Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Gendered Dress Codes
While employers always need to keep in mind differing obligations under state and federal anti-discrimination statutes, the potential pitfalls for employers with regard to transgender employees are enormous. Courts have expressly held that Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause does not cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See, e.g., Simonton v. Runyon, 232 F.3d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 2000). However, most courts that have considered the question of transgender ' or gender non-conforming individuals, regardless of how they self-identify ' have held that the gender-stereotyping theory of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), extends Title VII protections to those individuals.
The extension of Title VII protection to transgender or gender non-conforming individuals has been addressed by a number of courts, which employers should note. See, e.g., Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 2011) (accepting a claim bought by a transgender plaintiff who was fired because her supervisor believed that her gender transition would be “inappropriate” and “disruptive” and would make fellow employees “uncomfortable”); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) (accepting a claim by a transgender woman who was told she was not masculine enough and was subjected to psychological testing and suspension); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (accepting a claim under the Equal Protection Clause that a prison guard assaulted a transgender prisoner based on assumptions about gender); Rosa v. Park West Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000) (accepting a claim from a bank patron who was refused service because his gender presentation did not match his identification); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293, 300, 305 (D.D.C. 2008) (accepting a claim brought by a transgender plaintiff whose supervisor recoiled when shown a picture of what the employee would look like after transitioning).
Jurisprudence and Dress Codes
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?