The EEOC has recently filed an action in the Western District of Wisconsin entitled EEOC v. Baumann Farms, LLP alleging that the employer has an “English-only policy that discriminates against non-English speaking Hispanic employees based on national origin” in violation of Title VII. The complaint does not offer much detail on what’s in the policy—EEOC
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently updated and expanded its guidance regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). The guidance, initially issued in December of 2020, covers communicating with employees regarding their COVID-19 diagnosis or
As we’ve written before, the Supreme Court decided in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since the Bostock decision, the EEOC has launched a new resource page on sexual orientation and gender identity, which outlines the agency’s
Last June, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. We covered that historic ruling, and you can find our original article here.
Although the Court’s ruling was broad in a
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued its long-awaited guidance regarding the implications of mandating COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace under certain EEO laws. In general, the guidance confirms that employers can require that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment in certain circumstances, provides guidance on how to communicate with
A Black employee complains to Human Resources that her supervisor has directed racial slurs at her. The supervisor is Black too. Is this a defense to liability for the employer under Title VII? Hardly.
The Eighth Circuit considered this issue in Ross v. Douglas County, Nebraska. Odis Ross, a Black male, worked at the Douglas
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.
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
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