Parental status discrimination is NOT a thing. But should it be?

I received some great feedback on LinkedIn on last week’s post on New York’s new paid family leave law.

That law grants paid leave for the same general reasons one can take unpaid leave under the FMLA. What it does not do, though, is create a new protected class.

Indeed, discrimination based on one’s status as a parent is, in and of itself, NOT illegal.

Bill O’Reilly claiming victim status is WHY we have a harassment problem

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Bill O’Reilly paid $32 million to settle a claim of sexual harassment brought against him by a former co-worker.

Yesterday, in an interview with the New York Times, O’Reilly let his accusers have it:

It’s horrible what I went through, horrible what my family went through. This is crap. It’s politically and financially motivated. We can prove it with shocking information. We have physical proof that this is bullshit.

Dads are parents, too — baby bonding and sex discrimination

Should new dad’s receive the same amount of time off from work to bond with their newly born child as do women? That is the question at the center of a lawsuit the EEOC recently filed against cosmetics giant Estée Lauder.

That time Justin Bieber’s “L’il Biebers” caused a sex discrimination lawsuit

File this one under the category of I can’t make this stuff up. Apparently, Justin Bieber’s testicles are at the center of a recently filed sex discrimination lawsuit.

Diversity is not an ideology

By now, you’ve likely heard about the male Google employee (James Damore) who circulated within the company a 10-page memo entitled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In this memo, he critiqued Google’s efforts at maintaining gender diversity within the ranks of its employees, arguing that women are underrepresented in tech not because of workplaces biases and discrimination, but because of inherent psychological differences between the sexes.

When equal pay is not “equal” pay

The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal, and substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles. This Act is a strict liability law, which means that intent does not matter. If a women is paid less than male for substantially similar work, then the law has been violated, regardless of the employer’s intent.

This strict liability, however, does not mean that pay disparities always equal liability. The EPA has several built-in defenses, including when the pay differential was “based on any other factor other than sex.” So, what happens if two comparable employees, one male and one female, come to you with different salary histories. Does the Equal Pay Act require that you gross up a lower earning female to match the salary of a higher paid male, or do the mere disparate prior salaries justify the pay disparity under the Equal Pay Act?

7th Circuit historically holds that Title VII expressly bans LGBT discrimination

If you spend any time reading or watching the news today, you will inevitably encounter much about the 7th Circuit’s historic (and correct, in my opinion) decision in Hivley v. Ivy Tech Community College [pdf]. You can read the background of this case here.

The court expressly held that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.” Hivley now stands in direct contradiction to the opinion of the 11th Circuit in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp., which sets up this issue for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS reverses decision to review transgender bathroom case

Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision that would have heard the appeal of a 4th Circuit opinion granting a transgender boy the right to use the bathroom of his identified gender.

The decision comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s policy change [pdf], which revoked the Obama administration’s guidance that protected the bathroom rights of transgender students in public schools.

Federal judge takes NLRB to task for rules that protect racist and sexist workplace misconduct

Of all of the decisions the NLRB has handed down in the past eight years, those that let striking employees lob racists and sexist bombs at replacement workers crossing picket lines are the most offensive to me.

Consolidated Communications v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 9/13/16) is one such case.

More compelling than the decision, however, is the concurring opinion written by Judge Patricia Millett, in which she calls on the NLRB to carry out its mission to protect the rights of all employees, not just those who happen to be walking a picket line. How can a picket line magically convert misconduct that is “illegal in every other corner of the workplace” into the “unpleasantries that are just part and parcel of the contentious environment and heated language that ordinarily accompany strike activity,” she asks? 

Ohio appellate decision sends working moms back to the 1950s

Employee claims her supervisor advised her not to apply for an open position because, “she is a single mother with kids and if [she] had to take time off work, it would jam [us] up for getting someone to cover the scheduling.”

Employee sues for gender discrimination. She wins in a landslide, right?

D.C. Office of Human Rights publishes best practices guide for employers on transgender rights

The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, in connection with the National LGBTQ Task Force, recently published a 19-page best practices guide for employers on transgender issues in the workplace. The document, entitled, Valuing Transgender Applicants & Employees: A Best Practices Guide for Employers [pdf], when taken together with earlier guidance from the EEOC on transgender bathroom access and broader guidance from the EEOC on LGBT discrimination continues to signal that issue is one that you can no longer ignore.

Mom cannot sue employer for discrimination against her son, court says

Brittany Tovar claimed that her employer, Essentia Health, discriminated against her when her employer-sponsored medical insurance denied her son gender reassignment services and surgery.

In Tovar v. Essentia Health (D. Minn. 5/11/16), the court had little issue dismissing Tovar’s claims because the alleged target of the discrimination, her son, was not an employee protected by Title VII:

Transgender bathrooms is a solution in search of a problem

In the blogging world, when you snooze, you lose. Yesterday, my fellow bloggers were all over the EEOC’s publication of guidance on bathroom access for transgender employees:

• Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog: Not letting transgender employees use the restroom of their gender identity is sex discrimination 
• Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space: EEOC issues transgender employee fact sheet 
• Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider: EEOC posts fact sheets on LGBT discrimination, transgender issues 
• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog: Bathroom Access Rights Guaranteed By Title VII
• The Russ Runkel Report: EEOC & OSHA on transgender bathrooms access

Here’s the bottom line.

EEOC proposed significant pay equality changes to EEO-1

If your company has 100 or more employees, you should be very familiar with the federal government’s EEO-1 survey. The EEOC requires that you annually complete and file this form, which requests demographic on your employees, broken down by protected classes and job categories.

