Category: Civil Rights

Legal News Reach Episode 7: Creating A Diverse, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment

National Law Review Web Content Specialist Shelby Garrett closes out Legal News Reach Season 2 with an impactful minisode featuring Stacey Sublett Halliday, Principal and DEI Committee Chair with Beveridge & Diamond. Diversity, equity, and inclusion look different for every law firm, and smaller firms like B&D have to be even more resourceful in their approach to fostering dynamic work environments. How can firms use organizational partnerships to augment their internal DEI strategies?

We’ve included a transcript of the conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.

Shelby Garrett

Thank you for turning into the Legal News Reach podcast. My name is Shelby Garrett, Web Publication Specialist with the National Law Review, and this episode I’m super excited because I will be speaking to Stacey Halliday, an environmental justice attorney with leadership roles with the American Bar Association and the Environmental Law Institute. Hi, Stacey.

Stacey Halliday

Hi, Shelby, thank you so much. And thank you National Law Review for having me today.

Shelby Garrett

Of course! To kick things off, would you mind telling us a little bit about your background in legal and what led you to pursue a career in law?

Stacey Halliday

Sure. I’m a shareholder at Beverage & Diamond, and we’re an environmental law firm. I’m based out of Washington DC. As you mentioned, a large part of my practice involves counseling clients on environmental justice, identifying risks, opportunities, and helping them incorporate EJ in their work. And I also have a broader practice on ESG issues and product stewardship, so things like sustainability disclosures, ratings and rankings, green marketing compliance and circular economy, that sort of thing. I started the firm a million years ago, longer than I’d like to admit, and had the privilege of also spending two years in the middle of that as an Obama appointee at the US Environmental Protection Agency in the Office of General Counsel so…bounced around a little bit. It’s been a long journey, I sort of wandered into environmental law by happenstance, but it’s been an incredible journey so far.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome. We’re super excited to have you today, because we also worked previously on an article about the EPA. So this is perfect to actually get to see each other face to face and talk to each other. Today, we’re going to be talking about DEI initiatives. To start off with that, could you give us a basic definition for people who maybe aren’t familiar with it and tie us into how that relates to law firm operations?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, absolutely. And I should mention, one of the other hats that I wear at the firm, besides a shareholder is also Chair of our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion committee. So that’s sort of my D E and I hat, I have been on the committee for the 10 years on and off that I’ve been at the firm. So for D E and I, in terms of definitions, it’s–I hate to give you the lawyer answer, but it’s an “it depends” kind of thing, right? So DEI efforts are defined in such a broad variety of ways and are very unique to each organization. So some folks call it DEI, some say DEIA to include accessibility, there’s variations on the theme. But at B&D, DEI is really focused on building and fostering an inclusive culture that allows everyone to be their authentic selves at work, removing obstacles that inhibit equal opportunities for all and promoting and supporting those from historically underrepresented groups outside of the traditional DEI bucket. So defined by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, identity, disability, or otherwise. So that’s sort of how we think about it at our firm. And I’d say the way that plays out is I as chair, and my deputies, and our committee work with the Management Committee of the firm, the Chief Talent Officer, the firmwide managing principal who oversees the management of the whole firm, and members of committee, we’re the largest committee at the firm, its attorneys and staff. And we work with developing internal and external policies and practices across the firm. We have a Working Parents Group, an Employee Engagement Committee focused on staff and a Women’s Initiative to develop more targeted programming, but that’s kind of how it’s structured across the operations of the firm.

Shelby Garrett

That’s awesome, and that’s great to hear some examples because like you said, it kind of is tailored to each firm and what the community of employees needs. So it sounds like it would be a really large undertaking, because it has to be pretty authentic and genuine with straightforward conversations that might be a little bit harder, with some self-reflection. What is a good place for companies to start out? What is step one?

Stacey Halliday

Step one, really, in my perspective is, tone from the top is a really big I think, ground floor for a lot of this. I came from an HBCU, I went to Howard University School of Law, very proud graduate. And after my clerkship, I met Ben Wilson, who was the Managing Partner of Beverage & Diamond. And Ben is legendary. He’s just a staunch and uncompromising advocate for diversity and for supporting attorneys of color. And he’s the reason I went to Beverage & Diamond because I saw so significant leadership of the firm, he is an individual, but across the firm from his leadership had embraced and embedded diversity as a priority in addition to doing excellent work for our clients. So that I think has continued. He retired, I think it was within the last year, which is very hard as somebody who worked very closely with him. But we’ve really seen the firm continue to demonstrate that absolute commitment, and you see it in the numbers. In our firm about 36% of our shareholders are women, 50% of our Managment Committee are women or minorities, we continue to get very positive accolades for our DEI work even after so I think we see that commitment from the top and that helps all of us understand, incorporate remember that DEI is something important every day.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely, that’s a really great point, and very nice to hear how you got involved with the firm. When a firm is looking to measure their success, are there any indicators– I imagine it probably depends on what exactly they’re tasked with or what their initiative is. But is there anything that overall could help measure that success?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s it’s funny, coming into this with a DEI hat but also doing ESG work, I think a lot about metrics and how do you set targets and measure your progress and hold yourself accountable. And because we’re so small, we’re fewer than 150 lawyers or so, we partner a lot. And that’s we use third party groups that are really specialize in this work and specialize in best practices for law firms to measure our progress and hold ourselves accountable. And a leading example of that is our participation in the Mansfield program. So the Mansfield certification program–I see you nodding Shelby, so that’s something you’ve heard of before. It’s based on the Rooney rule for the uninitiated, so the–I know nothing about football, but I have heard it’s based on the football Rooney rule, and that requires consideration of candidates from historically underrepresented groups for certain leadership roles. So we’re Mansfield 5.0 Certified, Mansfield Plus, and that means that not only do we consider certain underrepresented groups for at least 30% of all significant leadership roles, lateral recruiting and business development opportunities, for the Plus certification, we exceeded that requirement by actually achieving 30% or more representation. So that’s been a program we’ve been involved in at least the last four or five years, and the requirements continue to elevate every year. So it’s really an incredible way to not only track our progress, but also keep ourselves challenged because the goalposts continue to move to keep us challenged and leaning forward into this kind of work.

