DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report on Eeoc Developments: Fiscal Year 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report on Eeoc Developments: Fiscal Year 2015 ANNUAL REPORT ON EEOC DEVELOPMENTS: FISCAL YEAR 2015 An Annual Report on EEOC Charges, Litigation, Regulatory Developments and Noteworthy Case Developments | JANUARY 2016 | EXECUTIVE EDITOR Barry A. Hartstein EDITORIAL BOARD Greg Coulter Terrence H. Murphy Tessa Gelbman Peter J. Petesch Kevin Kraham Paul Prather Grady B. Murdock Ilyse Wolens Schuman CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Julie K. Adams Brendan Fitzgerald Suzanne Potter-Padilla Jessica Agarwal Matthew G. Gallagher Adam Primm Christina Andronache Jaclyn Giffen Larry Robertson Julia S. Arnold Sarah J. Gorajski Jennifer Savion Julia Baxter Jennifer Harpole Meredith C. Shoop R. Keith Chapman Sami Hasan Kellie A. Tabor Sebastian Chilco Nicolette J. Lee William Trachman Kalisha Salome Chorba Melissa McDonagh Denise Visconti Jamie Chu Brandon R. Mita Thomas Whiteside Barbara Cusumano Elisa Nadeau Lavanga Wijekoon Ryan L. Eddings Emily T. Patajo Rachel Enoch Kristy L. Peters Katie Fearn Benson E. Pope IMPORTANT NOTICE This publication is not a do-it-yourself guide to resolving employment disputes or handling employment litigation. Nonetheless, employers involved in ongoing disputes and litigation will find the information useful in understanding the issues raised and their legal context. The Littler Report is not a substitute for experienced legal counsel and does not provide legal advice or attempt to address the numerous factual issues that inevitably arise in any employment-related dispute. Copyright ©2016 Littler Mendelson, P.C. All material contained within this publication is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced without the express written consent of Littler Mendelson. Table of Contents SECTION/TOPIC PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 I. LOOKING BACK AT FY 2015: A REVIEW OF EEOC SUCCESSES AND FAILURES, AND SIGNIFICANT CASES AND DEVELOPMENTS TO WATCH FOR IN FY 2016 2 A. Agency Developments 2 B. Key Statistics for FY 2015 3 C. Key Procedural Developments 4 1. Impact of Mach Mining 4 2. Challenging Scope of EEOC Investigations 5 3. Continued Debate over Permissible Scope of EEOC Investigations 7 D. Key Litigation Developments — Impact of EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan 8 1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring 8 a. Claims of Alleged Intentional Discrimination 8 b. Challenges to Neutral Employment Policies 10 2. Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers 12 3. Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues 13 a. Pregnancy Discrimination 14 b. Religious Discrimination 15 c. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity or Expression 16 d. Disability Discrimination Claims 17 4. Enforcing Equal Pay Laws 21 5. Preserving Access to the Legal System 22 6. Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach 24 E. Anticipated Trends for FY 2016 25 II. OVERVIEW OF EEOC CHARGE ACTIVITY, LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENTS 28 A. Review of Charge Activity, Backlog and Benefits Provided 28 B. Continued Focus on Systemic Investigations and Litigation 29 C. Systemic Investigations—A Comparison of the Last Four Fiscal Years 30 D. EEOC Litigation and Systemic Initiative 30 E. Highlights from EEOC Litigation Statistics 33 F. Mediation Efforts 34 COPYRIGHT ©2016 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. i Table of Contents (continued) SECTION/TOPIC PAGE G. Significant EEOC Settlements and Monetary Recovery 34 H. Appellate Cases 35 1. Significant Wins for the EEOC 35 2. Significant Wins for the Employer 37 3. Key Cases for Systemic Litigation 38 III. EEOC REGULATORY AGENCY AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS 40 A. Update on the Commission and Congressional Oversight 40 B. EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan and Updates on Strategic Plan 40 C. Noteworthy Regulatory Activities: Initial Planned Agenda and Significant Anticipated Guidance 42 1. Wellness Programs and the ADA 42 a. Definition of Employee Health Program 43 b. Definition of “Voluntary” 43 c. Notice 43 d. Financial Incentives 43 e. Privacy 44 2. Wellness Programs and GINA 44 3. Pregnancy Discrimination 45 4. Federal Sector 46 5. EEOC’s Digital Charge System 47 D. Current and Anticipated Trends 47 1. Recruiting and Hiring Issues 47 2. Religious Accommodation 49 3. Retaliation 49 4. Workplace Harassment 50 5. