Discrimination and Harassment

Subscribe to Discrimination and Harassment via RSS

I recently attended a luncheon in which one of the Commissioners for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) spoke.   According to this Commissioner, the EEOC has identified the following items as among its priorities:

  • Bringing credit checks under the realm of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),  which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, and  national origin, because of the credit checks’ disparate impact on minorities.    [For more information about the EEOC’s concerns about this practice, click here.]

Retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has been known to push the envelope at times. If you’ve seen their half-naked male models posing in store windows in only a pair of boxer briefs, then you know what I’m talking about. Nonetheless, it still may be surprising to learn that Abercrombie’s CEO only hires all-male flight attendants to work on his private jets and requires them to wear only polo shirts, jeans, boxer briefs, and flip flops as their uniform (unless it is less than 50 degrees outside, of course).

We previously posted about the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s new fact sheet, entitled “Application of Title VII and the ADA to Applicants or Employees Who Experience Domestic or Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking,” and considered the fact sheet’s examples as to how an employer might violate Title VII’s prohibitions in discriminating against applicants or employees who experience domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

In this post we’re going to consider the ADA examples provided on the fact sheet, and our recommendations for how you can avoid discriminating against the victims of domestic violence in your workplace.

As HR professionals, we often think about how to prevent domestic violence from spilling over into workplace violence, through the use of workplace violence policies, domestic violence response teams, and “no guns in the workplace” policies.

You may not, however, have given much thought as to how to prevent discrimination and retaliation against victims of domestic violence who are employed by your company, or who have sought employment with your company.  This issue is crucially important to victims of domestic violence; when they lose their jobs, or fail to obtain employment, they lose the ability to be economically independent, and oftentimes then remain controlled by their abuser.  This issue is also critically important to employers, who may inadvertently subject themselves to liability if they are not aware of the federal, state, and local laws that protect the victims of domestic violence from discrimination and retaliation.

As the Department of Labor (DOL) reminds us, October is the month the Office of Disability Employment Policy encourages employers, employees, educators, unions, and other organizations to focus on disability awareness.  National Disability Employment Awareness Month is an awareness campaign that, among other things, provides employers with a reminder that the employment of individuals with disabilities requires Human Resources managers to (i) regularly check for legal updates, (ii) conduct policy reviews, (iii) implement thorough training of personnel, and (iv) consult with competent legal counsel to ensure all of the appropriate controls are in place to ensure compliance with a potentially tricky and elastic legal landscape.

In several prior posts, we have highlighted the growth of retaliation actions, including retaliation under Title VII and the FMLA.  We have also provided suggestions for minimizing the likelihood of your company being found liable for retaliation.

There are many other statutes that also provide employees with protection from retaliation for bringing a claim.  In particular, the trend in recent years has been for statutes containing whistleblower provisions to couple those whistleblower provisions with retaliation provisions.  This provides employees with further confidence and assurance that it will be “worth it” for them to come forward—either to their employer or to the government—with information concerning a violation of the statute.

The California Legislature made headlines yesterday by passing legislation that prohibits employers from demanding the social media usernames or passwords of current employees and applicants.  The bill also prevents employers from requiring employees or candidates to log in to social media in the presence of the employer (i.e., the employee’s supervisor, or the interviewer, or a human resources manager – you get the point).

Employers often wonder about how best to deal with employees with disabilities. Even in this enlightened, post-ADAAA (Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008) society, there are still employers that are afraid to hire applicants or worry about keeping employees who they learn have some type of physical or mental impairment that constitutes a disability.

However, according to an article published on Diversityinc.com, How Recruiting People With Disabilities Solved Toyota’s Costly Problem, when Toyota Motor North America needed to add a production process that would require additional employees to implement, the company decided to utilize its employees with known developmental disabilities to handle the project. 

When an employee takes FMLA leave there is usually nothing to write home about.  The employee requests leave properly, provides the required medical certification in a timely fashion, and returns to work when she says she will.  All is well.

But what do you do if an employee takes intermittent FMLA leave before a long weekend and then shows up Monday with a nice new tan?  What if an employee takes leave to care for a sick family member, but the workplace begins buzzing that he was really at the big game?  Many employers experience, or at least suspect, FMLA abuse.  When you have a case of potential abuse on your hands, however, you must tread carefully.