Category Archives: Discrimination

February 12, 2024

Beyond the Scales: Addressing Weight Bias in the Workplace

Leslie Perkins

by Leslie Perkins

When you think of protections against discrimination in the workplace, the first things that come to mind are traditional characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. However, in the coming years we could see discrimination based on weight added to that list.

Current Measures Against Body Discrimination

Currently, there is no federal law protecting employees from discrimination based on weight. However, one state (and a handful of cities) have implemented statutes that ban discrimination based on weight to ensure that people of all sizes and heights are given equal access to employment and, in some instances, housing. Read more >>

September 28, 2023

Worship in the Workplace and Reasonable Accommodations

Mark Wiletsky

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office?

Answer: The short answer is: Maybe.  Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.  For decades, courts held that employers could deny such requests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if the accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost or burden.  In June 2023, however, the U.S. Supreme Court “clarified” that standard.  In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court held that employers can deny requests for religious accommodation only if the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer’s] particular business.”  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided similar guidance, stating that employers should not try to suppress all religious expression in the workplace. Read more >>

September 8, 2023

EEOC Proposed Regulations to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Laurie Rogers

by Laurie Rogers

Pregnant workers have certain protections under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but gaps remain. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to close the gaps and better protect pregnant employees. To implement the Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations that significantly increase employers’ obligations to reasonably accommodate their pregnant employees.

Expanded protections

On August 11, 2023, the EEOC proposed rules to implement the PWFA, a law that took effect on June 27, 2023. Before the PWFA, the PDA (which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the ADA provided pregnant and postpartum applicants and employees with certain limited protections.

Under the PDA, pregnant workers can show a violation only if they can identify similarly situated employees who received an accommodation or if there is direct evidence of disparate treatment. Under the ADA, pregnant employees have a right to an accommodation only if they can demonstrate they have a pregnancy-related disability, which doesn’t include the pregnancy itself. Read more >>

April 7, 2023

How to Support an Employee Going Through a Gender Transition

Laurie Rogers

by Laurie Rogers

As transgender employees become more comfortable living openly as their authentic selves in the workplace, employers should be prepared to work with transitioning employees. Consider putting a plan in place that fosters an inclusive work environment and guards against discrimination based on gender identity and expression. This plan should include communicating with transitioning employees, educating your workforce, and creating clear policies addressing the rights and needs of transgender and gender nonconforming employees.

Communication

You should create an accepting work environment that invites employees to speak openly with HR or management. Inviting open communication directly with company leadership allows you to address concerns before they escalate.

When a transitioning employee comes to you, work with them on their anticipated transition timeline, including whether and how they want their coworkers to learn about the transition. Encourage self-identification of pronouns and acknowledge and allow name and/or pronoun changes within your HR systems, regardless of whether the employee has legally changed their name. Assure the transitioning employee that they may dress in a manner that corresponds with their gender expression or identity, and they are permitted to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. Read more >>

May 10, 2022

Can Offer Be Pulled If Job Candidate Won’t Follow Our Vax-or-Test Policy?

David Law

by David S. Law, Holland & Hart, LLP

Question: Our COVID-19 policy calls for vaccination or testing and masking “at all times.” We made a verbal offer to a candidate for a position requiring travel to trade shows, but when she learned about our vaccine-or-test mandate, she objected to sharing her vaccination status. How can we cleanly rescind the offer (which wasn’t in writing) and avoid any issues?

Answer: This is a great question. Before rescinding the offer, you should ask the candidate why she opposes the vaccine-or-test requirement. If her reason for objecting is political or ideological, you can likely rescind the offer with little risk of legal exposure. If, on the other hand, she cites a religious or medical reason, you may be required to work with her to find a reasonable accommodation. Read more >>

December 15, 2020

Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act effective January 2021

by Steven Gutierrez

Steven Gutierrez

Among the most significant employment-related bills passed by the Colorado General Assembly during its 2019 legislative session was Colorado’s new Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA). The Act, which will go into effect January 1, 2021, for all public and private employers in Colorado, imposes equal pay obligations extending beyond those of the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA). The EPEWA is intended to “ensure that employees with similar job duties are paid the same wage rate regardless of sex” and reflects the Colorado General Assembly’s response to findings that the wage gap between men and women has long persisted even after the federal EPA attempted to eliminate it nearly 60 years ago.

