How the EFAA Applies to Employee Arbitration Agreements in Sexual Harassment Cases Involving Conduct That Preceded the Law’s Effective Date

On August 12, 2024, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff's hostile work environment claims were subject to the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"), even though the plaintiff's claims arose before the EFAA's enactment.

The Court found that pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine, a hostile work environment claim accrues each time a plaintiff continues to experience sexual harassment. More ›

Second Circuit Dismisses Remote Employee's Discrimination Claim Brought Under New York State Human Rights Law

On March 20, 2024, the Second Circuit dismissed a remote employee's discrimination claim brought under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The Court held that the employee's discrimination did not meet the "impact test" because the impact was only incidentally felt in New York. More ›

EEOC Publishes Final Guidance on Workplace Harassment

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion. More ›

New York Expands Anti-Discrimination Laws for Nonresident Job Seekers

On March 14, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals held that nonresident prospective employees who seek employment opportunities in New York State or New York City and are denied due to discriminatory conduct are eligible to assert claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). More ›

SCOTUS Decides Title VII Protects LGBTQ+ Workers

In a historic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer who discriminates against an employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. 590 U. S. ____ (2020). This landmark decision provides LGBTQ+ employees across the nation protection from termination or other employment discrimination because of their LGBTQ+ status. The Supreme Court's decision resolved three cases: Altitude Express v. Zarda; Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion in which Justices Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh also filed a dissenting opinion. More ›

SCOTUS Will Decide Whether Title VII Protects LGBTQ Workers

After considerable anticipation, the U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear three cases involving questions of whether Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The first two cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, were brought by employees who alleged their employers terminated their employment after learning they were gay. The Court's decision will resolve a widening circuit split over whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In Altitude Express, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding it does cover sexual orientation, overturning longstanding precedent in the process. The court reasoned "the most natural reading of the statute's prohibition on discrimination 'because of . . . sex' is that it extends to sexual orientation discrimination because sex is necessarily a factor in sexual orientation." In Bostock, the Eleventh Circuit held it does not, explaining it remained bound by a 1979 case holding "[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII." More ›

New Illinois Employer Posting Requirements to Ring in the New Year

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 11 "More #MeToo and More Lack of Confidentiality"

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the eleventh day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—eleven ladies dancing and AB 3109. More ›

On the First Day of the Holidays, My Labor and Employment Attorney Gave to Me - A Partridge in a Pear Tree and SB 826

It's back! Hard to believe another year is coming to a close. It's even harder to believe that California has once again enacted a slew of employment laws  that go into effect in 2019. The Legislature certainly keeps California employers busy. In the spirit of the season, we are again using the "12 days of Christmas" song to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. So, on the first day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—a partridge in a pear tree and SB 826. More ›

In Florida, One-Event Sexual Advance at a Non-Work Sponsored Party Can Support Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently decided two questions of first impression under Florida law: (1) whether a one-event sexual advance at a private, non-work sponsored party may support sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and (2) whether rejecting a supervisor’s sexual advance is protected “opposition.” The court answered both questions “yes.” More ›