICE, you must post a notice and notify any Union – all within 72 hours. The posting must be in the language that the majority of the workers converse in. If in doubt, post it in both English and Spanish.

  • Fines for violation of the notice requirements can be up to $10,000 per violation.

Here is the required posting notice issued by DLSE:
English version 
Spanish version
FAQ’s from DLSE can be found here.

  • In addition, each time ICE comes back with findings in the form of a Notice of Technical Corrections and also later on with a Notice of Suspect Documents (to terminate certain employees), each affected employee must be notified as well as any Union – all within 72 hours.

  • In addition, the employee has a right to counsel at their own expense when an employer is reviewing their I-9 with them.

ICE IMAGE Program

IMAGE is a voluntary partnership initiative between the federal government and private sector employers. The initiative is designed to foster cooperative relationships and to strengthen overall hiring practices and self-policing of I-9’s.  It can be used as a negotiating tool if a company is audited by ICE.

What does ICE agree to do as part of IMAGE?

  • IMAGE was designed as a partnership initiative between the government and private sector employers. To that end, ICE is committed to working with IMAGE participants in the following ways:

  • ICE will waive potential fines if substantive violations are discovered on fewer than 50 percent of the required Forms I-9.

  • In instances where more than 50 percent of the Forms I-9 contain substantive violations, ICE will mitigate fines or issue fines at the statutory minimum of $216 per violation.

  • ICE will not conduct another Form I-9 inspection of the company for a two-year period.

  • ICE will provide information and training before, during and after inspection.

For more information on Image see here.

Copyright © 2019, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

For more information see the National Law Review Immigration Law page.

OFCCP Proposes New Rule to “Ensure Religious Employers are Protected”

As previewed in the Spring regulatory agenda, the Office of Federal Compliance Contract Programs (OFCCP) has proposed a new rule to clarify aspects of a religious exemption available to federal contractors. In the proposed rule, the agency said it intends to address concerns from religious organizations that ambiguity in the exemption left them reluctant to participate in federal contracts.

The proposed rule was published August 15 in the Federal Register. OFCCP will accept public comments on the rule for 30 days, until September 16, 2019.

The rule would clarify the religious exemption in Executive Order 11246, which includes anti-discrimination obligations for federal contractors. The exemption allows religious organizations to prefer individuals of a particular religion, while still requiring adherence to other anti-discrimination provisions. The rule comes one year after OFCCP issued a Directive reminding its staff to tread lightly when dealing with religious contractors and “proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of . . . religious beliefs.”

As proposed, the rule would clarify that:

  • The exemption covers “not just churches but employers that are organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose.”

  • Religious employers can condition employment upon acceptance of, or adherence to, a religious tenet, provided that they do not discriminate based on other protected bases.

  • Define terms such as “Religion,” “Particular Religion,” and religion “As understood by the employer.”

The rule does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or LGBTQ protections. However, it does cite Masterpiece Cakeshop, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a business owner’s decision to deny service to gay customers based on the owner’s religious beliefs.  In a news release, OFCCP said it considered that case while drafting the rule, in addition to other Supreme Court cases, statutes, and executive orders.

Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected,

said Patrick Pizzella, acting U.S. Secretary of Labor.

“As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”

The proposed rule also comes at the same time it has been reported by Bloomberg Law that the Department of Justice and EEOC are seemingly taking differing positions on LGBTQ rights before the Supreme Court.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
For more on religious protections, see the National Law Review Civil Rights page.

After Court Decision, Could Title IX Expand to Cover Hazing?

A recent federal court decision in Louisiana suggests that Title IX requires institutions of higher education to treat fraternities and sororities equally. While Title IX generally involves cases of sexual assaults on campus, this new lawsuit argues that fraternity members are more at risk than sorority members of hazing due to unequal protections by colleges.

The lawsuit alleges that Louisiana State University (“LSU”) treats Greek organizations for men and women differently. The Plaintiffs allege that four fraternity pledges have died during hazing incidents at LSU since 1979, whereby hazing of sorority pledges is virtually non-existent due to restrictions and strict oversight provided by LSU. By not offering these same protections to the men involved in Greek organizations, the lawsuit states LSU has violated Title IX.