Shelby Garrett

That is really awesome. Yeah, when I was preparing for this, I was looking at the Mansfield website, I think it’s run by Diversity Lab maybe? So I was looking through all of their documentation on their website so that’s awesome. While we’re talking about Beverage & Diamond specifically, I know you mentioned the tone from the beginning was very inclusive. Is there any additional training or education that is provided to employees, whatever you’re comfortable talking about, specific to the firm?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, of course. I think we have a number of different programs, we have the committee and we have an annual survey across the firm that helps us understand where there might be need or interest in getting additional training and support in this space. So from an internal perspective, that’s something that’s more dynamic and focused on our particular firm and its community. So that could be anything from implicit bias training, to learning about more accessibility issues, or neurodiversity or something like that. So that’s something that we develop, and work as committee to build over the course of the year. But I think again, partnerships are a really big part of how we support our community in getting the best practices and cutting edge work in the space and support for each of our individual community members. So we partner with groups like LCLD, the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, which is just unbelievable. The program is amazing. So we have Fellows, Pathfinders, and we have Summer 1Ls that are part of this LCLD partnership, and the Fellows and Pathfinder program supports individuals in either mid-career or senior level or entry level attorneys with things like professional development programs, leadership training, relationship building opportunities, and that’s for attorneys from historically underrepresented groups. So it’s really amazing, I haven’t actually I haven’t done it, but a lot of my close colleagues and friends have done it and they talk about the relationships they’ve built, the support they’ve gotten, in addition to what they get internally at the firm being just invaluable and a great resource. So that’s something that’s a good example of the kind of things that we do plus our internal training to really support those in our community.

Shelby Garrett

Sorry, I think I missed it. Was that a third-party group?

Stacey Halliday

Yeah, it’s unbelievable. It’s like there’s a couple of different programs like this and MCCA, Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and there’s–the acronyms, its an alphabet soup–CCWC Corporate Counsel Women of Color. There’s a couple of different programs like this that focus on different historically underrepresented attorney groups and communities. But LCLD is something where we’ve had a really in-depth relationship and pipeline coordination. So the 1L program through LCLD, we have a 1L Summer Associate. So usually they’re 2Ls, you’re a second-year law student when you come to summer at a law firm and then hopefully you get an offer afterwards for a job. But we have a 1L come in through the LCLD program from a historically underrepresented group. And it’s a great way to build a pipeline for talent in our community organization, especially in the environmental law space where diversity is a challenge.

Shelby Garrett

Absolutely. That is amazing. One of the things I think you mentioned towards the beginning was a program for working moms. Do you mind explaining a little bit more about that, is that like a third-party?

Stacey Halliday

It’s actually internal. We created a Working Parents Group, we had a Women’s Committee initially, and the Women’s Committee was dealing with a lot of coming together to talk about all of the challenges that women inherently face. But we were also finding that we had a lot of men who are parents, as well, who were kind of, you know, still tackling a lot of these challenging issues, especially coming into the pandemic, when we’re all working remotely. And I have two young kids under three… it’s a challenge, it’s a journey. And actually having that community to talk about what kind of resources we might need, how we might support one another, how we can share best practices and lessons learned, and just support each other in the work environment, which is inherently stressful in a law firm. But if we’re all being understanding and know more about what we’re facing, we can all kind of tackle it together. So the working parents group was an outgrowth, I think of the pandemic and of having a community of young parents, and of more veteran parents who could all sort of share these lessons learned and worked together on solutions.

Shelby Garrett

That is awesome to hear both the internal kind of programs and then also the third-party kind of programs. How does the firm’s DEI work align with its overall business strategy and its goals? I know we just talked about the 1Ls and having them have that exposure and the opportunity to network and really get involved early, but looking more broadly at overall business strategy and goals.

Stacey Halliday

I think it’s such an interesting time in this space, because where there might have been more skepticism, especially at a law firm where your time is billed in six minute increments, to dedicating time and resources to DEI, now we’re seeing some pressure from clients, some external pressure, that really sends home the business case for the importance of diversity and for supporting DEI from a retention perspective. And I think Beverage & Diamond is unique in that we’ve always embraced DEI as one of our core principles that are important to the firm. But were there any naysayers, it’s now you know, we’re really seeing that clients are bringing down the hammer. They’re asking for more transparency. We have dense, pages long surveys asking us to disclose information about our diversity performance, and how many people from historically underrepresented groups are on our pitch teams, how many folks are actually billing time, are they getting considered for promotion, like they, they want to know that level of detail. And if they don’t see it, there’s either a penalty in terms of fees or you don’t get the work. And I think that is something that has shifted, in concrete ways, the industry. You’re seeing a huge proliferation of Chief Diversity Officers, So C-suite level leadership and management in law firms that actually looks at this topic the way it is, a sophisticated practice, that’s on top of legal practice. So I think the business case is now kind of firmly being established across the industry more so than it has in the past. Just a really interesting trend.

Shelby Garrett

That is really interesting. When I was like reading different articles to prepare for this, I hadn’t heard of that. So that’s really great to hear that there’s some external pressure and investment in this bigger priority. You were talking kind of a little bit about, you know, billing hours. So building these DEI initiatives require some resources and support. What kind of resources and support can a firm offer to employees who might be affected by these issues? I know kind of just like, taking the time for the Working Parent Group. But what resources really go into that?

Stacey Halliday

I think for us, again, we’re fairly small. So you know, where you have these huge multinational global firms that have hundreds of 1000s of people who would be part of an affinity group or any type of program that’s associated with different subpopulations of a diverse community, we’ve got like five. So it’s not necessarily the same sort of thing in terms of the scale of the programs, which is why we end up doing more partnerships so that, you know, the Diversity and Flexibility Alliance might have a program or something like that, or we’ll say, “Hey, if you’re interested in doing this training, or engaging this community more aggressively, we absolutely support you, as an individual, doing that kind of work, because we don’t have the infrastructure necessarily to do it.” But some larger firms and companies do things like backup childcare, something like that, like, I think Bright Horizons or something like that, you know, you can go and, if your school’s closed, or if your kids sick, you can find some way to get some coverage so that you can still go to work. There’s all kinds of flexible leave policies and that sort of thing that really does help in terms of giving people the space that they need, still thinking from  the parent context. Affinity groups are something that we have decided to date not to really form more broadly, just because again, the numbers aren’t there. But for us our partnerships are the way that we do it. But a lot of other large organizations do things like affinity groups that have more of a build-out in terms of permanent programs throughout the year. So in terms of brass tacks for us, we have the committee, with its mix of associates and staff members, and we have a budget every year to support those external engagements and partnerships and certification programs and that sort of thing. But it really does run the gamut, I think, especially at larger shops, where they have more numbers to really build out more infrastructure and training programs and curricula and support benefits, like childcare.

