Posts

Sixth Circuit: Transgender and Transitioning Status Discrimination Prohibited Under Title VII

APPLIES TO

Employers with MI, OH, KY, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 7, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On March 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appeals court to state that transgender and transitioning employees are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on specific protected categories.  Further, the circuit court stated that “sincerely held religious beliefs” do not shield employers from Title VII discrimination claims.

Washington: Ban-the-Box, Sexual Harassment, Equal Pay Law, and Discrimination Updates

APPLIES TO

Employers with WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 6 and 7, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The state of Washington recently passed several bills that affect employer practices.  HB 1298 created the Fair Chance Act prohibiting applicant criminal inquiries, SB 5996 prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign nondisclosure agreements regarding harassment or sexual assault, HB 1506 updates and expands the statewide Equal Pay Act, and HB 2661 prohibits discrimination of victims of domestic violence.

Read more

Seventh Circuit: Defines Application of the Ministerial Exception in Discrimination Claims

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Miriam Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used a “totality of circumstances” approach to determine that a Hebrew teacher’s position was ministerial in nature, rendering her ineligible to pursue an employment discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court used four factors to determine whether an employee’s role is ministerial: (1) formal job position title, (2) substance of the position based on the title, (3) the employee’s use of the title, and (4) the religious functions the employee performed for the religious institution. Here, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used these factors to analyze the employee’s claim, and indicated that the factors must be reviewed under the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, although the employee’s job title of “Hebrew teacher” was not ministerial nor did she hold herself out as a religious leader, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court stated that the facts supporting the substance of the job title and her actual job functions outweighed those considerations.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision emphasizes the need to clearly communicate an employee’s job title, duties, and the organization’s expectations.

Action Items

  1. Have job descriptions reviewed for consistency with ministerial duties, if applicable.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

November Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. DOJ Reverses Obama-Era Stance on Transgender Workplace Protections
  2. IRS Releases 2017 Reporting Forms
  3. California: Bill Signed to Promote Fairness in Prop 65 Litigation
  4. New York: NYDOL Issues Emergency Regulation on In-Home Residential Care Worker Compensation
  5. New York City: City Issues Guidance on Salary Inquiry Prohibitions

Read more

September Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. The Recent Federal Overtime Exemption Rule is Diminishing
  2. NLRB: More Examples of What is or isn’t Protected Concerted Activities on Facebook
  3. EEOC Must Reconsider Wellness Regulations
  4. Seventh Circuit: EEOC May Investigate Despite Right-to-Sue Letter and Issue of Judgment
  5. Arizona, Maryland, Wyoming:  Now Part of the E-Verify RIDE Program
  6. Berkeley, CA: Minimum Wage Increase, Paid Sick Leave, and Work Schedule Rules Will Soon Be In Effect
  7. San Diego, CA:  Equal Pay Bill for City Contractors and Consultants
  8. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara City’s Minimum Wage to Increase in 2018
  9. Connecticut: Anti-Discrimination Protections Expanded for Veterans
  10. Georgia: Amended Law Now Preempts Predictive Scheduling Ordinances
  11. New Jersey:  Anti-Discrimination Protections for Military and Veterans Expanded
  12. New York: Guidance on Tax Treatment of PFL Contributions and Benefits now Available
  13. Nevada: Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act Poster Now Available
  14. North Carolina:  Fair Classification Act Emphasizes State Focus on Proper Employee Classification
  15. Texas: Hurricane Harvey Relief for Employees
  16. Washington:  New Biometric Information Protection law

Read more

Massachusetts: Employers Must Follow Disability Accommodation Rules for Employees Using Medical Marijuana

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Massachusetts Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 17, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that an employee may pursue a disability discrimination claim under state law against an employer for failure to accommodate the employee’s use of medical marijuana.  In Baruto v. Advantage Sales and Marking, LLC, the plaintiff was told after accepting an offer of employment that she needed to complete a successful drug test.  She informed her employer that she would fail the test due to medical marijuana use for Crohn’s disease. However, she agreed that she would not use marijuana before or during work. The plaintiff failed the drug test as predicted, and ultimately was terminated as a result based on federal law’s treatment of marijuana.

Delaware: Employers Now Prohibited From Asking Job Applicants for Salary History

APPLIES TO

All Employers with DE Employees

EFFECTIVE

December 14, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Governor John Carney recently signed into law a new regulation prohibiting employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s salary history.  This measure, similar to those enacted in Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Philadelphia1, is intended to help curtail the gender wage gap by encouraging employers to consider factors other than past compensation history when determining pay.

California: Adds New Workplace Protections for Transgender Individuals

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 1, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

California continues to lead the nation in offering protections for transgender individuals.  On July 1, 2017, a new set of regulations expanding existing protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) go into effect, addressing an individual’s right to gender expression, equal access to facilities, and more.

California: Voluntarily Resigning in an “Altered Mental State” is Not a Disability Protected from Discrimination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 19, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Second District Court of Appeals in California recently determined that an employer’s refusal to allow an employee to rescind her own voluntary resignation is not a valid basis for a disability discrimination lawsuit, even though the employee allegedly tendered her resignation in an “altered mental state.”

New York: Southern District of NY Allows Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claim to Proceed Under Title VII

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NY Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 3, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On May 3, 2017, a federal court in the southern district of New York denied a motion to dismiss an ex-employee’s sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This decision is unusual in that it runs counter to long-running precedent established in the Second Circuit—governing Connecticut, New York, and Vermont—which previously stated that sex discrimination, including gender stereotyping, under Title VII does not include sexual orientation discrimination.