Tag Archive for: gender discrimination

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Major Victory in Sex Discrimination Case, Lowering the Standard for Proving Discrimination

/in , ,

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling clarifying that any discriminatory treatment of an employee violates Title VII. The Court ruled in favor of an employee, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, in her sex discrimination case against the City of St. Louis. Muldrow, who worked as a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, was transferred to a uniformed job in the Fifth District against her wishes. She alleged that the transfer was due to her being a woman and that it negatively impacted her employment terms and conditions.

The lower courts had rejected Muldrow’s claim, stating that she needed to show that the transfer caused a “significant” employment disadvantage. However, the Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating that Title VII’s text does not establish such a high bar for proving harm in a discrimination case.

Justice Kagan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, emphasized that while an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer (or other type of employment action) to prevail in a Title VII suit, they need not show that the injury satisfies any sort of significance test. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

This decision is a major victory for employees who face discrimination in the workplace, as it clarifies that they do not need to meet an elevated threshold of harm to pursue a Title VII claim. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of protecting workers from discriminatory practices that adversely affect their employment terms and conditions, regardless of the perceived significance of the harm caused.

If you have questions about the Muldrow decision, gender discrimination, or employment law generally, please contact us today.

 

Fourth Circuit Grants Gender Dysphoria Disability Protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

/in , ,

On August 16, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (covering Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) has become the first federal appellate court to find that gender dysphoria is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[1] The decision came after a transgender woman sued Fairfax County for housing her with men during her time in jail.

The court explained that “being transgender is not a disability,” but “many transgender people experience gender dysphoria.” Distinct from now-obsolete “gender identity disorders”[2] that the ADA excludes, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines gender dysphoria as “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity.” As the court explained, gender dysphoria “concerns itself primarily with distress and other disabling symptoms, rather than simply being transgender.” Excluding gender dysphoria from ADA protection, the court ruled, “would discriminate against transgender people as a class,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ADA requires employers, schools, and other businesses or organizations open to the public to provide reasonable accommodations to support people with disabilities. In the employment context, this decision allows employees experiencing gender dysphoria to request workplace accommodation from their employers. Additionally, those discriminated against for gender dysphoria may bring a claim under the ADA.

This ruling follows an increase in federal district courts’ endorsement of gender dysphoria as a protected disability under federal anti-discrimination law. Even so, the law is constantly evolving in this area, and you should contact an attorney to see how this ruling—or the ADA in general—applies to you. Our experienced employment law attorneys are happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options in light of this new ruling.

NOTES:

[1] Williams v. Kincaid, No. 21-2030, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 22728 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022).

[2] The APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders nearly a decade ago.

Equal Pay Laws Necessary Tool In Fight Against Gender Pay Gap

/in

The “me too” and “time’s up” movements focus primarily on sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace. But the movements have also raised awareness of a problem that has persisted throughout U.S. history: gender pay disparity.

The gender pay gap is the gap between what men and women are paid. It refers to the average annual pay of all women compared to the pay men, when variables are taken into account (like equal jobs, amount of time worked, etc). Currently, the gender pay gap across the U.S. is 80%. That means that for every hour worked, a woman will be paid 80% of what a man is paid for the same work. In Minnesota, the pay gap is 82%.

This pay gap violates the law, yet it persists. By highlighting these laws and aggressively enforcing them in the courts, proponents of fair pay and women’s continue to work toward eliminating sex discrimination in employment.

The federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) requires that employers pay the same amount of compensation to every worker, regardless of gender or sex. That is, women and men should be paid the same amount for the work that they perform.

The EPA was signed into law in 1963 by President John F. Kennedy. In passing the EPA, Congress stated its intent to eliminate sex discrimination because the gender pay gap:

  • depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
  • prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
  • tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
  • burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
  • constitutes an unfair method of competition.

Minnesota has a similar law with similar protections. Under Minnesota’s “Equal Pay for Equal Work Law,” employers cannot pay workers of one sex less than employees of another sex. Minn. Stat. § 181.67. Similar to the EPA, the Equal Pay for Equal Work Law prohibits differential pay when employees of different genders are performing work that requires equal amounts of skill, effort, and responsibility, and done under similar working conditions.

Most employees across the country are protected by the EPA, though there are important exceptions. In Minnesota, most employees are also protected by the Equal Pay for Equal Work Law.

If you have questions about pay disparity or discrimination, contact the experienced employment lawyers at Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel today to discuss further.

 

Gretchen Carlson Leads Fight against Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration at Work

/in

carlson

Gretchen Carlson, Minnesota native and former Fox News star, is featured in an article by Time Magazine on her fight against sexual harassment at work. Carlson was sexually harassed by her boss, Roger Ailes, then Chairman of Fox News. Since taking her legal claims public, she has been a role model for victims of sexual harassment across the U.S. Carlson is quoted in the article, saying “I think this is happening every single day to women in all walks of life and in all different types of corporations. I’ve heard from so many women, from Wall Street to a tiny little town in Alabama. It’s everywhere.”

Carlson’s story helps shed light on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in employment settings around the country. Sex discrimination, and sexual harassment, remain very real problems in Minnesota and in nearly every city and state in America.

Carlson is also speaking out against forced arbitration in employment agreements and employee handbooks. She has agreed to testify to congress about the problems of forced arbitration. Says Carlson, “It is a huge problem. Because it’s secret. And it plays into why we think that we’ve come so far in society and we probably really haven’t—because we don’t hear about it.”

Minnesota Senator Al Franken is a co-sponsor of a proposed law to ban forced arbitration, a bill that Carlson supports (Senator Patrick Leahy is also co-sponsor). Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel has been at the forefront of the fight against forced arbitration. Founding partner Vildan Teske has testified to the U.S. Senate against forced arbitration, has worked with Senator Franken on this important issue, and has been quoted in the media on forced arbitration for consumers.

If you have questions about sexual harassment, have been harassed at work, or would like to learn more about the fight against forced arbitration, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.