Title VII Posting Violation Penalties Increase 150% Effective July 1, 2016

The EEOC has increased the maximum penalty for employers that violate the posting provisions of Title VII, the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") from $210 to $525 per violation, more than doubling the prior penalty amount. They state the increase is due to inflation and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The increase goes into effect July 1, 2016. The last increase was in 2014 but this increase is the largest increase in history. More ›

SCOTUS Aligns Application of Statute of Limitations in Constructive Discharge and Actual Discharge Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge begins to run on the date of resignation, not the date of the employer’s last discriminatory act, resolving a circuit split. As a result, in determining the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, constructive discharge cases will be treated the same way as actual discharge cases. More ›

Where Do I Pee? "The Bathroom Corresponding to Your Gender Identity" Says the EEOC

Bathroom use by transgender individuals is today’s hot-button civil rights issue. The often strong and disparate opinions about the subject creates a conundrum for employers: How do we make everyone comfortable while ensuring a safe and inclusive environment? And how do we do that without violating the law? More ›

Knock-Knock, Who’s There? The EEOC: When the EEOC’s can Investigate an Employer’s Premises Without Prior Consent

When the EEOC investigates a charge of discrimination, it may employ one of several investigatory methods, including site inspections.  In EEOC v. Nucor Steel Gallatin, Inc., a case of national first impression, a Kentucky district court considered whether to enforce a subpoena requiring the employer to provide on-site access to conduct witness interviews, examine the facility, and obtain additional information relating to the position the complainant applied for, or alternatively, to require the EEOC to obtain an administrative warrant.   More ›

New York District Court Holds Sexual Orientation not Protected by Title VII

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced filing its first federal lawsuits against private-sector businesses, challenging sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination. Coincidentally, a week later, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. that, although sexual orientation discrimination is "reprehensible," it does not violate Title VII. These cases demonstrate the legal community's struggle in defining and interpreting the law as currently written while, at the same time, attempting to ensure equal protections for gay and lesbian individuals. More ›

Say what? An Employee can sue for Discriminatory Termination After Resigning?

The employee who causes you to lose sleep at night — you know, the poor performer with a worse attitude — saunters into your office Friday afternoon and QUITS. As she walks out the door with her belongings, you exhale a deep sigh of relief and smile. You won’t lose another wink of sleep over this again…

Fast forward two months. It’s Monday morning. You stop by the mail room to pick up your mail, and find a letter from the EEOC. Curious, you open it to find a charge of discrimination filed by your old friend. You scratch your head, thinking: “This employee quit. How could she claim we discriminated against her by terminating her. This claim must be frivolous.” Yeah? Think again. More ›

Supervisor's "Hitler" Comment not Enough to Create Hostile work Environment

Does a single incident create a hostile work environment? Just this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that one offensive comment was insufficient to create a hostile work environment. More ›

Employee's case Dismissed After Suing Wrong Employer Defendant

Often times, employees name parent companies and other affiliated entities when suing their employers, seeking to hold responsible anyone and everyone who could possibly be construed to be the "employer" for the purposes of employment law related claims. That plan backfired on a New York employee, after she attempted to recover from a holding company who really had no employment relationship with the employee. More ›

Wilting Under a White-Hot Spotlight, Saks Settles Transgender Case

Saks Fifth Avenue has settled a transgender discrimination case in Texas that garnered the company much unwanted attention.  More ›

Seventh Circuit Finds that Naming EEOC Claimant in SEC Filing may have been Retaliatory

Celia Greengrass worked as an account executive for International Monetary Systems, Ltd. ("IMS"). In September 2007, Greengrass made an internal complaint about alleged harassment by a manager; two months later, she quit her job. In January 2008, Greengrass filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation.

In March 2008, IMS was due to make its annual SEC filings, which required it to disclose any material legal proceedings, including the principal parties, facts, and relief sought. Upon consultation with an outside accountant, IMS elected to not include Greengrass's EEOC complaint in the SEC filing information. IMC did, however, without naming the complainant, refer to a different EEOC complaint brought against the company. More ›