According to USA Today, Title IX has never been tested in hazing cases. As stated in that story, the lawsuit pushes the boundaries of Title IX enforcement. If successful, the litigation could set a precedent that drastically changes college disciplinary systems nationwide. Colleges and universities would have to ensure that they treat fraternities and sororities similarly when enforcing anti-hazing laws.

This lawsuit could also help shape new legislation. Florida recently enacted legislation that enables prosecutors to bring charges against fraternity and sorority members who weren’t present for hazing activities, but helped plan the events. Similar legislation is likely to be proposed elsewhere.

As the new academic year begins, institutions should take steps to enforce anti-hazing laws uniformly among fraternities and sororities in order to minimize the risk of similar claims based on Title IX.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
For more university litigation news, please see the National Law Review Public Education & Services type of law page.

Inclusion Does Not Stop Workplace Bias, Deloitte Survey Shows

In Deloitte’s 2019 State of Inclusion Survey, 86% of respondents said they felt comfortable being themselves all or most of the time at work, including 85% of women, 87% of Hispanic respondents, 86% of African American respondents, 87% of Asian respondents, 80% of respondents with a disability and 87% of LGBT respondents. But other questions in the company’s survey show a more troubling, less inclusive and productive office environment, and may indicate that simply implementing inclusion initiatives is not enough to prevent workplace bias.

While more than three-fourths of those surveyed also said that they believed their company “fostered an inclusive workplace,” many reported experiencing or witnessing bias (defined as “an unfair prejudice or judgment in favor or against a person or group based on preconceived notions”) in the workplace. In fact, 64% said that they “had experienced bias in their workplaces during the last year” and “also felt they had witnessed bias at work” in the same time frame. A sizable number of respondents—including 56% of LGBT respondents, 54% of respondents with disabilities and 53% of those with military status—also said they had experienced bias at least once a month.

Listening to those who say they have witnessed or experienced bias is especially important. When asked to more specifically categorize the bias they experienced and/or witnessed in the past year, 83% said that the bias in those incidents was indirect and subtle (also called “microaggression”), and therefore less easily identified and addressed. Also, the study found that those employees who belonged to certain communities were more likely to report witnessing bias against those communities than those outside them. For example, 48% of Hispanic respondents, 60% of Asian respondents, and 63% of African American respondents reported witnessing bias based on race or ethnicity, as opposed to only 34% of White, non-Hispanic respondents. Additionally, 40% of LGBT respondents reported witnessing bias based on sexuality, compared to only 23% of straight respondents.

While inclusion initiatives have not eliminated bias, Deloitte stresses that these programs are important and should remain. As Risk Management previously reported in the article “The Benefits of Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives,” not only can fostering diversity and inclusion be beneficial for workers of all backgrounds, it can also encourage employees to share ideas for innovations that can help the company, keep employees from leaving, and insulate the company from accusations of discrimination and reputational damage.

But building a more diverse workforce is only the first step, and does not guarantee that diverse voices are heard or that bias will not occur. Clearly, encouraging inclusion is not enough and more can be done to curtail workplace bias. And employees seeing or experiencing bias at work has serious ramifications for businesses. According to the survey, bias may impact productivity—68% of respondents experiencing or witnessing bias stated that bias negatively affected their productivity, and 70% say bias “has negatively impacted how engaged they feel at work.”

Deloitte says that modeling inclusion and anti-bias behavior in the workplace is essential, stressing the concept of “allyship,” which includes, “supporting others even if your personal identity is not impacted by a specific challenge or is not called upon in a specific situation.” This would include employees or managers listening to their colleagues when they express concerns about bias and addressing incidents of bias when they occur, even if that bias is not apparent to them or directly affecting them or their identity specifically.

