Today marks Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year and one of the holiest days of the Jewish year.
But it’s a day of business to many.
What should employers be doing for employees, though, that are celebrating the day?
There are actually a few different ways to answer the question.
The first answer, looking just
Over the last week or so, there have been two prominent Circuit Court decisions addressing whether Title VII (the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin) can be interpreted to also protect employees from being discriminated against because of
Mary Richards’ job interview with Lou Grant is, perhaps one of the most famous job interviews ever. So says Time magazine.
Before I go on, though, there are probably more than a few of you who don’t know what I’m talking about.
But with the passing of Mary Tyler Moore earlier today here in Connecticut
I still remain amazed at the sold-out crowd we had at last week’s Labor & Employment Law seminar. Well over 250 people registered for the program and I kind of wanted to whisper to people: “You know this is just a LEGAL seminar, right?”
But no matter. Employment law issues are as popular as ever
Last fall, I raised the issue of bathroom access for employees that corresponds with their gender identity.
The issue, however, that seems to get the most press is restroom access.
Indeed, we’re now getting federal guidance on how to deal with the issue of restroom access. That remains one of the bigger issues (a proposition
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
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EEOC has a duty to conciliate that has go a bit beyond words before filing suit as a party. In the case, EEOC v. Mach Mining (download here), the employer argued that the EEOC cannot just say that it has tried to resolve the matter through conciliation;
When the U.S. Supreme Court changed the standard for proving retaliation cases back in 2013, there was some speculation as to whether the standard would result in different decisions.
Before the court’s decision, employees who claimed they were retaliated against, needed to show only that the retaliatory motive was a “substantial or motivating fact” affecting
My colleague, Jarad Lucan, returns today with a primer on what it takes to establish a “prima facie” case of discrimination — the bare minimum to get the case to be considered by a court. Today, we focus on the third element — the “adverse employment action”. What is that, you ask? Read on.
If
It’s always a little tricky to determine exactly how lower courts will apply a rule of law that develops from a U.S. Supreme Court.
Take the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, decided in June, which held that a “but for” standard (i.e., that an employer would not have taken