By: Megan J. Muoio, June 2, 2017 On March 27, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided in favor of the plaintiff in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., a case involving the issue of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Christiansen, a gay employee brought a suit against his employer under the sex discrimination provision of Title VII. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that sexual orientation discrimination…

Share

  By: Megan J. Muoio, April 3, 2017 On March 27, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc., an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit reinstated the plaintiff’s claim for gender stereotyping under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but declined to overturn earlier precedent about sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. A strong concurrence by two…

Share

Diana Uhimov, March 16, 2017 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued proposed guidance on workplace harassment. The EEOC is a federal agency charged with enforcing laws that protect individuals from harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or genetic information. The Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment clarifies the legal standards that apply to harassment claims under federal employment discrimination laws.  In its press release accompanying the issuance of the proposed guidance, the EEOC stated that the new direction is essential because of…

Share

By: Megan J. Muoio, March 6, 2017 The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear the matter of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago during its October 2017 session. The case comes to the Supreme Court on appeal from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which, plaintiff has argued, issued a decision contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents when it dismissed her appeal despite an extension of time granted by U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo. Plaintiff Charmaine Hamer was formerly an intake specialist for Neighborhood…

Share

  By: Megan J. Muoio, March 7, 2016 Currently pending before the Supreme Court is Green v. Brennan, a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that involves the question of when 45-day period to file a claim of constructive discharge as a result of racial discrimination begins to run. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on November 30, 2016. A decision is expected sometime this spring. The appellant Marvin Green was employed by the United States Postal Service as the postmaster…

Share

Diana Uhimov, September 10, 2015 On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 the Second Circuit reinstated a sex discrimination case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Sterling Jewelers Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The suit, initiated in 2008, arose from charges from women who worked for Sterling in nine different states.  The women accused Sterling, the largest fine-jewelry company in the U.S., of paying retail saleswomen less than their male counterparts and failing to give promotions to women for which they were qualified.  Sterling argued in…

Share

  By: Megan J. Muoio, July 24, 2015 On July 16, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a decision affirming that it considers sexual orientation to be covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision, which was made 3-2 in an appeal brought by an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration who claimed that he was denied a promotion because he was gay, sets up a conflict between the EEOC and certain…

Share

Paula Lopez, June 5, 2015. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,  Inc., reversing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision holding that Abercrombie could not be held liable on a religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate.  In an 8-1 decision reversing a decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that Title VII requires employers to make efforts to accommodate an applicant or employee’s “religious observance and practice”…

Share

By: Megan J. Muoio, April 7 2015 On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., a case challenging the interpretation and applicability of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and that has drawn national attention. Young was a part-time driver for UPS, which requires that its drivers lift up to 70 pounds. After Young became pregnant, her doctor advised her not to lift more than 20 pounds. UPS told Young that she could not work under a lifting restriction. However,…

Share

By Diana Uhimov, March 18, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit against Abercrombie over its refusal to hire a Muslim teen, Samantha Elauf. Although she scored highly in her interview for a sales associate position with the retailer, she was not hired because she wore a black hijab—a Muslim headscarf she has worn since the age of 13. When the interviewer consulted with a manager about the headscarf, she gave Elauf a low score in…

Share