According to the survey, 73% of respondents reported feeling comfortable talking about workplace bias, but “when faced with bias, nearly one in three said they ignored bias that they witnessed or experienced.” If businesses foster workplaces where people feel comfortable listening to and engaging honestly with colleagues of different backgrounds, create opportunities for diversity on teams and projects, and most importantly, address bias whenever it occurs, they can move towards a healthier, more productive work environment.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2019 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.
For more on workplace discrimination issues, please see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

#MeToo-Inspired Laws Hit the Midwest: Illinois Passes Anti-harassment, Pay Equity, and Board Diversity Legislation

After ending 2018 with a slew of new employment laws, Illinois continues to enact legislation impacting employers. Following the example set by California, Washington, and other states recently, the Illinois legislature passed four new bills targeting equity, transparency, and discrimination last week, and Governor J. B. Pritzker is expected to sign them into law. This gives Illinois companies the opportunity to reevaluate their policies and practices with regard to sexual harassment, equity, and discrimination.

Illinois State Law Changes

  • Sexual Harassment (Senate Bill 75)

As the #MeToo movement continues to be a top priority of state legislatures throughout the country, Illinois joins several other states, such as Arizona, California, Delaware, Oregon, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, in passing proactive legislation on the topic. SB 75 contains several provisions designed to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

First, the law limits unilateral nondisclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration agreements relating to sexual harassment and employment discrimination claims. It remains to be seen whether, upon challenge, courts will find this law and others like it that prohibit arbitration agreements to be preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.

The legislation also requires employers to disclose to the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) by July 1, 2020, and each July 1 thereafter, the total number of final adverse administrative rulings or judgments in the preceding year and whether any equitable relief was ordered. In addition, SB 75 requires employers to disclose to the IDHR during an investigation the total number of settlements entered into during the preceding five years that relate to any act of alleged sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination. However, the law prohibits the IDHR from relying on the existence of any settlement to support a finding of substantial evidence.

SB 75 also permits employees who are victims of gender-based violence to take unpaid leave and requires hotels and casinos to provide employees working in isolated spaces with panic buttons to prevent sexual harassment or assault.

Finally, under this law Illinois joins California, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine in requiring employers to hold annual sexual harassment training for all employees. Like New York’s law, SB 75 calls for the IDHR to produce a model sexual harassment training program, including a program specifically tailored to the restaurant and bar industry.

  • Equal Pay Act (House Bill 834)

HB 834, like recent legislation in Colorado, Washington, and Maine, prohibits employers from screening prospective employees based on salary histories and bars employers from requesting or requiring prospective employees to provide their salary history as a condition of being considered for employment. Importantly, the law expressly states that it does not apply to current employees applying for promotions or transfers with the same employer. The law also expressly permits discussions about an applicant’s expectations with respect to compensation and benefits.

HB 834 would ban employers from requiring employees to sign a contract or waiver that would forbid the employee from discussing compensation information (though human resources employees and supervisors may be prohibited from disclosing compensation information learned in their jobs).

This legislation amends Illinois’s Equal Pay Act of 2003. The law previously prohibited discrimination in pay among jobs that require “equal” skill, effort, and responsibility, but the new law will require employers to compare jobs that require “substantially similar” skill, effort, and responsibility. It also now requires that any factor that accounts for a pay differential must not be “based on or derived from a differential in compensation based on sex or another protected characteristic,” must be job related and consistent with business necessity, and must account for the entire differential. Employers that violate the law may be subject to compensatory or punitive damages. These changes to the Illinois Equal Pay Act may, therefore, call for a fresh look at an employer’s pay equity analysis.

  • Lower Threshold for “Employer” under the Illinois Human Rights Act (House Bill 252)

HB 252 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) and provides that “employer” includes any person employing one or more employees within Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks within the calendar year of or preceding the alleged violation. This significantly expands the previous definition of employer, which included any person employing 15 or more employees in Illinois (matching Federal Title VII’s requirements).

  • Disclosure of Board Demographics (House Bill 3394)

HB 3394 requires publicly traded companies based in Illinois to report the demographics of their board and executives, including the self-identified gender and race of each member of its board. The University of Illinois will then publish an annual report card on Illinois companies’ diversity. Companies will also need to report on their policies and practices for promoting diversity. A previous version of the bill would have required companies to include at least one woman, one African-American, and one Latino on their boards, but these requirements were removed from the bill before it was passed by the state legislature.

