|
|
-
Lex Mentis - Civil Rights for the Aesthetically-Challenged ( May 2006 )
Most of us are shameless "lookists." We have a natural preference for good-looking people over ugly ones, whether in the context of hiring employees, selecting a mate, or watching movies or television. To date, most employers have largely been free to discriminate against the homely. A few nations, such as France, have outlawed discrimination based on physical appearance. In the U.S., only a few jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia and Santa Cruz, California, have enacted legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment based on physical appearance. -
Hey, Good Lookin': Sex Discrimination in Hiring Reps ( March 2006 )
This article examines the issue of using appearance as a hiring criterion and how it could lead to employment discrimination due to physical appearance. Given a new but growing trend to outlaw job discrimination based on appearance, further scrutiny of this practice may be expected. -
Recent Harassment Case Illustrates Importance of Corrective Action and Consistency in the Enforcement of Harassment Policies ( April 2006 )
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Austin v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 158 Fed. Appx. 374 (3d Cir. 2005) recently issued a decision finding that in certain situations, an employer’s efforts to eradicate sexual harassment in the workplace may be considered sufficient and nondiscriminatory even if the complaining employee continues to experience harassment on a lower scale. The court also tackled the issue of successor-employer liability and whether the actions of a former employer may be imputed to the successor employer to show retaliation in violation of Title VII. -
Dissatisfied Employees Sue at Record Pace ( October 2004 )
Lawyers Weekly USA newspaper reported a 2004 Chubb Insurance Co. survey of private employers wherein pervasive statistics reveal unprecedented employee unrest: One in four companies surveyed had been sued by an employee or former employee in recent years, one in five had received a discrimination complaint filed with the EEOC or similar state agency. -
Makeup Rule Upheld By Ninth Circuit ( January 2005 )
On December 28, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed the dismissal of a female bartender's termination for failing to comply with her employer's dress and grooming standards, which included a requirement that female bartenders wear makeup. Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., 9th Cir., No. 03-15045, 12/28/04. The decision upholds the right of employers to enforce reasonable dress and grooming standards as long as they do not impose unequal burdens on either sex. -
Plaintiffs find a Litigation Oasis in the Desert: Court Makes it Easier for Employees to Prove Discrimination ( September 2003 )
When investigating whether someone has been discriminated against, do not underestimate clues that may suggest discrimination, even if those clues do not tie directly to the personnel action at issue. -
Failure to Provide Birth Control in Health Plans Constitutes Sex Discrimination ( September 2000 )
A Washington State federal judge ruled company health insurance plans that cover most prescription drugs but not birth control pills illegally discriminate against women. -
Weight Standards May Constitute Sex Discrimination ( September 2000 )
United Airlines discriminated against female flight attendants from 1989 to 1994 by requiring them to stay thinner than their male counterparts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled. Some female attendants lost pay when they were suspended or dismissed for being overweight. -
Prohibiting Improper Relationships Between Supervisors and Subordinates ( January 2000 )
This article reviews why a company may want to implement a policy against prohibiting romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates. -
Discrimination Based on Sex ( August 2000 )
Introduction Generally, there are five (5) categories of discrimination that the law prohibits from taking pla.