Why was the EPEWA enacted?
Many employee organizations have long contended that despite passage of the federal EPA in 1963—which was intended to remedy pay disparities based on sex a year before the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964—unlawful pay disparities have nonetheless persisted. Many have attributed the persistence to the federal EPA’s catch-all provision permitting wage disparities based on any “factors other than sex,” which advocates contend is too vague and permits wage disparities for too many reasons. Read more >>

December 11, 2020

May Employers Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines?

By Steve Gutierrez

Steven Gutierrez

Given pending anticipated FDA approval of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and encouraging vaccine results from Moderna and AstraZeneca, many employers are wondering whether they may legally mandate vaccinations for their employees. The answer is likely yes, subject to important qualifications. Mandatory vaccines have been commonplace in the healthcare industry for years, and the EEOC has issued past guidance suggesting that employers may mandate vaccines assuming they provide exemptions for employees who cannot take the vaccines for medical or religious reasons. OSHA has issued similar guidance.

While employers may likely mandate vaccinations for their employees, doing so raises a host of legal and practical considerations that employers must consider before any such programs are implemented. These include:

  • The need to accommodate employees who, because of a medical condition, cannot take the vaccine;
  • The need to accommodate employees who, because of a sincerely held religious belief, cannot take the vaccine;
  • Potential liability concerns under workers’ compensation and other laws if employees take the vaccine and develop an adverse reaction;
  • Potential labor law and related protections for employees who may oppose taking a vaccine based on perceptions that it is unsafe; and
  • Practical concerns like developing—and evenly enforcing—policies that discipline employees who do not take vaccines.

Read more >>

June 13, 2019

What’s Up In New Mexico Workplace Law

Little V. West

By Little v. West

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed bills into law from the 2019 legislative session that will impact private employers in New Mexico. Below is a summary of several bills that change the law applicable to private employers. Employers should consult with legal counsel and consider reviewing and updating employment policies, procedures and handbooks.

‘Right to work’

House Bill 85 rejects “right to work” as a matter of statewide policy and instead establishes that an employer or union in New Mexico can require membership in a union as a condition of employment. HB 85 also prohibits local governments in New Mexico from enacting “right to work” ordinances, invalidating the “right to work” ordinances several counties enacted.

Read more >>

November 20, 2018

Sexual Harassment Cases Provide Concrete Reason to Change Corporate Culture

Sexual harassment can affect your workplace in many significant ways—for example, by lowering morale, increasing absenteeism and turnover, and decreasing productivity. But those consequences are often difficult to measure and quantify, making it harder to show how they affect your company’s bottom line. Real dollars and cents in the form of jury awards and settlements with employees who have sued their employers for fostering a hostile work environment are more easily understandable and can be persuasive when you need to justify expenditures designed to reduce harassment in your workplace.

A survey of sexual harassment awards and settlements in cases involving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in federal courts within the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah) offers insight into how much money can be at stake in sexual harassment lawsuits. In addition to the monetary penalties noted in the chart at the bottom of this article, settlement terms often include numerous nonfinancial requirements, such as providing harassment training to supervisors and employees, updating policies and practices, apologizing in writing to the victimized employee, posting notices in the workplace about employees’ right to be free from harassment, and continued EEOC monitoring of your company’s practices.

And keep in mind that in addition to any financial award or settlement, you will incur the costs associated with defending sexual harassment claims. Not only do the attorneys’ fees add up, but supervisors, HR personnel, and others must take time away from their regular tasks to participate in investigations, depositions, and trial preparation. In short, the ramifications of sexual harassment in the workplace are significant, not only in financial terms but also in terms of distractions to your business operations and lost productivity.

Update your approach to sexual harassment

In its newly released statistics for fiscal year 2018, the EEOC reported a 13.6 percent increase in sexual harassment charges over the previous year and a 50 percent increase in lawsuits that include allegations of sexual harassment. In addition, the EEOC noted that its sexual harassment webpage has seen double the number of visits since the #MeToo movement gained momentum one year ago. As employees become more willing to come forward with harassment complaints and public scrutiny continues to damage companies’ reputations, it’s more important than ever to revisit and update your approach to handling and eliminating sexual harassment in your workplace.

