Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a new landmark ruling clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits workplace discrimination—applies to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.
One of the most common requests that I receive as an employment attorney is to review severance offers. I’ve had these kinds of requests from friends, relatives, acquaintances and (on rare occasions) clients and I seldom turn them down. I have probably handled hundreds of reductions in force for various corporate clients so I like to see how others handle them. In the past month, I have reviewed two severances packages and both failed to follow the requirements of the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”). I was not at all surprised. If I had to guess, I would say that over 50% of the severance offers I’ve reviewed over the years are not in compliance with the OWBPA.
New Rules for Federal Contractors:
On December 3, 2014, the Department of Labor announced a Final Rule changing OFCCP’s regulations so that they prohibit discrimination based on, and require treatment of applicants and employees without regard to, sexual orientation or gender identity. These final rules were issued as a result of President Obama signing an executive order in July, 2014, extending workplace protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans in the federal contracting workforce.
This Wednesday, December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Young v. UPS, No. 12-1226, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Young case has received significant attention because it asks the Court to directly address the question of what, if any, accommodation is required for a pregnant worker with work limitations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, where the employer provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations, such as those affected by on-the-job injuries or a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
What do Rolling Stone magazine and the United States Senate have in common? They’re both talking about the discrimination faced by individuals with non-conforming gender identity.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Title VII
- Employment Law
- Religion Discrimination
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Labor Law
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Coronavirus
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- NLRB
- Artificial Intelligence
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- OSHA
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Compliance
- FLSA
- Worker Classification
- Department of Justice
- National Labor Relations Board
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- NLRA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Harassment
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Litigation
- IRS
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower
- Federal Arbitration Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Paycheck Protection Program
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias
- Ohio “Mini-WARN” Act Now In Effect: Key Compliance Takeaways for Employers
- EEOC's Renewed Focus on Religious Discrimination: What Employers Need to Know
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect