July has brought the announcement of two six-month pilot programs touted by the EEOC for, it believes, expanding opportunities for parties to resolve Charges of Discrimination voluntarily through mediation and conciliation.
While they sound like the same thing, mediation and conciliation actually carry two different meanings in EEOC-world. Here is what the Commission has rolled
Entering a relatively new frontier in employment discrimination law, the Maryland legislature has passed legislation restricting employers’ use of facial recognition technology in the hiring process. The bill becomes effective on October 1, 2020.
Under the new law, Maryland employers may not use a “facial recognition service” for the purpose of creating a “facial template”
In an historic decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 last week that Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination protects employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In doing so, the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily involves discrimination on the basis of sex, which Title VII
What happens if an employer takes adverse action against an employee based on a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that later turns out to be wrong? Suppose, for example, an employer fires an employee based on a genuine belief that the employee violated the employer’s policies, but it turns out that, in fact, the employee did not.
When an employee requests an accommodation or asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer’s second question—right after “Are we even covered by the ADA?”—will likely be: “Did/does the employee have a disability?” (Claims from employees who are merely perceived as disabled are a topic for another day.) The definition of a
In January, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts drew considerable media attention by asking, during the oral argument of an age discrimination case, Babb v. Wilkie, a question about the relevance of the phrase “OK, Boomer.” A Google search of “Chief Justice OK Boomer” will reveal articles from almost every serious media outlet putting
If you’re a regular reader of our blog, you probably know that the question of whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity remains open, which the Supreme Court may (or may not) resolve this year. While the EEOC continues to move forward in processing
Recently, several jurisdictions have stated that discriminating against an employee on the basis of the employee’s hairstyle, where the hairstyle is closely associated with race, constitutes race discrimination. The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights has clarified its approach to this issue, recently issuing guidance on how it will apply the New Jersey Law Against
As regular readers of our blog will already know, the issue of whether Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity has been a hot topic in federal litigation for several years. Our blog has regularly covered these developments and often expressed that this question will likely require clarification
On August 6, 2019, in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its limited rulemaking and enforcement power when it issued its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment