Your daily summary of the top employment and labor law headlines
Discovered 11 months ago | 0 comments
Blog About: Federal Appeals Court Allows Homosexual Employee's Title VII Gender Stereotyping Case to Proceed.
Continue the discussion on your blog. Click to highlight this excerpt and press Ctrl+C to copy.
Related Articles
Federal Legislation Introduced To Ban Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination.
Legislation was introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives this summer to prohibit job discrimination on the basis of an employees actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
Good Eats, Inc. runs a family restaurant in a state which prohibits discrimination in employment based upon gender identity and disability. Its employees are required to wear name-tags, and to dress the same (black pants and shirt, minimal jewelry, conservative make-up). It has men's and women's restrooms, used by customers and employees alike. An employee (George) tells the manager that he is in transition to becoming a woman, and wants:
Court Revives Hotel Worker's Gender Stereotyping Claim.
A federal appellate court recently reinstated a gender stereotyping case brought by a hotel front desk employee who claimed she was fired for not having the "Midwestern girl look." According to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, "[c]ompanies may not base employment decisions for jobs . . . on sex stereotypes."
Setting the Stage for a Potential Supreme Court Battle in Dukes v. Wal-Mart: A Sharply Divided Ninth Circuit Attempts to Articulate New Standards that Could Impact Employers.
On April 26, 2010, in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Nos. 04-16688 and 04-16720, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in large part, a federal district court's 2004 decision certifying a nationwide class of female employees alleging sex discrimination in the company's pay and promotion practices. The en banc decision follows a ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in 2007, also affirming class certification. But the new 6-5 ruling is not a complete loss for Wal-Mart. The appeals court not only potentially cut the size of the class from approximately 1.5 million women to 500,000, but it also narrowed the scope of claims that could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Adverse employment action based on gender-related non-conforming behavior and appearance is impermissible.
Under Title VII, an unlawful employment practice is established when an employee demonstrates that gender is a motivating factor for an adverse employment action. Under that analysis, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Title VII claims of a female hotel desk clerk who was fired after a company decision-maker complained that the employee lacked the pretty and Midwestern girl look desirable in a front desk employee.
What is My Employment Law?
Every hour, we bring the best news and advice from dozens of blogs and sites to one place for our community of experts and enthusiasts to vote on what's most interesting each day. Join the conversation and submit an article for publication on My Employment Law!
Put fresh news from My Employment Law on your site
Embed our widget to your blog or site and get the latest headlines from My Employment Law automatically updated each hour.
Click to highlight and press Ctrl+C to copy
Latest Articles
Powered by: MyEmploymentLaw
Widget preview:
Latest Articles
Powered by: MyEmploymentLaw
What's Hot Today