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination 51 6. ADA 52 7. Race and National Origin Discrimination 52 IV. SCOPE OF EEOC INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 53 A. EEOC Authority to Conduct Class-Type Investigations 53 1. Scope of EEOC’s Investigative Authority 53 2. Potential Waiver of Right to Challenge EEOC Subpoenas 54 ii LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. | EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE™ Table of Contents (continued) SECTION/TOPIC PAGE 3. Review of Recent Cases Involving Broad-Based Investigations by EEOC 55 a. Court of Appeals Decisions 55 b. District Court Cases 56 4. Confidentiality 58 B. Conciliation 58 1. Pre-Mach Mining: Challenge by EEOC to Any Conciliation Obligation 58 2. Post-Mach Mining: Impact of Supreme Court Decision 59 3. General Investigation and Conciliation Obligations 61 V. REVIEW OF NOTEWORTHY EEOC LITIGATION AND COURT OPINIONS 63 A. Pleadings 63 1. Attacking Complaint Based on Lack of Specificity 63 2. Key Issues in Class-Related Allegations 63 3. Who is the Employer? 64 4. EEOC Motions—Challenges to Affirmative Defenses 65 5. Venue 65 6. Miscellaneous 65 B. Statute of Limitations for Pattern-or-Practice Lawsuits 66 C. Intervention 67 1. EEOC Permissive Intervention in Private Litigation 67 2. Charging Party’s Right to Intervene in EEOC Litigation 68 3. Adding Pendent Claims 69 4. Pattern-or-Practice Claims by Intervenors 70 5. Attorneys’ Fees 70 D. Class Discovery Issues in EEOC Litigation 70 1. Bifurcation in EEOC Litigation 70 2. Identification of Class Members 71 3. Communication with Class 72 4. Scope of Discovery Regarding the EEOC’s Communications with Potential “Class” Members 73 E. Other Critical Issues in EEOC Pattern-or-Practice and Class-Type Cases 73 1. ESI: Electronic Discovery-Related Issues 73 2. Reliance on Experts in Systemic Cases 74 3. The EEOC’s Effort to Establish Judicial Estoppel 75 F. General Discovery By Employer 75 1. Depositions of EEOC Personnel 75 COPYRIGHT ©2016 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. iii Table of Contents (continued) SECTION/TOPIC PAGE 2. General Conduct at Depositions 75 3. Discovery of EEOC-Related Documents 75 4. Discovery of the EEOC’s Own Practices and Policies 76 5. Medical Authorizations 77 6. Confidentiality Orders 77 G. General Discovery by EEOC/Intervenor 77 1. Section 30(b)(6) Depositions 77 2. Scope of Permitted Discovery 77 3. EEOC Communications Ex Parte with Former or Current Employees 78 4. Spoliation Issues 78 5. Financial Information 78 6. General Discovery Concerns 79 7. Miscellaneous 79 H. Summary Judgment 80 1. The Supreme Court Weighs in on Religious Accommodation 80 2. Trend of Deferring to Employers’ Judgment as to Essential Job Functions 81 3. Courts Have Been Critical of Employers’ Failures to Provide Reasonable Accommodations 82 4. Long-Running Lawsuit Resolved 83 I. Default Judgment 84 J. Bankruptcy 86 K. Trial 87 1. ADA Trials 87 2. Workplace Harassment and Retaliation 90 3. Trials on Religious Discrimination 92 4. Key Evidentiary Rulings and Motions in Limine 92 L. Remedies 93 1. Punitive Damages 93 2. Additional Remedies 94 a. Injunctive Actions During EEOC Investigation Process 94 b. Permanent Injunctions and Remediation Against Future Discrimination 95 c. Front Pay versus Reinstatement 96 d. Prejudgment Interest 96 3. Offsetting Taxes 97 4. Employer Recovery of Costs 97 iv LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. | EMPLOYMENT & LABOR LAW SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE™ Table of Contents (continued) SECTION/TOPIC PAGE M. Settlements 98 N. Appeal 98 O. Misconduct by the EEOC 99 P. Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees by Employers 99 APPENDIX A - EEOC CONSENT DECREES, CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS 103 APPENDIX B - FY 2015 EEOC AMICUS AND APPELLANT ACTIVITY 113 APPENDIX C - SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FILED BY EEOC IN FY 2015 157 APPENDIX D - FY 2015 SELECT EEOC-RELATED DISPOSITIVE DECISIONS BY CLAIM TYPES 166 COPYRIGHT ©2016 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. v ANNUAL REPORT ON EEOC DEVELOPMENTS: FISCAL YEAR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT ON EEOC DEVELOPMENTS: FISCAL YEAR 2015 An Annual Report on EEOC Charges, Litigation, Regulatory Developments and Noteworthy Case Developments INTRODUCTION This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2015 (hereafter “Report”), our fifth annual Report, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also offers an analysis of what the EEOC has and has not accomplished, and the implications of those outcomes. