The Rocky Mountain Employer

Blog

Labor and Employment Law Updates

Posts tagged Title VII
Supreme Court Holds Employers May be Required to Litigate Non-Exhausted Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal courts have the power to review discrimination and retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) even if the plaintiff did not first file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or an equivalent state agency.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Supreme Court to Consider Whether Federal Anti-Discrimination Law Protects Gay and Transgender Employees

The Supreme Court has decided to consider one of country’s biggest workplace law issues—whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Employers Given Space to Make Appropriate Business Judgments

A federal appeals court has held that a plaintiff claiming intentional workplace discrimination must prove her employer treated her worse than co-workers outside her protected class who were similar to her “in all material respects.”

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Lactation-Based Bias is Both Sex Discrimination and Harassment

A restaurant franchisee must pay $1.5 million to a female employee for denying her a private place to express breast milk, under a recent Delaware jury award.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Employers May Be Held Liable for Workplace Sex Gossip

A federal appeals court has held that false rumors about a female employee sleeping with her male boss for a promotion can subject an employer to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Unauthorized Copying of Co-Worker Personnel Files to Support Discrimination Claim Is Not Protected Conduct

An employer did not violate federal law by firing an employee for copying confidential coworker personnel files in an effort to support her discrimination claim, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. The court in Netter v. Barnes rejected the plaintiff’s argument that stealing confidential personnel files for the purpose of proving a discrimination claim is protected conduct under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Employees May Bring Title VII Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Based on Religion Only When They Have Suffered an Adverse Employment Action

Plaintiffs bringing failure-to-accommodate claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) based on religion must prove they suffered an adverse employment action such as a termination, demotion, or decrease in pay, under a recent federal district court case in Colorado.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Employers in Colorado and Other Western States Must Litigate Untimely Discrimination Claims Under Recent Decision

Under a recent appellate decision, employers in Colorado and several other Western states must litigate clearly untimely discrimination lawsuits, which in the past were summarily dismissed by federal courts for lack of jurisdiction.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
During Flu Season, Immunize Your Company Against the Legal Risks of Vaccination Policies

As flu season approaches, employers often ask: can we require our employees to get a flu shot? The answer? Sometimes. Although some employers, particularly in the healthcare field, require employees to get immunized, employers should beware of legal risks created by the policies mandating vaccinations for employees.  If an employer mandates vaccination, an employee may have a right to an exemption from the policy based on the employee’s medical history or religious beliefs. 

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Always Check Whether a Plaintiff’s Claim is Timely: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Case Filed Six Days Late

Under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and most state anti-discrimination statutes, employees may file a lawsuit no later than 90 days after receiving notice from the administrative agency that the investigation has concluded (a “Notice of Right to Sue”). Courts strictly enforce the 90-day limitations periods, which in Title VII, ADA, and ADEA cases are “condition precedent to suit,” and, in the case of many state anti-discrimination acts, are jurisdictional, meaning a plaintiff’s failure to file within 90 days will strip the court of jurisdiction to hear a claim.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Employee’s Claim of Sex Discrimination Based on Her Son’s Gender Dysphoria

This week, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee could not bring a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) based on alleged harm to her son. In Tovear v. Essentia Health, the plaintiff employee and her son, who was diagnosed with gender dysphoriawere was enrolled in her employer’s health insurance plan. The employer’s insurance plan categorically excluded coverage for gender reassignment services and surgeries, and accordingly denied the plaintiff’s requests that her son get coverage for medications and gender reassignment surgery. The plaintiff claimed that her employer engaged in unlawful sex discrimination by refusing to cover the requested treatment.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF
INCLUSION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AS A TITLE VII PROTECTION RIPE FOR SUPREME COURT REVIEW

On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) ruled that sexual orientation is a protected status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). With this significant ruling, the Seventh Circuit has created a split among U.S. Circuit Courts, making the issue ripe for a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.

Read More
Print Friendly and PDF