I worked at a law firm before I went to law school, and it was a much larger law firm. And I think historically, there’s been a really strong divide between attorneys and staff at a lot of law firms, which I think can be problematic and unnecessary. It inhibits, I think, community and diversity in a lot of different ways. But B&D has been fantastic. Our DEI committee is fully integrated with staff and attorneys. And we have some pretty significant empowerment and promotion of non-lawyers at the firm in this space to try and get a better perspective on our community. We’re basically half non-lawyers. So it’s really important to make sure that we’re not only capturing the voices of those members of our community through the committee, but also investing in the non-lawyers. And so we have a couple of professional development programs and we encourage external training in the same way that we support our attorneys. So it’s, I think, something that gets lost a lot in the conversation for law firms, because they’re so focused on the folks who are billing, but it’s a much bigger biosphere, for the law firm to be successful. It’s a lot more to it than just the legal work. So I think it’s really been important to make sure those voices are captured, the broader diversity of the firm is captured through thinking about your staff, and not just your attorneys.

Shelby Garrett

That is an amazing point I had not even considered, there’s an additional kind of hierarchy of opinions being taken into account. That’s really interesting. As we start to come to a close, are there any final thoughts you wanted to share?

Stacey Halliday

I’m so grateful to the National Law Review, specifically to you, Shelby, for bringing this conversation to bear. And I think it’s really important for our community to really think about effective practices here so that we generate and support more diverse communities so that we have more diversity of thought, as well as other types of diversity in the way that we solve problems and do our work. And I’m happy that we had a chance to have this chat and celebrate the work that’s being done in the space.

Shelby Garrett

Yeah, that’s really great. I am very grateful that you joined us today, I appreciate you taking the time to really walk through all of this because it is pretty unfamiliar to me. So it’s really great to get the basic understanding of where firms can start if they haven’t started yet, and some inspiration of where they can go. So I really do appreciate that. And thank you so much for joining us today. For listeners who are interested in finding you and maybe some of your thought leadership in the environmental justice area, where can they look for you?

Stacey Halliday

Thank you for the plug, I will absolutely take it! bdlaw.com. So please check out B&D’s site, the Environmental Justice Practice Group has its own site. And we also have a podcast, another shameless plug for our joint podcast with the Environmental Law Institute called Ground Truth. That will be kicking back up in 2023, but we bring on folks and have some deep thoughts on EJ and what’s ahead and what’s coming down the pike. So hopefully check us out there as well.

Shelby Garrett

Fantastic. Thank you so much. Again, we really appreciate your time, and we will be back in a couple of weeks for a new episode of Legal News Reach.

Conclusion

Thank you for listening to the National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes. For the latest legal news, or if you’re interested in publishing and advertising with us, visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC
For more Legal News Reach episodes, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Division I Universities Must Be Ready for Changes to the NCAA Infractions Process

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has adopted key changes to the way in which NCAA infractions matters will be investigated and processed in the future. The changes, which take effect on January 1, 2023, are intended to modernize and enhance the process, while focusing resources on the most serious violations. Another objective is to reduce the time needed to process and resolve violation proceedings.

President of the University of Georgia and Chair of the Division I Board of Directors Jere Morehead said in August that NCAA members are “committed to resolving cases fairly and in a timely fashion, thus holding those responsible for violations accountable and avoiding penalizing those who were not involved in rule-breaking.”

Among the key changes are the following:

Enhanced duty to cooperate: Institutions, staff, and student-athletes, upon learning of potential violations, will be required to preserve information, to provide immediate access to all electronic devices, and to encourage family members, spouses, boosters, and others to cooperate in the investigation. The number of aggravating and mitigating factors in the Bylaws has been expanded to reward prompt and full cooperation and deter efforts to hinder or impede investigations.

New head coach responsibility standard: Head coaches will be held responsible for serious violations committed by those who report to them directly or indirectly. Only in determining the appropriate penalty will the Committee on Infractions (COI) consider whether the head coach promoted compliance and monitored the program. The previous infractions approach, which included a rebuttable presumption of responsibility on the part of a head coach, has been abandoned.

Additional method for resolution: A new alternative for resolving infractions cases has been added, with the aim of providing the COI greater flexibility and reserving full hearings for only the most serious cases. The new method, known as a “Written Record Hearing,” will be employed in cases in which the facts are largely undisputed and the alleged violations not numerous or significant.

Clarification of appeal standard and limitation of appeals: Findings and penalties by the COI will be affirmed by the Infractions Appeals Committee (IAC) if there is information in the record that supports the decision. Findings and penalties will not be set aside unless no reasonable person could have made the ruling given the factual record. Appeals to the IAC as to the penalties imposed will be limited to those sanctions that fall outside legislated penalty guidelines, or “core penalties.” The majority of appeals will be decided based on the written record without the need for oral argument. Finally, and as is also the case with the revised COI process, extensions of time will be granted only in extreme and clearly defined circumstances.

Aggravating and mitigating factors: The new guidelines clarify which factors apply to institutions and which apply to involved individuals. Previously, this was unclear and often debated. New aggravating factors have been added, including hindering an investigation or inhibiting the COI’s processing of a case. New mitigating factors also have been added, including a demonstration of exemplary cooperation by, for example, securing meaningful cooperation from an outside party.

Name, image and likeness (NIL): In this rapidly evolving area, the bylaws provide that if available information indicates that behaviors surrounding an NIL offer or agreement is contrary to NCAA legislation, it shall be presumed that a violation occurred.  The charged institution or involved individual will then be required to rebut this presumption with credible and sufficient information that a violation did not occur.

In addition to the above changes, the new infractions construct eliminates the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), which had been created at the recommendation of the Commission on College Basketball chaired by Condoleezza Rice. While acknowledging the panel’s thoroughness in deciding the several cases referred to the IARP, it was concluded that this new process prolonged case timelines and required substantial additional resources to bring cases to resolution.