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come. This year’s Report is organized into the following sections: Part One—Looking Back at FY 2015: A Review of EEOC Successes and Failures, and Significant Cases and Developments to Watch for in FY 2016—is a preview to the Report as a whole. This chapter encapsulates the EEOC’s litigation and policy achievements and setbacks for the fiscal year, topics that are fleshed out in the chapters that follow. Part Two discusses EEOC charge activity, litigation and settlements in FY 2015, focusing on the types and location of lawsuits filed by the Commission. More details on noteworthy consent decrees, conciliation agreements, judgments and jury verdicts are summarized in Appendix A to this Report. A discussion of cases in which the EEOC filed an amicus or appellate brief can be found in Appendix B. Part Three focuses on legislative and regulatory activity involving the EEOC. This chapter includes a discussion of agency initiatives beyond formal rule-making efforts, including the Commission’s issuance of both formal and informal guidance on a variety of contentious issues, and the holding of public meetings on several agency priorities. This chapter highlights recent and emerging trends at the agency level, as well as the Commission’s efforts to adhere to its Strategic Plan. References are made to more comprehensive Littler updates and/or reports for a more in-depth discussion of the topic, as applicable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017 South Carolina Bar Convention Employment & Labor Law Section
    2017 South Carolina Bar Convention Employment & Labor Law Section Seminar Friday, January 20, 2017 presented by The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE Course No. 170440 Onboarding and Offboarding in the Digital Age—Protecting Your Trade Secrets and Confidential Information Against Unfair Competition John C. Glancy Greenville, SC PDA in the Workplace Ashley C. Story Columbia, SC Christina L. Rogers Columbia Ashley C. Story, Duff, White & Turner, LLC Christy Rogers, Fisher & Phillips, LLP Roadmap The Law Regarding Pregnancy Discrimination Young v. UPS Other Case Updates EEOC Guidelines Future Trends – Election and the Law Tips Q&A Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII PDA amended Title VII in 1978. Two pertinent clauses: 1. “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions “ 2. “[employers must treat women affected by pregnancy] the same for all employment- related purposes . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young v. United Parcel Service 575 U.S. ____ (2015) Employee brought action against her employer, alleging that she was the victim of pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). • Federal District Court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS; • 4th Circuit held that the employee failed to present direct evidence of discrimination or establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge on account of pregnancy under Title VII; • Vacated by U.S. Supreme Court and remanded to 4th Cir. – opinion by Breyer with 6-3 vote. Scalia authored dissent. Young v. United Parcel Service – Young’s Facts 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Fact Sheets
    Texas Workforce Commission Facts About National Origin Discrimination Chapter 21, Texas Labor Code and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of national origin as well as race, color, religion and sex. It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of the individual’s national origin. No one can be denied equal employment opportunity because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group. Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage or association with persons of a national origin group; membership or association with specific ethnic promotion groups; attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or a surname associated with a national origin group. Speak English-Only Rule: A rule requiring performance or negatively affect an individual’s employees to speak only English, at all times, on the employment opportunities. Employers have a job may violate Title VII, unless an employer shows it responsibility to maintain a workplace free of national is necessary for conducting business. If an employer origin harassment. Employers may be responsible believes the English-only rule is critical for business for any on-the-job harassment by their agents and purposes, employees have to be told when they must supervisory employees, regardless of whether the speak English and the consequences for violating acts were authorized or specifically forbidden by the the rule. Any negative employment decision based employer. Under certain circumstances, an employer on breaking the English-only rule will be considered may be responsible for the acts of non-employees evidence of discrimination if the employer did not tell who harass their employees at work.
