In Episode 1 of the Hiring to Firing Podcast, Troutman Pepper Partners Tracey Diamond and Evan Gibbs sit down with European Metal Recycling VP of People and Deputy General Counsel Kate Puccio to discuss the hit show Emily in Paris and the lessons learned about national origin based on events from the show. This episode blends pop culture and fashion into a discussion about important and contemporary legal issues in the workplace.
Continue Reading Lessons Learned on National Origin Discrimination from Emily in Paris
Discrimination
Oregon Employment Law Update
By Emily Reber on
Q: What new employment laws impact Oregon employers?
A. The employment law landscape is shifting in Oregon, with this year’s legislative session bringing several noteworthy changes to the state’s employment laws. In this blog post, we explore some of the more significant changes passed in 2021 and forecast what may come our way in the months ahead.…
Hiring Best Practices to Avoid Potential Discrimination Claims
By Shirley Akrasih on
Posted in Discrimination, Hiring
Q. My company wants to improve our hiring process to help avoid costly errors that may lead to potential discrimination claims. What best hiring practices do you recommend?
A. Hiring new employees — whether high school and college students looking for part-time work or recent graduates entering the workforce — can be challenging. One possible risk is that a job applicant could claim unlawful discrimination based on your decision not to hire that applicant, even if the claim is not valid. We offer the following helpful tips to consider as you conduct the hiring process:…
Continue Reading Hiring Best Practices to Avoid Potential Discrimination Claims
A Company’s Press Release May Be Used Against It In Employee’s Retaliation Litigation
By Leigh McMonigle on
Posted in Discrimination, Retaliation
Q: What are the risks to a company when making a public statement about ongoing employment litigation?
A: A federal judge in Washington, DC recently allowed a pair of married former law firm associates, suing the firm for sex discrimination, to add retaliation claims to their lawsuit for allegedly “false and malicious” statements the firm made about them in an August 2019 press release. See Savignac, et al v. Jones Day, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-02443.
By way of background, plaintiffs Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac sued Jones Day over a parental leave policy they claimed illegally discriminates against men by offering biological mothers eight more weeks of leave than biological fathers. They also accused the firm of firing Savignac because he challenged the firm’s policy and underpaying Sheketoff because of her sex. After they filed the highly publicized lawsuit in August 2019, the firm circulated a press release about the lawsuit.
Continue Reading A Company’s Press Release May Be Used Against It In Employee’s Retaliation Litigation
Federal District Court Found That Employer Did Not Violate Title VII in Prohibiting Black Lives Matter Attire
By Moses Tincher on
Posted in Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Q: Have there been any court rulings on whether companies can limit employees from wearing Black Lives Matter and other social justice attire to work?
A: Yes. During this pandemic and the political and social unrest underlying the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, many employees have come to work wearing BLM masks and other attire. Some companies initially banned all BLM attire on the grounds that it could alienate prospective customers with differing opinions, lead to misunderstandings, and incite workplace violence. However, they later changed their decision in light of public backlash. Others continued to ban BLM masks and other attire by relying on companywide dress code policies that prohibit employees from wearing masks and clothing with any visible slogans or messages unrelated to the company. These workplace policies recently came under fire when a group of employees filed a class-action lawsuit against a grocery chain, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation for wearing BLM attire.
Specifically, the workers alleged that the employer rarely enforced its dress code policy and that it did not prohibit workers in the past from wearing clothing with messaging unrelated to the company, such as Pride pins or apparel supporting LGBTQ+ workers and even a SpongeBob SquarePants mask. According to the workers, the employer selectively enforced its policy to target and suppress BLM messaging, and, thus, discriminated against Black employees and others associating with and advocating for Black employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The workers also alleged they were retaliated against for continuing to wear BLM apparel and protesting the dress code policy.
Continue Reading Federal District Court Found That Employer Did Not Violate Title VII in Prohibiting Black Lives Matter Attire
Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects Gay and Transgender Employees
By Lee Tankle, Susan Lessack, Tracey Diamond & Adam R. Martin on
Posted in Discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Q. I understand that the United States Supreme Court came out with a new decision extending Title VII protections. What are the details?
A. Delivering a historic victory for the LGBTQ community, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 landmark decision on June 15, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits terminating an employee based on the employee’s gender identity or sexual orientation. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. _____ (2020), the Court held “that employers are prohibited from firing employees on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status.” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberal justices joined. Justice Alito wrote a 107-page dissent, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Kavanaugh dissented separately.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Title VII Protects Gay and Transgender Employees
Third Circuit Upholds Philadelphia’s Salary History Ban
By Leigh McMonigle & Lee Tankle on
Q. Are employers allowed to ask employees about their salary history in Philadelphia?
A. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a Philadelphia city ordinance that prohibits Philadelphia employers from asking applicants about their current or past pay rates is constitutional. In April 2018, a Philadelphia federal court judge held…
Comments on Social Media about an Employee’s National Origin Could Lead to Allegations of Discrimination
By Lee Tankle on
Q: Over the summer, I saw that President Trump tweeted that four minority Democrat congresswomen should “go back” to where they came from. What Human Resources lessons can be learned from the President’s tweet?
A: In July 2019, President Trump tweeted that certain Democrat congresswomen “who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete…
New York Now Prohibits Hairstyle Discrimination
By Jessica Rothenberg on
Q: I heard New York prohibits employers from discriminating based on hairstyle. What does that mean?
A: In July 2019, New York State passed legislation that amended the definition of race under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) to include “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and…
New York Human Rights Law Amendments Effective October 12, 2019
By Jessica Rothenberg on
Q: I am a New York employer. What are the key parts of the new amendments to the New York Human Rights law and when do they go into effect?
A. As we detailed in an earlier post, New York state recently passed a bill that makes numerous changes to the New York Human Rights Act (“NYHRL”). Governor Cuomo signed the bill on August 12, 2019, and most of the amendments go into effect on October 11, 2019.
Continue Reading New York Human Rights Law Amendments Effective October 12, 2019