On October 31, the EEOC held a public meeting titled “Revamping Workplace Culture to Prevent Harassment” at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Stakeholders who spoke at the meeting stressed the need for leadership and accountability throughout the organization when workplace harassment is being addressed. According to EEOC Acting Chair Victoria A. Lipnic, “Over the past year, we have seen far too many examples of significant gaps in both areas. Our witnesses [at this meeting] stressed how both leadership and accountability must also be driven throughout an organization from the line employees, to the supervisors, to the CEO, and to the Board.”

Change your culture

So how does an organization change its culture? It has to come from the top. Company leaders and executives must set the tone by assuring employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. No one must be exempt from that zero-tolerance approach, no matter how important the individual is to the organization.

Complaints must be taken seriously, and employees who come forward should be treated with respect. If you find that harassment occurred, you must mete out significant consequences for the perpetrator and provide appropriate remedies for the aggrieved employee. Allegations must not be swept under the rug, and the perpetrator shouldn’t be permitted to hide behind a confidential settlement and continue working at the organization, creating the possibility that he or she may harass others in the future.

Changing your culture also requires executives, managers, and supervisors lead by example. Their actions and behavior must be irreproachable, never crossing the line into potential gray areas of sexual harassment. Yes, that means that folks in positions of power may need to rethink their jokes and refrain from certain types of banter. But never crossing the line will show the rest of the workforce that inappropriate behavior is unacceptable.

Encourage bystander intervention and reporting

Victims of sexual harassment often feel ashamed or traumatized, leaving them unable or unwilling to report what happened to them. One way to ensure that workplace incidents get reported is to make it every employee’s responsibility to report what they see and hear at the workplace. Tell employees that they are expected to come forward with any inappropriate conduct they witness or become aware of. Include that expectation in your harassment policy, and make sure you have reporting mechanisms to handle reports from bystanders and witnesses.

Another method of involving employees who witness unlawful harassment is to teach bystander intervention techniques. For example, if an employee sees a coworker being inappropriately touched, she may intervene by getting the coworker out of the area and away from the situation. Inventing a meeting the victim must attend or a phone call she needs to take can be a way to defuse the situation. Bystanders need not (and should not) put themselves in harm’s way when they intervene, but the presence of an additional person is often all that’s needed to break up a harmful scenario.

Make harassment training personal and relevant

Many organizations offer their employees harassment training on a regular basis, often annually. But as time passes, the training may become dull, or it may only be offered online, which means employees might multitask during the training or tune it out altogether.

In-person training can go a long way toward getting employees to take workplace harassment seriously. When employees are allowed to interact with the trainer and each other, the concepts often sink in better, and clarifications that may not be possible with online training can be made. Training should involve harassment scenarios that help employees understand the type of conduct that’s unacceptable. It also should cover your policies, reporting mechanisms, and the consequences for violations.

Consider bringing in outside trainers to keep the content fresh. And remember to include leaders in your training to show that they take the issue seriously, helping to reinforce your antiharassment culture.

Make an anonymous hotline available

Consider setting up an 800 number or using a hotline service that allows employees to report potential harassment or workplace misconduct 24/7. The hotline need not be staffed as long as it permits employees to leave a message. Hotlines can be an additional reporting mechanism that feels less threatening or embarrassing to victims.

Why offer so many reporting avenues, including anonymous reporting? Because you can do something about workplace harassment only if you know it’s occurring. Reports of allegedly inappropriate behavior should trigger a prompt and thorough investigation. If you discover that inappropriate conduct occurred, take steps to stop it from happening again, including terminating the person responsible. You cannot have a zero-tolerance policy if you let harassment continue or allow employees to “get away with it.”

