Last week, I had the privilege of speaking at the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law’ Employment Rights and Responsibilities Midwinter Meeting on a topic that has been a recurring theme on this blog for nearly two decades: “Bostock, Executive Orders, and the Evolving Framework for Gender Identity Discrimination.”
Our panel featured an outstanding
Last year, I visited Vancouver and got to go to Granville Island Public Market — one of the great markets in North America.
Sure, I could talk about the wonderful food I got there, but there was something else that felt very unique and downright modern — their restroom.
The bathroom had a sign —
Yesterday, Governor Lamont signed House Bill 6380 (Public Act 21-30), which adds another layer of complexity for employers engaged in hiring and also amends the state’s equal pay laws.
Here’s what employers need to know for the new law that goes into effect October 1, 2021 for wage ranges:
Oh Halloween.
You have a tendency to make employment lawyers busy.
For instance, there was that time when an employee made comments about a co-worker “taking a girlfriend dressed as a 747 to a Halloween party and bringing her in for a landing” when the co-worker was gay and had no girlfriend. Harassment? (Hansen
My unabashed love of the New York Yankees has been well chronicled here on the blog. (Here and here for just a sample.)
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
I confess that when I first heard the story last week that some Capitol Hill lawmakers were refusing to meet alone with female subordinates, I didn’t pay much attention to it. Lawmakers just being lawmakers.
(I was also reminded of the old Billy Joel song, I Don’t Want to Be Alone Anymore,
I don’t care who you are: Somewhere, in a doctor’s waiting room, or a supermarket checkout line, you’ve seen the headlines of Cosmopolitan magazine.
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.
Continue Reading Guest Post: Women’s Economic Security Act May Serve As Model for Other States