Finally, the Board of Directors announced that it will consider additional future changes that may help to deliver timely and fair outcomes in infractions matters. Among the subjects under further consideration are (i) requiring increased documentation of recruiting efforts, (ii) adjusting the size and composition of the COI, (iii) modification of penalty ranges (including alternatives to post-season bans), and (iv) enhancing confidentiality rules for involved parties during investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022
For more Public Services Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Congress Passes Speak Out Act, Banning Certain Prospective Non-Disclosure Agreements (US)

Earlier this year, we reported that Congress amended the Federal Arbitration Act to preclude compulsory binding arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. This past week, Congress went a step further, passing the Speak Out Act, S. 4524, which is aimed at prohibiting prospective, pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements that prevent employees from discussing sexual harassment or sexual assault. The Senate passed the bill unanimously on September 29, 2022 and the House of Representatives voted in favor of the measure, 315-109, on November 17, 2022. President Biden has expressed his intention to sign the bill into law, and it will become effective immediately upon his signature.

The bipartisan federal legislation – the latest federal bill inspired by the #metoo movement and one that has been slowly gaining support over the past five years – applies only to pre-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements and similar clauses in employment agreements, rendering them null and void in instances in which sexual harassment or sexual assault is alleged in violation of federal, state, or tribal law. The goal of the bill is to prevent the use of pre-dispute agreements aimed at silencing employees from reporting sexual impropriety in the workplace. Similar measures have been passed at the state level in some jurisdictions (see, for example, our prior reporting regarding analogous California, Illinois, Maryland, and Vermont here, here, and here, to name just a few), but when President Biden signs the Speak Out Act, as he has indicated he will do, the law becomes immediately effective nationwide.

Earlier versions of the Speak Out Act included language precluding non-disclosure clauses as applied to claims of race, age, national origin, and similar equal employment opportunity claims, but the bill was stripped back to apply only to claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in its final form. President Biden’s administration urges further legislation to address the use of non-disclosure agreements used to prevent discussion of other types of labor violations, but as a practical matter, the National Labor Relations Act already protects the right of covered employees to engage in protected, concerted activity – such as discussing workplace discrimination, assault, and harassment – and existing EEO laws protect employees engaged in conduct aimed at asserting their own rights or cooperating with other employees in protecting their rights.

Furthermore, the Speak Out Act only precludes the use of pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, meaning those signed before the unlawful conduct begins. It does not prevent employers and employees from agreeing to confidential settlements after alleged sexual harassment or abuse occurs. Parties remain free to enter into such arrangements, provided that employers still cannot preclude employees from reporting violations of EEO laws to agencies entrusted with enforcing such laws, like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Employers may still require non-disclosure agreements to protect trade secrets and confidential business information, and may still include confidentiality provisions in severance agreements. Consequently, the Speak Out Act is not as much a sea change itself as a recommitment by Congress and the Administration to expanding measures aimed at transparency around sexual misconduct in the workplace. Employers should review existing handbook policies and standard non-disclosure agreements to ensure compliance with the Speak Out Act, but that should be just one small step in a comprehensive audit of sexual harassment policies, reporting mechanisms, and investigation procedures.

For more Labor and Employment Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Five States Put Abortion Questions on the Ballot; Health Care and Other Employers Should Stay Tuned

In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, we have been closely monitoring legal developments across the country. In addition to well publicized “trigger laws” that were effectuated as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order, states have taken up a variety of legislative actions in response to the ruling, which placed authority for the regulation of abortion with the states.

On Election Day, five states will have voters consider various proposals in light of Dobbs and its directive that abortion law belongs with the people. Here is a run-down of abortion-related ballot initiatives that will be put to a popular vote on November 8, 2022.

A Constitutional Amendment for California

On the ballot in California is Proposition 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom, which would amend the state Constitution at Article I, Section 1.1, to provide that the state cannot “deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” Any amendment to the California Constitution requires a simple majority of voters. If the amendment is passed, changes take effect the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote for the election.

Should Proposition 1 pass, it would add express protection for reproductive freedom, including decisions about abortion and contraception, to the state constitution, under its existing guaranteed right to privacy. If the proposition does not pass, it will not affect the status quo of reproductive rights in California: while current protections for abortion and other reproductive medical care would not be constitutionally guaranteed, they would remain in place under state law.

California currently has strong protections for the right to abortion, generally only prohibiting abortion at viability. Since the Dobbs decision earlier this year, California has promoted access to abortion, including launching abortion.ca.gov, a website dedicated towards providing information on reproductive health care services to people both inside and outside of California. Recently, in late September, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of 12 bills of abortion protections, aimed towards improving access to abortion and protecting patients and clinicians who undergo or provide them.

With the backdrop of an already-strong California legal reproductive health network, consistent polling indicates the ballot measure is expected to pass by a wide margin. Passage of the proposition will likely signal and establish the state as a refuge for individuals from more restrictive states seeking abortions.

Michigan May Modify its Constitution, Too

Michigan will also turn to its voters to decide whether its state constitution should be amended to include protections for abortion. The Michigan proposal, referred to as “Proposal 3 of 2022 – ‘Reproductive Freedom for All’ Petition,” seeks to protect the right to an abortion with a constitutional amendment that declares a right to reproductive freedom. The petition sets forth proposed language for a new section of the Michigan Constitution, stating, in part, that “[e]very individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”

Proposal 3 would take effect 45 days following the ballot initiative if approved by the majority of voters. It would (1) establish new individual rights to reproductive freedom, to broadly include the right to make and carry out all decisions relating to pregnancy; (2) permit state regulation of abortion in limited circumstances; (3) forbid discrimination in enforcement of reproductive rights; (4) prohibit adverse action by the state with respect to “potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes;” and (5) invalidate state laws that conflict with the Constitution as amended by Proposal 3.

If Proposal 3 is not passed and the state constitution remains as is, the future of the right to an abortion in Michigan will be unclear. Michigan has a pre-Roe ban that, if enforced, would prohibit abortion in nearly all situations and make abortions in non-life saving circumstances potentially prosecuted as manslaughter. However, a Michigan Court of Claims judge granted a permanent injunction in Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s suit to block local prosecutors from enforcing the ban. The ban is subject to an ongoing lawsuit.

Given the uncertainty of the ballot initiative’s outcome, Michigan employers should closely monitor the results of the November 8, 2022 vote.