Avoiding liability for harassment is worth changing your practices

With sexual harassment settlements topping six and even seven figures, it’s definitely worth your while to update your approach to handling and preventing workplace harassment. Companies that continue to do what they’ve always done, refusing to change in the #MeToo environment, will find themselves in court—or, perhaps worse, in the news. But updating your approach and changing your culture to show employees that your organization won’t tolerate sexual harassment will keep you from having to write those big settlement checks.

Plaintiff and description of defendant Claims and statutes at issue Damages, settlement amount, or other relief
EEOC v. hospitality company (District of Colorado, 2016) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

Settlement.  $1,020,000
     
EEOC v. packing company (District of Colorado 2015) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

Settlement.  $450,000
EEOC v. retail meat company (District of Colorado 2015) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

Settlement$370,000 split between 21 women

 

EEOC v. bakery (District of New Mexico 2013) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Gender discrimination

Settlement.  $220,000 split between 19 women
EEOC v. restaurant group (District of New Mexico 2012) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

Settlement.  $1,000,000
EEOC v. automotive group (District of Colorado 2012) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

Settlement.  $50,000

 

EEOC v. pest control company (District of Utah 2011)

 

Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

Settlement.  $160,000 split between class of female employees
EEOC v. corrections company (District of Colorado 2009) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

Settlement.  $1,300,000 to plaintiff, plus $140,000 in attorney’s fees and costs
EEOC v. auto dealership (District of Colorado 2007) Claims:

• Sexual harassment (hostile work environment)

• Retaliation

• Gender discrimination

Settlement.  $12,500 split between four female employees

November 1, 2018

Updates on Harassment Charges, Overtime Rule, and Drug Testing

Cecilia Romero

By Cecilia Romero

EEOC’s Preliminary Sexual Harassment Data Shows Huge Increase

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released preliminary data earlier this month for fiscal year (FY) 2018. Its data shows:

  • The EEOC filed 66 harassment lawsuits, including 41 that included allegations of sexual harassment, reflecting more than a 50 percent increase in suits challenging sexual harassment over FY 2017.
  • Charges filed with the EEOC alleging sexual harassment increased by more than 12 percent from FY 2017.
  • The EEOC recovered nearly $70 million for the victims of sexual harassment through litigation and administrative enforcement in FY 2018, up from $47.5 million in FY 2017.

Perhaps this data is a reflection of the “#MeToo” movement with alleged victims more willing to come forward. But it also shows the EEOC’s focus on preventing and remedying workplace harassment, as the agency continues to actively enforce federal anti-discrimination laws while also educating employees, employers, and the public on unlawful harassment.

DOL Delays Revised Overtime Rule Until Spring

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Wage and Hour Division is working on revising the regulations that implement the exemption of bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. Most of you will recall the tortured history of the previously updated salary threshold that was promulgated under the Obama Administration and would have raised the salary level for the exemption to an annualized salary of $47,476. That final rule was never implemented, due to a nationwide court injunction so the salary level remains at $23,660 per year ($455 per week). Now, the DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will propose an updated salary level for the exemption and seek the public’s view on the salary level and related issues has been delayed until March of 2019. Reports suggest that the proposed salary level will be in the low $30,000 range annually, or close to $600 per week. We’ll have to wait and see what is proposed in the Spring – we’ll keep you posted.

OSHA Clarifies Post-Incident Drug Testing Position

On October 11, 2018, the DOL released an interpretation memorandum from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that is meant to clarify OSHA’s position on post-incident drug testing and safety incentive programs in the workplace. Applicable regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) states, “you must not discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness.” Previously, OSHA had indicated that post-incident drug-testing requirements could be considered retaliatory for employees who report or are involved in workplace safety incidents, or could otherwise chill an employee’s willingness to report a safety issue or workplace injury.

In its new interpretation, OSHA clarifies that it “…believes that many employers who implement safety incentive programs and/or conduct post-incident drug testing do so to promote workplace safety and health. In addition, evidence that the employer consistently enforces legitimate work rules (whether or not an injury or illness is reported) would demonstrate that the employer is serious about creating a culture of safety, not just the appearance of reducing rates. Action taken under a safety incentive program or post-incident drug testing policy would only violate 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) if the employer took the action to penalize an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness rather than for the legitimate purpose of promoting workplace safety and health.”