Discrimination & Retaliation

Subscribe to Discrimination & Retaliation via RSS

While the US Supreme Court’s June 27 decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina does not directly apply to private employers, the decision will reverberate and impact corporate ID&E programs as a practical matter.

The Decision Ends Systematic Consideration of Race in the Admissions Process

Striking down the affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC, the Court ruled that both programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In so doing, the Court effectively overturned the 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which it said race could be considered as a factor in the admissions process because universities had a compelling interest in maintaining diverse campuses.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called the programs “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in the entering classes.” Both policies “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our nation’s equality ideal,” he added.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Court’s first Black female justice, said: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”Continue Reading ID&E in the Workplace After the Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Effective June 27, a new federal law strengthens the rights of pregnant workers (and those who are postpartum or have a related medical condition) to reasonable accommodations at work. As discussed here, the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act fills the gap between Title VII (the federal law that outlaws sex discrimination) and the ADA (the federal statute that protects disabled applicants and employees), ensuring that pregnant workers are able to continue in their jobs with reasonable accommodations for physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth, so long as the accommodations do not “impose undue hardship on the operation of the business.”

The PWFA does not displace federal, state or local laws that are more protective of workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. For instance, since the 1980s, California employees who are pregnant, give birth, or have pregnancy-related medical conditions are guaranteed time off from work while disabled, without having to show that the time off would not impose an “undue hardship”  on the employer’s business.Continue Reading New Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Expands Accommodations Options for Millions of Americans

Employers can be liable for sexual harassment under federal law (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) if “sexually explicit” or “aggressive” music is played in the workplace, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in Sharp v S&S Activewear, L.L.C, 9th Cir. (June 2023).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling directly applies to employers in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, given the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s amici brief in support of the plaintiffs’ position and the Court’s reliance on opinions from the Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits that held that sights and sounds that pervade the work environment may constitute sex discrimination, it is likely other circuits may follow suit.Continue Reading When Harmony Becomes Hostile: The Ninth Circuit Notes that Offensive Music in the Workplace Can Constitute Harassment

Just after the fireworks’ finale, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection will begin enforcing its new ordinance regulating the use of automation and artificial intelligence in employment decisions. The DCWP recently issued a Notice of Adoption of Final Rule establishing that enforcement efforts will begin July 5, 2023.

Here are three reasons this matters

  1. The new law requires time-sensitive, significant actions (read: audits, notices and public reporting) from employers using automated employment decisions tools to avoid civil penalties;
  2. Company compliance will require a cross-functional response immediately, so it’s time to get your ducks in a row; and
  3. Since the City’s law is (mostly) first-of-its-kind, it is likely a harbinger of things to come for employers across the country and it could be used as a framework in other cities and states.

The law in a nutshell

Local Law 144 prohibits employers and employment agencies from using an automated employment decision tool unless the tool has been subject to a bias audit within one year of the use of the tool, information about the bias audit is publicly available, and certain notices have been provided to employees or job candidates. Violations of the provisions of the law are subject to a civil penalty.Continue Reading Enforcement of New York City’s Artificial Intelligence Rule Begins July 5, 2023: Here’s What Employers Need to Know

Special thanks to co-presenters Elizabeth Ebersole, Barbara Klementz, Dionna Shear, Amanda Cohen, Benjamin Ho, Jennifer Bernardo, Kaitlin Thompson, Marredia Crawford (Director, ID&E, Americas), Goli Rahimi, Paul Evans, Monica Kurnatowska and Blair Robinson.

Our team is busy advising multinational companies on employment law issues surrounding workplace inclusion, diversity…

This summer the US Supreme Court will rule on the legality of using race as an affirmative action measure in admissions at Harvard and at the University of North Carolina. The legal framework for evaluating affirmative action programs in higher education is definitively different than for inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) programs in the employment context. Notwithstanding this distinction, the decision will signal how courts review workplace ID&E practices and policies, and may encourage legal challenges regarding the same.

The timing of this case coincides with a growing trend of state and local legislation seeking to restrict workplace ID&E efforts, increasing claims of reverse discrimination, continued shareholder action in the ID&E space, including some actions challenging the devotion of resources to ID&E as not in the interest of shareholders, and attacks on laws mandating diversity on corporate boards.

Case Background

In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (a nonprofit group of “students, parents and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional”) sued both Harvard and UNC in federal court alleging that race-conscious admissions programs are unlawful. Both universities won at the trial court level. Now, SFFA has asked the Supreme Court to overrule its prior decisions and hold that the consideration of race as part of a holistic college admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.Continue Reading How the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Affirmative Action Decision May Impact US Employers

Special thanks to co-authors Eunkyung Kim Shin and Alexandre Lamy.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a new fact sheet reminding employers of how to simultaneously comply with export control regulations and avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination provisions contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The new fact sheet aligns with recent…

Special thanks to co-authors, Brad Newman and Julia Wilson.

Amid recent hype around ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI), many are eager to harness the technology’s increasingly sophisticated potential.

However, findings from Baker McKenzie’s 2022 North America AI survey indicate that business leaders may currently underappreciate AI-related risks to their organization. Only 4% of…

California has required all employers to provide lactation breaks (unless they can show that to do so would “seriously disrupt” their operations) since 2020. The federal government caught up late last year with the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act).

PUMP Act — The Basics

Effective December 29, 2022, the PUMP Act expands workplace protections for employees with a need to express breast milk. The Pump Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which required employers to provide lactating non-exempt employees with reasonable break time and a private location to express milk for one year following the birth of a child.

The previous law excluded most salaried employees, and the PUMP Act expands this right to cover all employees whether exempt or non-exempt. Now employers must provide all employees a reasonable break to express milk each time the employee has a need to express milk for one year after the child’s birth.Continue Reading ICYMI: New Federal Obligations for Employers to Provide Breaks for Nursing Mothers and Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Women

Special thanks to co-authors, Stephen Ratcliffe, Monica Kurnatowska and Rob Marsh.

The European Parliament has now formally adopted the Pay Transparency Directive having reached political agreement on its provisions with the Council of the EU at the end of 2022. Its provisions are likely to enter into force in most EU member states…