    [Show full text]
  • YOUNG V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus YOUNG v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12–1226. Argued December 3, 2014—Decided March 25, 2015 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act added new language to the defini- tions subsection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The first clause of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act specifies that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination “be- cause of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” 42 U. S. C §2000e(k). The Act’s second clause says that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . the same for all employment-related purposes . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” Ibid. This case asks the Court to determine how the latter provision applies in the context of an employer’s policy that accommodates many, but not all, workers with nonpregnancy-related disabilities. Petitioner Young was a part-time driver for respondent United Parcel Service (UPS). When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2002 (PDF)
    CIVILRIGHTS WINTER 2002 JOURNAL ALSO INSIDE: EQUATIONS: AN INTERVIEW WITH BOB MOSES FLYING HISTORY AS SENTIMENTAL EDUCATION WHILE WHERE ARE YOU REALLY FROM? ASIAN AMERICANS AND THE PERPETUAL FOREIGNER SYNDROME ARAB MANAGING THE DIVERSITY Lessons from the Racial REVOLUTION: BEST PRACTICES FOR 21ST CENTURY BUSINESS Profiling Controversy U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS CIVILRIGHTS WINTER 2002 JOURNAL The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency first established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to Acting Chief vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, Terri A. Dickerson or by reason of fraudulent practices; • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal Managing Editor protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, David Aronson age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; Copy Editor • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal Dawn Sweet protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; Editorial Staff • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or Monique Dennis-Elmore denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, Latrice Foshee disability, or national origin; Mireille Zieseniss • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress; • Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal Interns protection of the laws. Megan Gustafson Anastasia Ludden In furtherance of its fact-finding duties, the Commission may hold hearings and issue Travis McClain subpoenas for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT Donations Are Fully Tax-Deductible
    SUPPORT THE NYCLU JOIN AND BECOME A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER Basic individual membership is only $20 per year, joint membership NEW YORK is $35. NYCLU membership automatically extends to the national CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION American Civil Liberties Union and to your local chapter. Membership is not tax-deductible and supports our legal, legislative, lobbying, educational and community organizing efforts. ANNUAL MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE GIFT Because the NYCLU Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, REPORT donations are fully tax-deductible. The NYCLU Foundation supports litigation, advocacy and public education but does not fund legislative lobbying, which cannot be supported by tax-deductible funds. BECOME AN NYCLU ACTIVIST 2013 NYCLU activists organize coalitions, lobby elected officials, protest civil liberties violations and participate in web-based action campaigns THE DESILVER SOCIETY Named for Albert DeSilver, one of the founders of the ACLU, the DeSilver Society supports the organization through bequests, retirement plans, beneficiary designations or other legacy gifts. This special group of supporters helps secure civil liberties for future generations. THE AMICUS CLUB Lawyers and legal professionals are invited to join our Amicus Club with a donation equal to the value of one to four billable hours. Club events offer members the opportunity to network, stay informed of legal developments in the field of civil liberties and earn CLE credits. THE EASTMAN SOCIETY Named for the ACLU’s co-founder, Crystal Eastman, the Eastman Society honors and recognizes those patrons who make an annual gift of $5,000 or more. Society members receive a variety of benefits. Go to www.nyclu.org to sign up and stand up for civil liberties.