Vermont’s Vote

In Vermont, abortion remains legal after Dobbs under state law. However, on November 8, 2022, voters will have the opportunity to further protect abortion rights through a ballot initiative. This initiative, referred to as Proposal 5, asks registered Vermont voters whether they are in favor of amending the state’s constitution to add the following language: “That an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Passage would guarantee the right to access and obtain an abortion as well as other reproductive care, and prohibit government infringement of reproductive rights absent a compelling state interest, which would need to be achieved through the least restrictive means.

Should Proposal 5 pass, the resulting constitutional amendment is not expected to significantly alter the legal landscape of abortion in Vermont, which currently has strong protection for the right to abortion. If approved, the amendment will become part of Vermont’s constitution on November 22, 2022.

In Contrast, Kentucky Seeks to Constitutionally Exclude Abortion Rights

Kentuckians will cast their votes deciding whether to amend the state’s constitution to explicitly provide that the state constitution offers no protection for a right to abortion. The proposal further clarifies that there is no constitutional right to use public funds for abortion. “Constitutional Amendment 2” poses the following question to voters: “Are you in favor of amending the Constitution of Kentucky by creating a new Section of the Constitution to be numbered Section 26A to state as follows: ‘To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion?’”

If the majority of votes are affirmative, a new section will be added to Kentucky’s constitution. This does not constitute an outright abortion ban, but rather prohibits courts from finding an implicit right to an abortion within the state’s constitution. Kentucky laws restricting abortion, including those triggered by Dobbs, are among the most restrictive in the nation. Approval of Constitutional Amendment 2 would not alter these laws or their existing narrow exceptions, which permit the procedure only when necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

An advisory from the Kentucky Attorney General provides further color on the ramifications of the amendment, noting that Amendment 2 does not ban abortion, but rather ensures that elected officials of Kentucky’s General Assembly, and not courts, would regulate abortion. The Advisory also explains that implementation of Amendment 2 would not amend other provisions in the state’s constitution.

Montana’s Ballot – NOT a Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Abortion is currently legal in Montana, as a 1999 Supreme Court ruling held that the state constitution protects abortion under its right-of-privacy provision. However, in 2021, a number of restrictive abortion laws were enacted, including a law that prohibits abortions after 20 weeks. These laws are under legal challenge by abortion providers and are temporarily enjoined pending litigation.

Meanwhile, on the ballot for November 8 is a referendum on LR-131, also known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The Act proposes a new statute that would classify any infant born alive as “a legal person” and require the provision of “medically appropriate and reasonable care” to such person. This would include all infants born alive from an induced labor, C-section, or attempted abortion. The Act also includes a provision mandating providers, employees, and volunteers to report a failure to comply to law enforcement, and sets forth criminal penalties. Violation of this law would be a felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison or a fine of up to $50,000. The proposed law is aimed at health care workers, and does not impose liability on parents or other parties.

Health care providers have raised concerns that the broad language of the bill could lead to unintended consequences, particularly for OB/GYN practitioners. Health care providers would be required to take “medically appropriate and reasonable care” to keep any infant alive, but these terms are not defined in the bill. Health care workers that could be held liable include doctors, nurses, and “any individual who may be asked to participate in any way in a health care service of procedure.”

If approved by the Montana electorate, the law would take effect on January 1, 2023. Hospitals and other health care providers would need to reexamine their operating procedures to comply with the bill, should it pass, including compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement.

Keeping Up With The Changes

We continue to track litigation, legislative developments, and the entirety of the post-Dobbs legal landscape as it continues to shift. Our 50-state survey and other resources provide employers, health care providers, life sciences stakeholders, and others impacted by these rapidly changing circumstances with in-depth analysis and monthly updates. Election Day results will be another element of this evolving story.

Article By Susan Gross Sholinsky, Amy K. Dow, and Catherine Kang of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

State Voting Leave Requirements: A Refresher in Preparation for the 2022 Midterm Elections

Millions of workers across the United States will be headed to the polls on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the midterm elections. With control of Congress up for grabs for the final two years of President Joe Biden’s first term, several close Senate races, five states considering ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana, and 36 states holding elections for governor, this midterm election is one of the most highly-anticipated in decades. Early voting numbers in some states already suggest there could be record turnout.

Despite the proliferation of early and mail-in voting, increased interest in this election could drive more employees to request time off from work to vote. Most states require employers to provide at least unpaid leave from work when polls are not open for a reasonable amount of time outside of employees’ work hours. Here is an overview of voting leave requirements across the United States to help employers prepare for Election Day.

States Without Specific Voting Time Off Requirements

Several states do not require employers to provide any specific leave to allow employees to vote. These include Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.

While not requiring leave, some of those states more generally protect employees’ rights to vote or participate in politics more generally. For instance, Florida and Mississippi prevent employers from discharging an employee for voting or based on how they voted. Similarly, in Idaho and Michigan, employers may not attempt to influence an employee’s vote by discharging or threatening to discharge an employee from employment.

Delaware and New Jersey prohibit employers from intimidating employees into how to vote or not to vote, and Pennsylvania prohibits employers from interfering with an employee’s right to vote. Louisiana requires that employers with 20 or more employees not make any rule that prohibits an employee from participating in politics. In North Dakota, employers are encouraged, but not required, to allow employees to take leave to vote in all elections when employees’ regular work schedules conflict with the time the polls are open.

Finally, Washington and Hawaii do not have specific voting leave laws, but both conduct elections by mail, eliminating the need to take leave to wait at the polls. Hawaii repealed a prior law providing for up to two hours of voting leave when it switched to vote-by-mail for all statewide elections with the 2020 primary election.

Voting Leave Laws Map

States With Unpaid Voting Leave Laws

Several states require employers to provide employees with some amount of unpaid leave to allow them to vote. Connecticut joined this list of states in June 2021, requiring employers to provide all employees with two hours of unpaid leave to vote in a covered election, though employees must provide the employer notice of the need to take the time off at least two days prior to the election. However, the law is set to sunset on June 30, 2024.

Arkansas and Ohio generally require employees to allow employees to take a reasonable amount of time off, unpaid, to vote on Election Day. In Alabama, employees are allowed to take up to one hour of leave to vote in primary and general elections if the polls are not open at least two hours before or one hour after an employee’s work shift.

