Tag Archive for: title vii

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.

 

What Does “Protected Status” Mean in Discrimination Law?

/in ,

Have you suffered discrimination at your workplace? Are you wondering if there is anything you can do about it? How can you protect yourself? What laws are set in place to protect employees like you?

Unfortunately, these are all questions that some employees may encounter during their employment. This may involve confusing legal terminology, laws and policies that can be difficult to understand, especially for someone who may be experiencing discrimination at the time. The good news is that there are laws set in place to protect employees from being discriminated against by an employer.

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect workers from discrimination. The laws refer to protected classes. It is illegal to discriminate against an employee because of their membership in a protected class. When it comes to employment discrimination, protected classes refer to a person’s race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, public assistance, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, and local human rights commission activity.

This means that employers cannot discriminate against employees, or treat them differently, based on any of these protected classes. Now, discrimination can look different for everyone, and it can involve various types of negative treatment against someone, so it is important to speak to an attorney that specializes in these types of cases. The law in this area is complicated and changes frequently.

If you feel you have experienced discrimination or retaliation at work because you belong to a protected class, our attorneys at Kitzer Rochel are here to help. Please contact us today. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower issues in the workplace.

SCOTUS Grants Writ of Certiorari for Three LGBT Employment Discrimination Cases

/in

On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari in three LGBT employment cases. Each of the three cases addresses whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers protection against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Plaintiff, Gerald Lynn Bostock, claims his sexual orientation as a gay man was the reason for his termination from Clayton County as a Child Welfare Services Coordinator. The District Court ruled that he had no viable claim because Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Eleventh Circuit established the precedent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not a form of sex discrimination protected by Title VII.

In contrast, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII, because the Supreme Court has ruled previously that gender stereotyping violates the statute. The Second Circuit held discrimination based on sexual orientation was an “actionable subset of sex discrimination” because you cannot address sexual orientation without consideration of the individual’s gender and the related stereotypes.

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, et al., the Sixth Circuit also held that Title VII protects employees who are transgender. Employee Aimee Stephens was terminated when she informed her coworkers that “she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female and intended to dress in appropriate business attire to work as a woman.” Two weeks later she was terminated because the funeral home owner thought he would be “violating God’s commands” by allowing Stephens to dress in women’s clothing. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on Stephens’ behalf, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for the EEOC and Stephens.

EEOC Reaches Significant Settlement in Prayer Accommodation Case

/in ,

On August 6, 2017, the EEOC reached a significant settlement in a case against Electrolux. The case involved claims by a group of Muslim employees who were denied religious accommodations.

The employees had asked the company to allow them to break their fast shortly after sunset in accordance with the observation of Ramadan, the Islamic holiday that involves fasting from dawn to sunset every day for approximately one month annually. Electrolux changed its break time policies and interfered with the employees’ religious practices.

The claims were brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommodations to employees if it does not cause any undue hardship to the employer. Minnesota law provides similar protections as well.

The settlement is a significant victory for all parties. It allows the Muslim employees to practice their sincere religious beliefs, while not causing an undue burden on the employer. Terms of the settlement include:

  • Electrolux will adjust break time schedule during the entire month of Ramadan to allow Muslim employees to pray and break their Ramadan fasts shortly after sunset in a safe environment, away from the production area.
  • Electrolux will also provide training to its employees at the St. Cloud facility on the requirements related to religious accommodation under federal law.
  • The company also agreed to report to the EEOC all future requests it receives for religious accommodations and how the requests were addressed by the company.

Ramadan began on August 9, shortly after the parties’ settlement in this case.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel handles all types of employment law claims, including religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. Our firm has represented Muslim employees on a group basis for failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations.

If you have questions about your right to religious accommodations, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.