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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more