    [Show full text]
  • States Take Action to Stop Bosses' Religious Beliefs from Trumping Women's Reproductive Health Care Decisions
    DC BOSS BILL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS • FACT SHEET FACT SHEET States Take Action to Stop Bosses’ Religious Beliefs from Trumping Women’s Reproductive Health Care Decisions April 2015 Across the country, employers are using their religious beliefs to discriminate against their employees because they disagree with their employees’ personal reproductive health care decisions. Women are being punished, threatened, or fired for using birth control, for undergoing in vitro fertilization in order to get pregnant, or for having sex without being married. It is unfair that a person would be fired or discriminated against because of a decision about whether to prevent pregnancy or start a family. Employers should not be allowed to use their personal religious beliefs to discriminate against employees, who typically come from all different faiths. Fortunately, states have begun to step forward to protect employees, introducing legislation to make it clear that bosses cannot obstruct or coerce an employee when that employee makes a personal reproductive health care decision. Employers are Increasingly Using their Religion to Discriminate Against their Employees for their Private Reproductive Health Decisions Women remain at serious risk of workplace discrimination based on their reproductive health decisions and based on an employer’s religious beliefs about such decisions. Employers are discriminating against women for seeking to prevent pregnancy and threatening to fire workers for using birth control. • In 2012, politicians in Arizona revised a long-standing law requiring insurance coverage of birth control to make it easier for a boss to penalize an employee for using it.1 • After Wisconsin passed a law in 2009 requiring insurance plans to cover birth control, the Madison Catholic Diocese warned employees that if they took advantage of the benefit, they could face termination.2 Allowing employers to penalize women for their reproductive health decisions jeopardizes the health of women and any children they might have.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality at Work: the Continuing Challenge
    REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL Equality at work: The continuing challenge Global Report under the follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE 100th Session 2011 Report I(B) INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GENEVA This Report may also be consulted on the ILO website (www.ilo.org/declaration). ISBN 978-92-2-123091-5 (print) ISBN 978-92-2-123092-2 (web PDF) ISSN 0074-6681 First published 2011 The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the presentation of mater ial therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: [email protected]. Visit our web site: www.ilo.org/publns.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nineteenth Amendment and the Democratization of the Family Reva B
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL FORUM JANUARY 20, 2020 The Nineteenth Amendment and the Democratization of the Family Reva B. Siegel abstract. This Essay recovers debates over the family connecting the Reconstruction Amendments and the Nineteenth Amendment, and considers how this lost history can guide the Constitution’s interpretation, in courts and in politics. A woman’s claim to vote contested a man’s prerogative to represent his wife and daughters, and so was a claim for democratization of the family. Suffragists argued that women needed the vote to change the ways that law structuring the family governed their lives. They argued that law should recognize women’s right to voluntary motherhood and to be remunerated equally with men for work performed inside and outside the household. Suffragists sought to create a world in which adult members of the household could be recognized and participate in democratic life as equals. And they debated how to realize these goals when women faced different and intersectional forms of discrimination. Claims for democratic reconstruction of the family that began in the quest for 450 the nineteenth amendment and the democratization of the family the vote continued in the immediate aftermath of the Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification and in 1970 during its half-century anniversary, and continue today in the era of its centennial. Courts can draw on this history and interpret the Amendments synthetically. For example, judges can integrate the history of suffrage struggle into the equal-protection framework of United States v. Virginia. The Essay shows how an historical and intersectional understanding of suffrage struggle could change the way courts approach cases concerning the regulation of pregnancy, con- traception, sexual violence, and federalism.
