Here’s some good news from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: The court, which covers Minnesota employers, turned down a petition to allow an employee to introduce a new discrimination claim that he failed to clearly outline in his original lawsuit.
Smart employers make it easy for employees to apply for promotions and make their promotion policies clear. They don’t rely on word-of-mouth or a buddy system to hand out promotions to favorites.
Despite a changed EEOC position and several victories in other federal circuit courts of appeal, employees alleging sexual orientation discrimination in Minnesota workplaces cannot bring that claim under Title VII. Sexual orientation is not a protected classification under Title VII.
Do you train employees to treat all customers with respect, regardless of sexual orientation, transgender status and the like? If not, you may be unwittingly creating a hostile environment for some customers, which can mean a lawsuit.
The EEOC enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws. Its strategic plan, issued every five years, presents its overarching plan for carrying out its mission relative to issues emerging in the workplace and the resources available to the commission. The strategic plan gives employers an insight into the EEOC’s enforcement strategy.
Sometimes, a supervisor and subordinate just don’t get along. While the subordinate may think the reason has something to do with a protected characteristic, that may not be the case. When you receive such a complaint, you obviously must investigate.
Employers that have actual knowledge that a hostile work environment exists can’t get off the hook by claiming a worker failed to use an established system for reporting harassment.
The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have done more than shine a light on sexual harassment in the workplace. They’ve also prompted employers to take a fresh look at gender-based pay disparities.
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) has introduced legislation that would bar employers from including sexual harassment or gender discrimination claims in mandatory arbitration agreements. Identical legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives.