You are here

employment discrimination

Legislation to Protect LGBT Workers Stalling Nationally

The International Business Times' Cole Stangler reports that 31 states in the U.S. don't have any legal protections for LGBT employees from being fired by their bosses. And things aren't getting better. "Less than a year after same-sex couples won marriage rights at the Supreme Court, and as public opinion becomes increasingly gay-friendly, efforts to extend workplace discrimination laws to LGBT people are struggling to gain traction across the country," Stangler reports.

Heather Cronk, co-director of GetEqual, a LGBT advocacy group, told Stangler that focusing on getting same-sex marriage imperiled the possibility of the success of antidiscrimination laws: "'Marriage was centered around these heteronormative stories that people could get into and identify with. With nondiscrimination, it’s a totally different ballgame.”'

 

Associate Who Lost Out on Partnership Loses Discrimination Suit

A former associate at Ropes & Gray was unable to revive his racial discrimination lawsuit after a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, The National Law Journal's Sheri Qualters reports. John Ray III alleged that he was racially discriminated against and fired because he complained about racial remarks made by the firm's parnters.

The firm told him in 2008 that he would not make partner and gave him six months to leave. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the firm didn't discriminate against Ray, but did retaliate against him for filing a charge with the EEOC.

Next Frontier in LGBT Rights: Fighting Bias in Jobs and Housing

The next frontier in civil rights for LGBT Americans will be fighting bias in jobs and housing, The New York Times' Erik Eckholm reports. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right to marry as a civil right for gays and lesbians, many gay civil rights leaders are turning their attention to getting legal protections from discrimination by employers and in housing. The majority of states don't bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, religious conservatives are concerned that such laws will be used to force people to violate their religious beliefs, such as having to hire gays and lesbians in church-related jobs, Eckholm reports. Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat representing Oregon, said he planned to introduce a bill within the next few months to add protections for gays and transgender people to the Civil Rights Act, but he is not hopeful the bill will pass in the Republican-controlled Senate. He told Eckholm, "'People are going to realize that you can get married in the morning and be fired from your job or refused entry to a restaurant in the afternoon. That is unacceptable.”'

Supreme Court Rules Against UPS in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

The U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, has ruled in favor of a former UPS employee who sued for pregnancy discrimination, Huffington Post's Dave Jamieson reports. Justice Stephen Breyer, author of the majority opinion, said the issue is why UPS did not accomodate Peggy Young with lighter duty during her pregnancy when it offered such accommodations to employees with on-the-job injuries or to satisfy the American with Disabilities Act. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, employers are required to treat "women affected by pregnancy" the same as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."

Young's case has been remanded for further proceedings.

The UPS started offering light duty to pregnant women at the start of the year, but is defending its old policy as legal and fair.

Pregnancy Discrimination Case 'Hinges on an Ambiguous Pregnancy Law'

The New York Times' Adam Liptak reports on the U.S. Supreme Court's oral arguments today on whether Peggy Young was unlawfully discriminated against by UPS when the company refused to assign her to lighter duty during her pregnancy: "The basic question in the case, Young v. United Parcel Service, No. 12-1226, was what to make of language in the pregnancy law that requires employers to treat 'women affected by pregnancy' the same as 'other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.'"

The UPS has said it will start offering light duty to pregnant women next year, but defends its old policy as legal and fair.

Reuters: CEOs Threatening to Pull Obamacare Support Over Challenge to Workplace Wellness Programs

According to a report in Reuters, several leaders of major American corporations are threatening to start siding with the foes of healthcare reform if President Barack Obama's administration does not stop challenging some workplace wellness programs: "The programs aim to control healthcare costs by reducing smoking, obesity, hypertension and other risk factors that can lead to expensive illnesses. A bipartisan provision in the 2010 healthcare reform law allows employers to reward workers who participate and penalize those who don't." But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed lawsuits challenging wellness programs at Honeywell and two other companies, Reuters reports. The EEOC argues that the programs require medical testing in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to Reuters, big companies could pursue several strategies to challenge Obamacare: support legal challenges to the subsidies given to people with low incomes to buy health insurance on the federal exchange, make executives available to testify at hearings on Obamacare, and radically change employer-sponsored health insurance by giving workers a fixed amount of money to buy coverage on private insurance exchanges.

Gay Schoolteacher's Case Could Test Civil Rights Act Protection

Submitted by Amaris Elliott-Engel on Mon, 11/03/2014 - 09:03

Here's a piece I wrote for the Connecticut Law Tribune regarding a gay schoolteacher's discrimination lawsuit:

A former Hartford elementary school teacher alleges she was forced to quit her job after school administrators mistreated her when they found out she was married to a woman. The case could test the scope of protection provided by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 in claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lisa Boutillier, a Colchester resident, alleges that her bosses at the Noah Webster MicroSociety Magnet Elementary School in Hartford violated Connecticut state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, medical condition and physical disability. She also alleges the school district violated the Civil Rights Act and the federal American with Disabilities Act.