Last Friday, the White House made a game changing announcement about the information it proposes you submit in your EEO-1 filings.

Appellate court reinstates sex-discrimination claim of transgendered worker

A federal appellate court reinstated the sex-discrimination claim of a transgender auto mechanic. Credit Nation Auto Sales fired Jennifer Chavez less than three months after she notified it of her gender transition.

The employer argued that it fired her because it caught her sleeping in a customer’s vehicle while on the clock. Even though the court concluded that the employer’s reason was “true and legitimate”, it nevertheless reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the sex-discrimination claim.

EEOC stakes its turf on the issue of sexual orientation discrimination

As I thought of which David Bowie song to support today’s effort, the one that leapt to mind is “Space Oddity” (I was going to use “Changes”, but Dan Schwartz already claimed it for his post yesterday).

To me, it is a complete oddity that, in the 2016, it is still statutorily legal for an employer to fire an employee because of that employee’s sexual orientation. On this point, the EEOC and I see eye-to-eye. The difference, however, is that the EEOC is in a position do so something about it. What it is not doing is sitting around and waiting for Congress to do something about it.

What can go wrong when co-workers date? A lot.

True confession time. I watch The Voice. It’s not like it’s at the top of my DVR, but, my remote always seem to stop on NBC between 8 and 10 on Monday and Tuesday nights. (My pick to win this season: Amy Vachal). So, when I heard that Team Shelton and Team Gwen had formed one team outside of work, I thought, “What a great opportunity to write a blog post on office romances.” (This is how the mind of blogger works).

What can do wrong with office romances? As it turns out, a lot. So, in the spirit of The Voice, here’s 10 reasons co-workers shouldn’t turn their chairs for each other.

Leave policies should apply equally across genders … but must they?

The New York Times reports that CNN has settled an EEOC charge brought by a former correspondent, who claimed that the company’s paid parental leave policy discriminated against biological fathers.

At the time Mr. Levs’s daughter was born, in October 2013, CNN offered 10 weeks of paid leave to biological mothers and the same amount to parents of either gender who adopted children or relied on surrogates. By contrast, the company offered two weeks of paid leave to biological fathers.

Mr. Levs, whose daughter was born five weeks prematurely, already had two young children. He said he felt he needed to spend more time at home sharing in caregiving responsibilities with his wife. He filed his charge when the company refused to grant him more paid time off.

Optically, there is a lot of appeal in a male employee claiming discrimination when a female employee receives more paid leave after the birth of a child. On its face, it certainly looks discriminatory. But, is such a policy really sex discrimination?

There is one key difference between women and men when they welcome a new-born child. Women give birth; men don’t. A women is not medically ready to return to work the day following childbirth; a man is. Indeed, current medical guidelines suggest that women take six weeks off from work following a vaginal delivery, and eight following a C-section. Adoptions also provide different challenges to a couple, including adjusting to new family member without the buffer of a nine-month pregnancy.

While employers should offer equal leave allotments to men and women, before we jump the legal gun we need to consider that there might be an explanation other than discrimination that justifies different treatment between the sexes.

Be conscious of inequities when gauging litigation

Four years ago, in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was inappropriate to certify a nationwide class of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees allegedly denied pay and promotions because of a corporate-wide "policy" of sex discrimination. SCOTUS’s Dukes decision ended a decade of litigation over the propriety of the attempted nationwide class action.

More than a year after the Dukes decision, Cheryl Phipps, Bobbi Millner, and Shawn Gibbon launched a similar lawsuit in federal court in Tennessee, but instead seeking a region-wide sex-discrimination class. Wal-Mart alleged that the claims, more than a decade old, were time barred. Yesterday, in Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores [pdf], the 6th Circuit formally disagreed.

For civil procedure geeks (like myself), the case is a fascinating read on the theory of statutes of limitations and equitable tolling. That analysis, however, is well beyond the scope of what I hope to accomplish with my little slice of the Internet.

Here’s the practical take-away. Employers favor certainty, knowing that if an employee fails to file a lawsuit 90 days after the EEOC issues its right-to-sue letter, for example, the employee waived the right to assert federal discrimination claims. Courts, however, favor equities, and try to avoid inequitable results. Sometimes, these ideals clash. When this happens, employers cannot assume victory, and should brace themselves accordingly.

Transgender rights take center stage

It’s been a big week for the rights of transgender Americans.

• Caitlyn (née Bruce) Jenner had her coming out party on the cover of Vanity Fair and become the quickest person to reach 1 million followers on Twitter, in less than four hours, besting President Obama’s record from two weeks ago.

• The EEOC published a guide addressing the rights of LGBT employees working in the federal sector [pdf], and continues to litigate cases under Title VII’s sex-discrimination prohibitions on behalf of transgender employees.

• OSHA published a statement of “best practices” for bathroom access for transgender employees [pdf], clarifying that employees should be entitled to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify, and that no employer should require an employee to use a specific gender’s bathroom, or a segregated transgender-only bathroom facility.

While we wait for the law the catch up to society’s opinion on LGBT rights (i.e., same-sex marriage rights and official statutory extension of Title VII’s protections to LGBT employees), our federal agencies are doing the best they can to modernize these laws for us. If you are still discriminating against LGBT employees, it’s time to stop. You are officially behind the times. It was not that long ago that LGBT rights were a joke. Now, we are on the verge of a breakthrough. Are you going to ride the wave, or hold onto the jam of the door that Caitlyn Jenner just kicked down kicking and screaming. The choice, for now, is yours, unless you run afoul of the EEOC, OSHA, or a court, each of which is doing is best to do what Congress has, thus far, refused.