In Georgia, employers must give employees “necessary” time off to vote when employees provide reasonable notice of the need for the leave, however, employers are not required to provide time off for employees who have at least two hours before or after their work shift when polls are open to vote. In Massachusetts, unpaid voting leave applies only to employees working in manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishments, and employers are not required to pay for this leave. Further, employees may only request leave for the first two hours after the polls are open.

Some states provide more than two hours of leave for employees to vote, though employers are not required to pay for it. In Wisconsin, employers must allow employees to take up to three consecutive hours of unpaid leave to vote. Employers may not deny a request for this leave, but may designate the specific time of the absence. Kentucky provides the most time for voting leave, requiring employers to allow employees to take unpaid leave for a reasonable time, but not less than four hours, to vote or apply for an absentee ballot. Still, employees must request leave in advance and specify the hours to be used.

States With Paid Voting Leave Laws

Employers in a number of states are required to provide paid time off for employees to vote, at least in circumstances where polls are not open outside of an employee’s regular work hours. Alaska requires employers to allow employees who do not have two consecutive nonworking hours while the polls are open to take off as much work time as necessary to vote “without loss of pay.” Similarly, in Texas, employers must allow employees to take paid time off to vote, unless the polls are not open for two consecutive hours outside of an employee’s working hours.

In Minnesota, employees must have “the time necessary” to go to their designated polling place and return to work on Election Day. In Nevada, employees may request “sufficient” leave time to vote on Election Day, which is determined by the distance of the polling place from the employee’s workplace (1 hour for up to 2 miles; 2 hours for greater than 2 and up to 10 miles; and 3 hours for more than 10 miles). Wyoming requires employers to provide for one hour of leave other than a meal break to vote in a general, primary, or special congressional election unless polls are open for at least three consecutive hours outside of an employee’s work shift.

Many states provide for up to two paid hours of leave for voting. These include: California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah. Iowa, in 2021, reduced the paid leave from three hours to two. On the other hand, D.C. joined the states providing for up to two hours of paid leave for voting in October 2020. The D.C. law further requires employers to post a “Time Off to Vote” notice in a conspicuous location in the workplace. In New York, employers must give employees two hours of paid leave if employees do not have at least four consecutive nonworking hours to vote while polls are open. New Mexico’s leave law includes elections for Native American nations, tribes, or pueblos.

A handful of states provide for up to three hours of paid leave to vote if necessary, including Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. These states require employees provide notice of the need for leave prior to Election Day.

Employers may want to prepare for employees to take the leave time afforded by these laws to vote in the November elections.

Article By Ashley Prickett Cuttino and Zachary V. Zagger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more election law and legislative news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Chamber of Commerce Challenges CFPB Anti-Bias Focus Concerning AI

The end of last month the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association and other industry groups (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in Texas federal court challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) update this year to the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices section of its examination manual to include discrimination.  Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.)

By way of background, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which is Title X of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (the “Act”), prohibits providers of consumer financial products or services or a service provider from engaging in any unfair, deceptive or abusive act or practice (“UDAAP”).  The Act also provides the CFPB with rulemaking and enforcement authority to “prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.”  See, e.g., https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_unfair-deceptive-abusive-acts-practices-udaaps_procedures.pdf.  In general, the Act provides that an act or practice is unfair when it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The CFPB earlier this spring published revised examination guidelines on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices, or UDAAPs.  Importantly, this set forth a new position from the CFPB, that discrimination in the provision of consumer financial products and services can itself be a UDAAP.  This was a development that was surprising to many providers of financial products and services.  The CFPB also released an updated exam manual that outlined its position regarding how discriminatory conduct may qualify as a UDAAP in consumer finance.  Additionally, the CFPB in May 2022 additionally published a Consumer Financial Protection Circular to remind the public of creditors’ adverse action notice requirements under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).  In the view of the CFPB, creditors cannot use technologies (include algorithmic decision making) if it means they are unable to provide required explanations under the ECOA.

In July 2022, the Chamber and others called on the CFPB to rescind the update to the manual.  This included, among other arguments raised in a white paper supporting their position, that in conflating the concepts of “unfairness” and “discrimination,” the CFPB ignores the Act’s text, structure, and legislative history which discusses “unfairness” and “discrimination” as two separate concepts and defines “unfairness” without mentioning discrimination

The Complaint filed this fall raises three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in relation to the updated manual as well as others.  The Complaint contends that ultimately it is consumers that will suffer as a result of the CFPB’s new position, as “[t]hese amendments to the manual harm Plaintiffs’ members by imposing heavy compliance costs that are ultimately passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced access to products.”

The litigation process started by Plaintiffs in this case will be time consuming (a response to the Complaint is not expected from Defendants until December).  In the meantime, entities in the financial sector should be cognizant of the CFPB’s new approach and ensure that their compliance practices appropriately mitigate risk, including in relation to algorithmic decision making and AI.  As always, we will keep you up to date with the latest news on this litigation.

For more Consumer Finance Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

California Law Prohibits Cooperation with Out-of-State Entities Regarding Lawful Abortion

In response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1242 into law, which “prohibits law enforcement and California corporations from cooperating with out-of-state entities regarding a lawful abortion in California.”

In particular, AB 1242 prohibits California companies that provide electronic communication services from complying with out-of-state requests from law enforcement regarding an investigation into, or enforcement of, laws restricting abortion.

Sponsored by California Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, AB 1242:

takes an innovative legal approach to protect user data. The bill prohibits California law enforcement agencies from assisting or cooperating with the investigation or enforcement of a violation related to abortion that is lawful in California. This law thereby blocks out-of-state law enforcement officers from executing search warrants on California corporations in furtherance of enforcing or investigating an anti-abortion crime. For example, if another state wants to track the movement of a woman traveling to California seeking reproductive health care, the state would be blocked from accessing cell phone site tower location data of the woman by serving a warrant to the tech company in California. In addition, if another state wants Google search history from a particular IP address, it could not serve an out-of-state search warrant at Google headquarters in CA without an attestation that the evidence is not related to investigation into abortion services. Although the first state to enact such a law, as California often is when it comes to privacy rights, we anticipate that other states will follow suit and that these laws will be hotly contested in litigation.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

What Employers Need to Know in a Post-Dobbs Landscape

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held the access to abortion is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. This article analyzes several employment law issues employers may face following the Dobbs decision.