Boutillier's spouse is unnamed in court papers and also works in the Hartford public school system.

The Hartford Public Schools district argues that the Civil Rights Act does not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation and only applies to bias based on race, color, religion or national origin. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "has stated definitively that sexual orientation is not a protected category" under the Civil Rights Act, the school district further argued.

But the plaintiff's counsel, Margaret Doherty of Doherty Law Group in Wethersfield, noted that interpretation of the law is starting to change.

"The Equal Employment and Opportunities Commission has found that claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals alleging 'sex stereotyping' state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII" of the Civil Rights Act, Doherty argued in court papers.

Neither Doherty nor the magnet school's counsel, Hartford Assistant Corporation Counsel Melinda Kaufmann, returned calls seeking comment.

A federal judge recently gave the first round of the skirmish to the plaintiff, rejecting a defense motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"Plaintiff has stated that the discriminatory conduct commenced after certain individuals became aware of her sexual orientation and that she was subjected to sexual stereotyping during her employment on the basis of her sexual orientation," Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton stated. "Construed most broadly, she has set forth a plausible claim she was discriminated against based on her nonconforming gender behavior."

The judge also upheld the Boutillier's state law claim for constructive discharge based on her argument that she had to resign because her treatment by her employer was intolerable.

Contentious Meeting

Boutillier worked for Hartford Public Schools for seven years. When she started at the magnet school in 2006, Delores Cole was the principal.

Boutillier alleges that after Cole learned that Boutillier is gay, Cole began berating her and criticizing her in front of students, parents and other staff members. When Vernice Duke became assistant principal in September 2008, Boutillier alleges Duke also began berating her in front of others.

Boutillier said that in August 2011 she was treated for a pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lung) and underwent a hysterectomy. She went on medical leave until January 2012. Upon returning to school, she was reassigned as a floating "workshop/reading" teacher for the first and second grades. She also alleges that the classroom to which she was assigned was not set up for her and her need for assistance in moving heavy items was not accommodated.

In May 2012, Boutillier claims she had a contentious meeting with Duke and Cole during which they denounced her for the disruption caused by her medical absence and for not keeping them informed of when she might return.

Boutillier claims her physicians provided proper notice to school officials. After the meeting, Boutillier claims she became ill and distraught and had to go to the hospital.

"Plaintiff [went] on medical leave from her teaching duties and undergoing medical treatment for physical and mental ailments directly related to plaintiffs' intolerable working conditions," Boutillier's complaint said.

During her second leave of absence, Boutillier states that she was told that her medical insurance would be canceled. She claims there are district policies allowing employees to keep health benefits while on medical leave. The school district, however, disputes there are any such polices.

Boutillier says her work performance was exemplary.

"Throughout her seven years of employment with Hartford Public School District, Ms. Boutillier has performed her job responsibilities in a highly professional, effective and competent manner," the lawsuit said. "At no time during her employment with the defendant was Ms. Boutillier's job performance ever an issue."

Boutillier filed internal complaints against both administrators. School officials, in their court papers, said they found insufficient evidence that Cole or Duke had discriminated or retaliated against Boutillier.

Boutillier planned to return to teach in August 2013, but she says she quit because her new assignment would have brought her under Duke's direct supervision. She then filed complaints with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Both agencies have released jurisdiction over Boutillier's complaints to the federal courts.

Boutillier is seeking reinstatement to her job, damages to compensate for lost wages and benefits, and damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress. She also claims she is entitled to punitive damages.

Executive Action to Protect LGBT Government Contractors Might Be in the Offing

Legislation to ban employment discrimination against LGBT Americans is stalled in Congress. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has cleared the way for President Barack Obama to protect LGBT federal contractors through executive action, Huffington Post reports. While backers of the legislation would prefer for the legislation to pass, they also would like to see the president protect as many people as possible as his authority allows for. "Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) noted that Obama taking executive action on the issue would be in line with his recent promise to be more aggressive using his own authority where Congress is deadlocked," The Post further reports.

Social Media Used For Employment Discrimination?

The Wall Street Journal reports on research that shows employers are using social media to look up job candidates and then discriminating against them. One lawyer advised that could be illegal. The WSJ reports: '"I advise employers that it's not a good idea to use social media as a screening tool," said James McDonald, a partner at Fisher & Phillips LLP who specializes in employment law. "You need to control the information you receive so you're only getting information that is legal for you to take into account."'

LGBT Employment Discrimination Law Makes Progress in Senate

CBS reports: "With the support of every member of the Democratic caucus and some Republicans, the Senate on Monday voted to move forward with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." That means the full Senate is very likely to pass the bill.

But the bill's prognosis in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is not so good. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner came out against the legislation Monday.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - employment discrimination