    [Show full text]
  • WOMEN RISING a Guide to Your Rights at Work NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
    WOMEN RISING A Guide to Your Rights at Work NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest professional employee organization, is committed to advancing the cause of public education. NEA’s 3 million members work at every level of education from pre-school to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States. NEA Officers Lily Eskelsen García, President Rebecca “Becky” Pringle, Vice President Princess Moss, Secretary-Treasurer NEA Executive Committee Eric R. Brown, Illinois Shelly Moore Krajacic, Wisconsin Robert Rodriguez, California Christine Sampson-Clark, New Jersey George Sheridan, California Hanna Vaandering, Oregon NEA Executive Director Kim A. Anderson Contents I. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................3 II. Sex Discrimination ...............................................................................................................................................5 Title VII ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Title IX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Discrimination and the 'Hierarchy of Rights'
    Religious discrimination and the ‘hierarchy of rights’: non-existent, appropriate or problematic? Megan Pearson1 Abstract In theory, there is no hierarchy of rights in the Equality Act 2010: equal weight is given to each protected characteristic. At least two, very different, critiques though have been made of this argument as it relates to religion or belief. One argument is that religious discrimination has unfairly been given a lower priority than other characteristics, particularly sexual orientation. The second is that religion is inherently different, partly because religions tend to set extensive, and possibly discriminatory, rules for behaviour. In order to keep religion or belief claims within a reasonable limit, religious discrimination claims must therefore be confined. However, the perceived danger of confining these claims is that, because of the insistence that there is no hierarchy of rights, this will lead to reduced protection across all the rights since concepts which apply across the Equality Act will be reinterpreted in order to avoid unwanted results. As will be demonstrated though, both of these arguments are misconceived. Keywords Religion or belief discrimination; discrimination law; Equality Act 2010; clash of rights; hierarchy of rights Word Count 1 University of Winchester, Department of Law, Sparkford Rd, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 4NJ, [email protected], 01962 624894 1 Introduction The Equality Act 2010 was designed to unify and simplify discrimination law, gathering together the various pieces of legislation dealing with each ground of discrimination, and creating one overall scheme. Whilst there are some differences in the provisions relating to the various protected characteristics, the Act in theory does not have a hierarchy of rights.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of NEW YORK EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY in New York State RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES a Handbook
    STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY In New York State RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES A Handbook for Employees of New York State Agencies Kathy Hochul Governor August 2021 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 PROTECTED AREAS ................................................................................ 2 AGE ............................................................................................................ 2 Statutory protection. ................................................................................................. 2 Executive Order concerning State workers. ............................................................. 3 Retirement. ............................................................................................................... 3 Exceptions. ............................................................................................................... 3 RACE and COLOR .................................................................................... 4 Statutory protection. ................................................................................................. 4 CREED ....................................................................................................... 4 Statutory protection. ................................................................................................. 5 Sabbath or holy day observance. ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Employment and Pregnancy Discrimination Pregnancy Discrimination
    Employment and Pregnancy Discrimination Pregnancy Discrimination Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is prohibited by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. This Act prohibits discrimination against women because of past, present and potential pregnancies. Because millions of women combine their careers with marriage and children, it is important for employers and employees to know their rights. Below is a description of benefits covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act applies to all companies employing at least 15 people. Employers are required to treat pregnancy, childbirth and other related conditions in the same manner they treat medical conditions for other employees. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act covers all areas of employment including hiring, promotion, firing, seniority rights and fringe benefits such as sick leave and health insurance. It is illegal for a woman to be fired, refused a job or refused promotion because she is pregnant or has had an abortion. Sick Leave and Disability Employers must treat able-bodies pregnant in the same manner they treat other able- bodied workers. Pregnant women are entitled to re-employment when they are able to return to work on the same basis as other temporarily disabled employees. If a pregnant employee is unable to perform some functions of her job, she must be treated in the same manner as other temporarily disabled employees, such as providing modified tasks, alternative assignments and disability leave. A woman unable to perform modified tasks during pregnancy or who becomes temporarily disabled during childbirth is entitled to the same rights as other temporarily disabled workers. This includes the use of accumulated sick pay, receiving disability and health insurance benefits and returning to work upon recovery.
    [Show full text]