So imagine my surprise when I did a deeper dive last night into the Supreme Court’s landmark decision yesterday. There on page ten, Justice Gorsuch digs deep into baseball loyalties for
In the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court case in many years, the Court ruled this morning that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
You can download the 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, here.
Connecticut has long prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual…
In an decision of first impression in Connecticut, a federal court on Friday ruled that a transgender discrimination claim based on a failure to hire can proceed under both Title VII and Connecticut’s counterpart, CFEPA.
While the groundbreaking decision in Fabian v. Hospital of Central Connecticut (download here) is sure to be the subject…
But, as luck would have it as an employment lawyer, imagine my surprise when I saw this headline:
“He Did WHAT?! The Cosmo Guide to Surviving Sexual Harassment at Work
With Congress in gridlock, we haven’t seen any federal laws impacting employment law for several years. Instead, we’ve now started to see a lot more action at the state legislative level where proposals to modify everything from family leave to the minimum wage are being passed in, it seems, increasing numbers.
Therefore, what happens in other states is becoming much more important. For instance, we saw that Connecticut was considering an immigration-related employment bill that was modeled on laws in other states.
Because of this, and because many employers now have businesses in multiple states, I’ve asked my friend, Courtney Ward-Reichard, a shareholder at Nilan Johnson Lewis in Minneapolis, to share her insights about a pretty broad employment law bill that was just signed into law earlier this week in Minnesota. While Connecticut already has adopted some of these items, others may be on the horizon, such as lowering the employee threshhold for family leave to 20 or more employees. After all, if one state has passed it, propoants can argue that Connecticut’s passage won’t put us as a competitive disadvantage when compared with similar states.
In any event, my thanks to Courtney for her insights here.
On May 11, 2014, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed landmark legislation – a group of bills that became known as the Women’s Economic Security Act (“WESA”). WESA will most directly affect employers with operations and employees in Minnesota. But employers in Connecticut and elsewhere should take note: this legislation – or its components – may well serve as a model in other states.
Here are the most significant changes:
• Creates new protected class for familial status: WESA expands the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) by adding familial status as a new protected class. Employers will likely face new state charges and lawsuits alleging discrimination on the basis of this status, and victorious plaintiffs may seek not only damages, but also their attorneys’ fees. This expansion makes Minnesota unusual, as federal law and most states’ laws do not include familial status as a protected class. This change became effective the day after Governor Dayton signed the bill.
• Expands pregnancy and parenting leave: Covered employers (with over 20 employees) must provide up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to eligible employees for: 1) the birth or adoption of a child; or 2) prenatal care, or incapacity due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related health conditions (for female employees). Employees may take the first type of leave within twelve months of the birth/after the child leaves the hospital. These changes will be effective July 1, 2014, and will affect numerous employers who are not covered by the federal FMLA. Employers will be allowed to require employees to use their sick leave during parental leave, and the leave will also run concurrently with any FMLA leave.
Let’s play the “law school hypothetical” game for a minute. (I know, not as exciting as a cat being chosen in Monopoly, but bear with me.)
- An gay, male employee starts works as a teacher in an “New Beginnings Alternative” program at a public school.
- During his employment, he is subject to derogatory statements by a fellow teacher, a school police officer and a supervisor.
- Allegedly a supervisor tells a social worker that the employee is “too flaming” or “too flamboyant”. Also, a fellow teacher is alleged to have said to the employee at a department meeting that “You are so overdramatic, you are being a bitch just like a woman.”
- The employee is criticized for not being a “team player” and that his “apparent proneness towards using sarcasm and humor (that is often not understood by others) must change.”
- The employee believes that the supervisor’s comments regarding how he and others cannot understand the employee’s sense of humor “stems from their divergent social views and pervasive stereotypes on gender and sexuality.”
- Ultimately, the employee is informed that his contract may not be renewed which does, in fact, lead to a non-renewal of the contract.
Assuming, as you must for the moment, that the allegations are all true, does the employee have any claims? If so, what are they?
Although WTIC-TV typically does not comment on personnel matters, in this case, because of the personal nature of Ms. Sindland’s attacks on the station and