Overview: To prevent and respond to employee discrimination based on protected class status, an employer must have zero-tolerance policy against this discrimination and communicate to their workforce that discrimination against any individual based on protected class status will not be tolerated.
Employers should understand that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin. Among the other federal laws that prohibit discrimination are the Americans with Disabilities Act (disability), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (genetic information) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (age). State laws generally prohibit employee discrimination against the same classes protected by federal law. However, some state laws go further and consider gender identity/sexual orientation, unemployment status, and marital status to be protected classes.
An employer should implement a policy against discrimination and make sure that all employees and supervisors receive training on the policy An employer should develop and implement policies and practices that are facially neutral and do not discriminate. Further, employers should establish a multi-channeled complaint system and promptly respond to all discrimination complaints by immediately investigating and if necessary, take corrective measures and impose discipline.
Trends: There is a great deal of movement on the federal and state level to expand the protected classes under equal employment opportunity laws. Those protected under discrimination laws have advanced well beyond the traditional protected classes of race, sex, age, and disability to include genetic information, military status, transgender status, individuals with caregiving responsibilities and even unemployment status. As a result, employers can reasonably anticipate a greater number of lawsuits. Further, employers should know that there is also a trend towards class actions and allegations of widespread bias and discrimination by multiple plaintiffs. Employers need to know how to prevent and effectively respond to such claims.
Author: Beth P. Zoller, JD, Legal Editor
The EEOC recently entered into a consent decree with Roy Farms Inc. in which the employer agreed to pay $85,000 to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit. This type of settlement should alert an employer that although sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law, same-sex harassment and gender stereotyping violate federal civil rights laws.
The EEOC entered into a consent judgment with Boh Bros. Construction Co., in which the employer agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a same-sex harassment case that has bounced from the trial court to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and back.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Arizona employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to performance appraisals.
The City of Tempe, Arizona recently passed an antidiscrimination ordinance that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, national origin, familial status, age, disability, US military veteran status, sexual orientation and gender identity. Tempe employers (with one or more employees), labor organizations and city contractors are covered by the ordinance.
A 6th Circuit Court of Appeals case (Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission) suggests that a lateral transfer, even if initially requested by an employee, may be considered an adverse employment action under federal antidiscrimination laws when the terms and conditions of the transfer are inferior to what the employee originally sought.
In a speech to a conference of state attorneys general in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Eric Holder said state officials are not required to defend laws they consider to be discriminatory based on sexual orientation. The speech came on the heels of several federal court rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.
The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) recently announced in a press release that it has settled a wage discrimination lawsuit with Extended Stay Hotels for $75,800 on behalf of a receptionist and three of her female co-workers. EEOC v. HVM L.L.C., D/B/A Extended Stay Hotels, Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-01980. The settlement confirms that the EEOC will continue to focus on equal pay and discriminatory pay practices as one of its six strategic enforcement priorities.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Alaska employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to the Americans with Disabilities act.
In-depth review of the spectrum of Arizona employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to disabilities.
In-depth review of the spectrum of California employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to disabilities (ADA).
HR guidance and support on how to develop and implement policies to prevent and respond to employee discrimination claims against protected classes.