Practical Takeaways for Employers

Employers should be acutely aware of how these legislative changes affect their workplaces. To prepare for the implementation of the laws above, employers doing business in Illinois may consider doing the following:

  • Ensuring their sexual harassment and discrimination policies comply with the requirements outlined in SB 75
  • Adopting annual sexual harassment trainings that cover the standards set forth in Illinois law and federal law and preparing for such trainings
  • For employers with under 15 employees that were previously not covered by the IHRA, reevaluating policies to ensure they are in compliance
  • Limiting the use of arbitration or nondisclosure agreements with respect to harassment claims where necessary, and revising all employment agreements to ensure their nondisclosure and arbitration clauses meet the standards set forth in SB 75
  • Adjusting hiring or recruitment processes to eliminate questions about salary history as required by HB 834
  • Conducting privileged pay equity audits to evaluate compliance with the amended Illinois Equal Pay Act

Although #MeToo has not changed the fundamentals of federal discrimination law, the cultural shift continues to place new obligations on employers.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Kayla A. McCann and Sarah J. Platt at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
More on Employment & Pay Equality on the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

Title VII and LGBT Rights: The Current Landscape

The U.S. Supreme Court currently is contemplating whether to review three employment discrimination cases involving what, if any, protection Title VII extends against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  See R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 18-107 (considering transgender discrimination under Title VII; see Sixth Circuit opinion below reported at 884 F.3d 560); Altitude Express v. Zarda, case number 17-1623 (considering sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII; see Second Circuit opinion below reported at 855 F.3d 76); Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, case number 17-1618 (same; see Eleventh Circuit opinion below reported at 894 F.3d 1335).  The Court will consider the certiorari petitions for all three cases in conference on November 30.

Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of… sex.”  The statute does not explicitly protect against sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, and circuit courts are split as to whether Title VII’s protection against sex-based discrimination also provides protection based on sexual orientation, with the Second and Seventh Circuits holding that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation-based discrimination and the Eleventh Circuit reaching the opposite conclusion.  In Harris Funeral Homes, the Sixth Circuit became the first federal Circuit Court of Appeals to recognize transgender discrimination as a form of prohibited sex-based discrimination under Title VII.  The Supreme Court could choose to resolve these questions this term, but until then, this issue will continue to be closely watched by the nation, with government agencies and employers weighing in on the debate.

In October 2018, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) memo garnered national attention for defining “sex” to exclude transgenderism.  The memo circulated internally within HHS for months, but was just recently made public in a New York Times article.  The memo defines “sex” as “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.”  In other words, HHS wants to rely on birth certificates as the main identifier of an individual’s sex, a policy that would essentially abolish federal recognition and protection of transgender individuals.  The memo requests that other federal agencies – including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Labor – alter their own understanding of the word “sex” to match HHS’s proposed definition.

Shortly after the HHS memo became public, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), appearing before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government, urged the Court to postpone consideration of Harris Funeral Homes until it decides whether to review Zarda and Bostock because the Sixth Circuit relied heavily on Zarda in concluding that Title VII prohibits transgender discrimination.  Further, the DOJ contended, consistent with the HHS memo, that Title VII does not prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on gender identity.

Not all agencies agree with the HHS and DOJ’s interpretation of Title VII.  For instance, the Acting Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Victoria Lipnic (who was appointed Acting Chair by President Trump in 2017), announced that the EEOC plans to continue prosecuting transgender discrimination claims in accordance with the agency’s stated policies.  In response to these recent agency developments, nearly 200 companies – including Amazon, Apple, Pepsico, Twitter, and Uber – signed the Business Statement for Transgender Equality opposing “any administrative and legislative efforts to erase transgender protections through reinterpretation of existing laws and regulations.”

The federal stance on Title VII and LGBT discrimination is conflicting, to say the least.  Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on these issues, it is important for employers to remember that although there are currently no express federal protections against sexual orientation or transgender discrimination, many state and local governments prohibit such discrimination.  Employers are encouraged to consult with counsel to ensure compliance with state and local laws regarding transgender and sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.  Stay tuned for our update on whether the Supreme Court decides to hear these cases.

 

© Copyright 2018 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP