Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week: Employment Discrimination Edition


Spending a good deal of time this week on the road for work gave me some downtime on flights to read through some good articles.  In particular, I came across a wide range of articles dealing with all sorts of employment discrimination matters.  It has been a while, in fact this might be the first, since I dedicated a "What I've Been Reading This Week" post to employment discrimination...and there is no time like the present.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


California's Adoption of New Regulations to Define National Origin Discrimination Could Be Far Reaching

Earlier this week, Kathryn Mantoan and Kourosh Jahansouz had a good update on a new regulation adopted in California, and effective July 1, 2018, that specifically defines national origin under California law and provides examples of prohibited practices.  This newly added section, 11027.1, specifically defines national origin and perhaps most notably defines "national origin groups" to include "ethnic groups, geographic places of origin, and countries that are not presently in existence."  I call attention in particular to Section 11028 which has been expanded to include additional, specific employment practices that "qualify" as national origin discrimination.  For employers and employees alike, especially in California, this article is worth a read. 


Does the ADEA Allow Applicants, Not Yet Employees, to File Age Discrimination Claims?

For those not familiar with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (‘ADEA’), it prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of their age, in regard to an employment action.  The question then arises whether the ADEA provides protection to both employees as well as applicants?  As Michael Brody writes, depending on the jurisdiction, that answer can vary.  Since the ADEA itself does not specifically stipulate, either way, the applicability of its protections, employers and employees/applicants alike should consult the relevant decisions in their jurisdiction to determine how far reaching the ADEA is.  In particular, this article is worth a review for Brody’s note on how the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits have addressed the matter in recent opinions.


Nike Hit With Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, & Hostile Working Environment Claim

Last month, a lawsuit was filed against Nike that included a gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment claim that the company paid and promoted women less than men.  As well, the lawsuit alleged that Nike did not punish male workers for sexual and verbal harassment with the company apparently failing to take action even when this misconduct was reported.  Readers might recall that the company has been dogged by prior reports of harassment and related bullying behavior earlier this year.  This lawsuit is certainly not putting the company in a good position, for the time being.  For those interested, a copy of the complaint can be found here.


Louisiana Federal Judge Finds Jews Can Be Viewed As a Race (and Therefore Protected By Anti-Racial Discrimination Laws)

In a groundbreaking decision, U.S. Magistrate Mark Hornsby recently issued a decision in which he found that Jews can be viewed as a race and therefore are protected by anti-racial discrimination laws.  Legal scholars noted that this is apparently the first time Jews have been treated as racially protected in the workplace (and therefore afforded protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).  Hannah Natanson at The Washington Post does a good job breaking down some of the finer points of the case, for those interested in a more in depth discussion of some of the particulars of the case which brought about this ruling.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more