Discrimination

Subscribe to Discrimination

On September 27, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1137 into law, clarifying that discrimination can happen based on an intersection or combination of protected characteristics. Specifically, SB 1137 amended the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Education Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to extend protection against discrimination by including the concept of “intersectionality”.

Back in February 2024, California State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas introduced SB 1137, which aimed to make California the first state to explicitly recognize “intersectionality” in anti-discrimination laws. Smallwood-Cuevas notes in her April 15, 2024, press release that “[d]iscrimination transcends singular dimensions”, and that SB 1137 “is common-sense reform that addresses the intersectionality of discrimination cases, providing greater protections for Californians, especially those from our most marginalized communities of color.”Continue Reading California adopts intersectionality into anti-discrimination laws

Since Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in 2016, employers navigated the murky waters of drug testing applicants and employees who hold medical marijuana cards amid a lack of clarity in the law regarding these issues.

On September 24, 2024, a new law went into effect in the City of Pittsburgh that provides a guiding beacon for employers in this area. The law protects individuals holding medical marijuana cards from employment discrimination in the workplace based on their cannabis use for medically approved purposes. In other words, the law makes medical marijuana cardholders a protected class under local law.Continue Reading Rolling out new rights: Pittsburgh’s bold move on medical marijuana in the workplace

In July of this year, a Texas federal district court judge denied the state of Texas’ request to vacate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent guidance relating to gender identity discrimination. In doing so, the federal court held that the state could not bring the challenge in a previously filed lawsuit regarding prior EEOC guidance but, instead, must file a new lawsuit.

The state of Texas first took issue with the EEOC’s 2021 guidance, which required bathroom, dress code, and pronoun accommodations for employees based on gender identity. Texas filed suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requesting the court vacate the 2021 guidance (2021 Lawsuit). On October 1, 2022, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and issued a declaratory judgment that the guidance was unlawful on several grounds, holding that it: (1) was contrary to law because Title VII, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, does not require employers to provide accommodations regarding bathrooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage based on gender identity; and (2) unlawfully extended Bostock’s “non-discrimination holding” beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress. The EEOC did not appeal the district court’s judgment.Continue Reading Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems rapidly spreads throughout society, legislators across the U.S. are hustling to try and ensure that these systems are created and implemented in a safe and fair manner everywhere they are being used. The workplace is one such area that is starting to gain interest in this regard.

Legislators have begun considering, and in a few cases even passed, bills aimed at preventing so-called “algorithmic discrimination” in the workplace. This refers to biased outcomes that can happen when employers use AI systems, or “automated decision tools” (ADTs), as a substantial factor in making consequential decisions such as whether to hire, promote, or discipline. According to the White House, “Algorithmic discrimination occurs when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.”

We will summarize the status, applicability, and provisions of various U.S. state- and local-level bills proposing to regulate algorithmic discrimination that are actively pending or passed as of the date of this article’s publication below.Continue Reading Employers beware: AI-based workplace discrimination laws are coming to the U.S.

On Monday, June 3, 2024, Attorney General Platkin and Director Sundeep Iyer of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) proposed a new rule (N.J.A.C. 13:16) that would clarify the legal standard and the burdens of proof for claims of disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). 

The standard does not change the legal framework already applied by the courts in the employment context under the LAD, but this would resolve any question about the viability of a disparate impact claim and/or the framework to be applied.

Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a policy or practice that is neutral on its face has a disproportionately negative effect on members of a protected class. Such a policy is unlawful unless the policy or practice is “necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest” and there is no “equally effective alternative that would achieve the same interest.”Continue Reading Attorney General and DCR proposes rule to clarify disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Savage v. Township of Neptune, places limits on the enforceability of non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements. The court unanimously held that such clauses are unenforceable if they prevent employees from discussing details related to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment, aligning with protections under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

Christine Savage, a former police sergeant, filed a lawsuit in December 2013 against the Neptune Township Police Department, alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which included a non-disparagement clause. In 2016, Savage filed another lawsuit against the same defendants, claiming they continued their discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. This second lawsuit was settled in July 2020, also with a non-disparagement clause in which both parties agreed not to“make any statements … regarding the past behavior of the parties, which statements would tend to disparage or impugn the reputation of any party.”Continue Reading New Jersey Supreme Court limits use of non-disparagement provisions in New Jersey LAD settlements

On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued guidance on how employers should navigate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hiring and employment practices. The DOL emphasized that eliminating humans from the processes entirely could result in violation of federal employment laws. Although the guidance was addressed to federal contractors and is not binding, all private employers stand to benefit from pursuing compliance with the evolving expectations concerning use of AI in employment practices.

The guidance was issued by the DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in compliance with President Biden’s October 30, 2023 Executive Order 14110, which required the DOL to issue guidance for federal contractors on “nondiscrimination in hiring involving AI and other technology-based hiring systems.”

The guidance was issued in two parts: (1) FAQs regarding the use of AI in the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) context, and (2) a list of “Promising Practices” that serve as examples of best practices for mitigating the risks involved with implementing AI in employment practices. In short, the FAQs communicate that established non-discrimination principles apply to the use of AI, and the “Promising Practices” provide specific instruction on how to avoid violations when using AI in employment practices.Continue Reading DOL’s guidance on use of AI in hiring and employment

On Wednesday April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. issued a precedential ruling that will likely pave the way for more employee discrimination claims under Title VII. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Title VII prohibits discriminatory job transfers even if they do not result in a “materially significant disadvantage” to the employee. The Court clarified that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must establish “some harm” with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, but that such harm “need not be significant.”Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court clarifies standard for job transfer discrimination under Title VII

During the height of the #MeToo movement, New York lawmakers passed a host of workplace-related legislation. This included adoption of Section 5-336 of the New York General Obligations Law, which governs the use of nondisclosure provisions in agreements resolving claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. On November 17, 2023, Empire State legislators passed several key amendments (the “Amendment”) to the existing law, which took effect immediately.

By way of background, Section 5-336 was originally passed to protect nondisclosure provisions in agreements resolving claims of sexual harassment. Under Section 5-336 and prior to the Amendment, the law prohibited employers from including nondisclosure provisions in such agreements unless it was the employee’s preference and the employer complied with certain procedural requirements, including: (i) the inclusion of the provision is the employee-complainant’s preference; (ii) employee’s receipt of 21 days to consider the nondisclosure provision, a period that could not be shortened or waived (even if the employee wanted to); (iii) a 7-day revocation period; and (iv) employee’s preference for confidentiality memorialized in a separate written agreement.Continue Reading Reminder to New York employers: Amendments to nondisclosure rules will require updates to separation and settlement agreements

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that prohibits employers from implementing discriminatory practices in their diversity training programs, effective July 1, 2022. The bill, known as the “Individual Freedom Act,” amends the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. St. 760.01, et seq., to expand the definition of discrimination and subjects employers to liability for violations.

Expanding the definition of “discrimination”

Specifically, the Individual Freedom Act amends Fla. St. § 760.10, to prohibit public employers and private employers with 15 or more employees from requiring any individual – as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination – to participate in training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels the individual to believe any of the following concepts:

  1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
  2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
  4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
  5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
  6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
  7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
  8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

However, these concepts may be included in training or instruction if they are addressed in an objective manner and without endorsement.Continue Reading Florida expands definition of “discrimination” and increases employer liability for discrimination in workplace diversity training