Federal Law

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits employment discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” In construing the PDA’s reference to “childbirth”, federal courts around the country have held the PDA prevents employers from taking adverse employment actions (including firing, demotion, or preventing the opportunity for advancement) because of an employee’s decision to have an abortion as well as an employee’s contemplation of an abortion. The PDA also prohibits adverse employment actions based upon an employee’s decision not to have an abortion. So, for example, an employer would violate the PDA if it pressured an employee to have, or not to have, an abortion in order to keep her job or be considered for a promotion.

State Law

Several states have implemented “trigger laws,” which impose restrictions or categorical bans on abortion following Dobbs. In addition, states such as Texas have enacted laws that allow individuals to file civil actions against entities that “knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the cost of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.” Relying on that law, Texas legislators have already threatened at least two high profile employers for implementing policies which reimburse travel costs for abortion care unavailable in an employee’s home state. Although the Texas statute is currently being challenged in court, its text provides for statutory damages “in an amount of not less than $10,000” for “each abortion . . . induced.”

Although the issue has not been litigated yet, courts will likely have to decide how the PDA’s protections interact with a state’s anti-abortion laws.

Employer Handbook Policies and Procedures

The Dobbs decision may also impact workplace morale and productivity. Accordingly, employers should consider reviewing their handbooks as well as policies and procedures, with human resources and managers to ensure requisite familiarity with the employer’s social media policy, dress code, code of conduct, and how the employer handles confidential health information. Employers should be prepared for increased public expression from the workforce—including social media posts, discussions with other employees and third parties, and wearing clothing or other accessories reflecting strong opinions. Human resources should also be prepared for an increase in leave requests and employee resignations.

Travel Benefits for Employees Seeking Reproductive Care

In the wake of Dobbs, many businesses in states where access to abortion will be prohibited or highly restricted are considering—or have already implemented—benefit or employee expense plan amendments that would cover travel and lodging for out-of-state abortions. Ultimately, the legal and regulatory future for such plans remains unclear; especially in states where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contain “aiding and abetting” liability.

At a high level, employers seeking to enact such benefit or expense plans may find some comfort in a statement contained in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs. Specifically, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:

  • Some of the other abortion related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.

Thus, it appears that outright travel bans or similar prohibitive restrictions would face significant legal challenges, and could be declared void.

At this early stage in the post-Roe era, there appear to be several ‘paths’ emerging for employers seeking to provide travel benefits. Each comes with its own set of potential issues and considerations that employers, in conjunction with their counsel and benefit providers, should evaluate carefully. Below is a brief discussion of some of the travel-reimbursement plans employers have begun to implement or consider in the wake of Dobbs:

  1. Travel and lodging benefits under existing group health plans.
    • Assuming the plans are self-funded and subject to ERISA, they must also comply with other applicable rules such as HIPAA and the ACA.
    • Such benefits may not be available under non-ERISA plans in states restricting abortion access.
    • Generally would be limited to individuals enrolled in the employer’s plan.
  2. Travel and lodging benefits under Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA’s).
    • An HRA is a type of health savings account offering tax-free reimbursement up to a fixed amount each year.
    • HRA’s are generally subject to ERISA and cannot reimburse above the very minimal IRS limits (Section 213), such as mileage (.18 cents) and lodging ($50/per day).
    • Should be integrated with other coverage or qualify as an “Excepted Benefit HRA” or else it may violate certain ACA rules that prohibit lifetime annual dollar limits for certain benefits.
  3. Employee Assistance Programs (EAP’s).
    • EAP’s are voluntary benefit programs some employers use to allow employees access to certain types of care without accruing co-pays, deductibles, or out of pocket costs. Historically, EAP’s have been predominately used for mental health benefits such as therapy or substance abuse counseling.
    • In certain circumstances, EAP’s are exempt from the ACA. To be an “excepted benefit,” the EAP:
      • Cannot provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment;
      • Cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan;
      • Cannot charge a premium for participation; and
      • Cannot require cost sharing for offered services.
    • The first of the above requirements (significant benefits of a medical nature) is highly subjective and may create risk for employers because it is difficult to determine whether a benefit is “significant.” Accordingly, it may be difficult to locate a third-party vendor or provider that would administer travel and lodging benefits through an EAP.
  4. Travel and lodging benefits to employees as taxable reimbursements.
    • Taxable reimbursements—up to a certain amount annually—for travel to obtain abortion or other medical care not available in the employee’s place of residence.
    • Some employers are requiring only receipts for lodging, but are not requesting substantiation of the employee’s abortion procedure. Some argue this might insulate an employer from liability in states with statutes prohibiting “aiding or abetting” an abortion, on the grounds that the employer does not know what the employee is using the benefit for. Ultimately, whether that is true remains largely untested and unclear.
    • Likely more costly for the employer, because the benefit is broader in scope. In addition, employers may run the risk that a payroll reimbursement of this kind could qualify as setting up a “new medical plan,” thereby raising compliance and other related issues.

Additionally, employer travel-and-lodging benefits of this type present innumerable other questions and issues. Such questions should include:

  1. Is the employer’s benefit plan subject to ERISA?
    • ERISA is the federal law applicable to qualifying employee benefits plans, including employer-sponsored group health plans. Plans subject to ERISA must also comply with HIPAA, the ACA, and other applicable rules and regulations. So-called self-funded employer plans are subject to ERISA.
    • With some exceptions, ERISA preempts or blocks the implementation of state laws that ”relate to” the ERISA plan.
    • However, ERISA does not:
      • Preempt a state law that regulates insurance companies operating in the state; or
      • Preempt state criminal laws of general applicability.
    • If a plan is self-insured and subject to ERISA it may not be required to comply with state laws related to abortion services based on ERISA preemption.
    • However, the impact of new and untested civil and/or criminal penalties remains unclear.
  2. What procedures does the plan cover?
    • In this environment—especially in states with the most restrictive abortion laws—employers should have a firm understanding of what specific type of abortion procedures the plan covers.
  3. Specific or “general” travel stipends?
    • As noted above, some companies are choosing to provide travel/lodging stipends and benefits to access abortion care in jurisdictions where the procedure is lawful.
    • Some employers are making this travel stipend more general—i.e., not requiring the stipend be used for abortion, or otherwise naming abortion in the benefit program. As an example, a policy that provides a stiped for an employee to “travel to receive medical care that is unavailable within 100 miles of the employee’s place of residence.”
    • Note that out-of-plan reimbursements to employees are likely taxable as wages. Some employees may choose to gross up such stipends to compensate.
  4. What about privacy concerns?
    • Employers should think carefully about how to provide any benefits or stipends while protecting employee privacy, not violating HIPAA, and—where applicable—not running afoul of so-called ‘aiding and abetting’ legislation.
    • To that end, as noted above, some companies are requiring only that employees provide travel receipts—not documentation of the underlying procedure—to qualify for the benefit, reimbursement, or stipend.
    • Of course, without any verification, there is always the potential for abuse—or otherwise using the program for something well beyond its core intent, such as travel, elective plastic surgery, etc. However, some employers may evaluate the risk of abuse as worth the potential lessening of privacy and other concerns.

