Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.