Protected Activity

Employers must also be aware that certain speech in the workplace—including speech about abortion—may be legally protected. Although the First Amendment generally does not extend to private companies, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss the terms and conditions of employment, commonly referred to as “protected concerted activity.” Thus, employees (1) discussing or advocating for an employer to provide benefits to women seeking reproductive and abortion-related healthcare services, (2) advocating for the employer to take a certain public stance on the issue, or (3) protesting the employer’s public position on the issue, may constitute protected activity under the NLRA.

Contacts and Next Steps

Employment law issues will continue to arise and evolve in the coming months following the Dobbs decision. The EEOC, DOL, and HHS may provide further guidance on how Dobbs impacts employment laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and PDA. Employers should consult with legal counsel concerning these developments.

Article By Denise E. Giraudo, Stephen E. Fox, Jonathan E. Clark, and Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Nonbinary Pronoun Usage in the Workplace: What Employers Are Doing to Promote Inclusivity

Using the correct pronouns and honorifics in the workplace has become an increasingly important part of maintaining an inclusive workplace. At the same time, the sensitive nature of this trend and the many variations of pronouns and honorifics in use may leave employers confused as to how to accomplish that goal. Moreover, employers may be concerned with how to comply with employees’ requests in an ever-evolving space and with the increasing use of nonbinary pronouns.

Nonbinary Pronouns and Honorifics

Individuals have traditionally identified with binary sets of pronouns based on male and female gender expressions (i.e. he/him/his and she/her/hers). Increasingly, many individuals are expressing that they do not identify as either a “man” or “woman.” An estimated 11 percent of individuals who identity as LGBTQ in the United States (i.e., approximately 1.2 million people), identity as nonbinary, according to a recent study. The vast majority (76 percent) are between the ages of 18 and 29, the study found.

It is increasingly common for these individuals to go by gender-neutral, nonbinary pronouns, including they/them/theirs. Many others go by other nonbinary pronouns, such as ze (or zie)/zir/zirs; ne/nir/nirs; xe/xem/xir; and ve/ver/vis, or a growing set of nonbinary pronouns that are resurfacing or newly appearing within the U.S. vernacular. Similarly, honorifics, such as Mr., Miss, Mrs., Ms., Sir, and Madame reflect a binary gender view leading some individuals to go by “Mx.,” “Fren,” or another gender-neutral honorific.

The issue has particular significance for employers since the June 2020 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which found that discrimination against gay and transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The high court reasoned that an adverse action against an individual because the individual is gay or transgender is a form of discrimination based on sex “because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” However, the Court left open several questions on how the ruling applies to sex-segregated restrooms, dress codes, grooming standards, and pronouns.

Following the decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance on June 15, 2021, taking the position that “intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment” in violation of Title VII. This suggests there could be potential liability for employers who refuse to use a nonbinary employee’s correct pronouns. Further, while Title VII does not cover every employee in the United States, many state and local laws, such as California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council’s regulations and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), provide similar or greater protection from gender identity discrimination.

Best Practices

It is increasingly becoming a commonplace practice for companies to permit employees to include their pronouns in their email signatures or on their social media profiles. This trend might just be the start. In light of the evolving movements in these areas, some employers may be struggling with how to support nonbinary individuals in their workplaces.

Safe Spaces

Some employers will take the stance that it is important to provide safe spaces for employees to identify their pronouns without pressure or the worry of retaliation in order to maintain an inclusive environment. Employers may further want to consider additional training for supervisors and other employees on how to handle everyday interactions regarding pronoun use. For example, employers may want to encourage employees to be comfortable with apologizing and correcting themselves if the wrong pronoun is used. This may be an especially important subject if an employee had started at the company using one set of pronouns and later realizes a different gender identity during the course of employment. A diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committee or diversity liaisons can guide employers in facilitating these conversations.

Privacy Concerns

At the same time, employers are faced with the tension of ensuring respect for each individual’s privacy. In this regard, employers may want to be conscious that individuals generally will not want to be into a situation in which they must choose between using a nonbinary pronoun or facing inappropriate questions about their choice from management or co-workers. It may be necessary to keep pronoun sharing optional and to encourage employees to default to gender-neutral language where possible.

Gender-Neutral Corporate Communications and Record-Keeping

The Biden Administration, in March 2022, announced a series of federal government policy changes to allow U.S. citizens to identify as nonbinary, including allowing U.S. citizens to select an “X” gender marker on their U.S. passport applications. In accordance, the EEOC also announced that it would provide the option to use a nonbinary gender marker in the filing of a charge of discrimination. Several states have further allowed the use of a gender-neutral marker on state identity documents, including drivers’ licenses. Given these developments, employers may also want to consider using gender-neutral language in communications and updating their human resources demographic record-keeping procedures to allow for employees to be identified as nonbinary or with a gender-neutral marker.

Key Takeaways

The Bostock decisions and the proliferation of state and local anti-discrimination laws may require that employers make efforts to allow employees to share and be addressed by nonbinary pronouns. This could be critical in employer recruiting and retention with younger generations entering the workplace that are increasingly comfortable with expressing their nonbinary gender. Also, it is clear that accurate or appropriate pronouns and honorifics will continue to change. Employers may want to remain ready to adjust in this rapidly evolving space in order to provide inclusive environments and keep workplaces free of harassment and discrimination.

Companies seeking to create more inclusive workplaces for nonbinary individuals can find further information and guidance from a number of organizations that provide educational resources and technical assistance.

Article By Kelly S. Hughes, Alan J. Brozovich, and Zachary V. Zagger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.