In today's edition of the Employment Law Network email magazine, there are a number of articles that discuss the broadening of the anti-discrimination laws in the US due to recent legal decisions. We have all heard the saying it is not who you know, but who knows you when we are talking to those individuals who are looking for new work opportunities. It seems from these recent decisions, that it has now carried over to the employee base as a whole. For example consider the cases below from the Jackson and Lewis Law Firm:
1. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, in a case involving the allegations of a Caucasian assistant basketball coach who had claimed he was discharged because he married an African-American woman. The Court held, “[w]here an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race.”
2. In a Sixth Circuit decision, three Caucasian women sued their employer, alleging they were discriminated against based upon their friendship with, and advocacy for, African-American co-workers. Examples of the allegedly racially discriminatory incidents included: overhearing co-workers using racial slurs and telling racist jokes, being told “missed you ladies at the [Ku Klux] Klan meeting last night”, viewing racial graffiti in various places in the plant, being “snubbed” because of the employee’s association with African-American employees, receiving less desirable work assignments, and not being considered for promotions.
3. the Seventh Circuit overruled the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor the employer, holding that “an employee, fired because her spouse has a disability that is costly to the employer (i.e., he is covered by the company’s health plan) is within the intended scope of the ‘associational discrimination’ section of the ADA.” A jury was allowed to consider the plaintiff’s claim because she had established that direct evidence of “associational discrimination” may have motivated the employer’s decision to fire her.
What does this mean to you? It means that you need to add to your consideration all factors involved in a reduction in force to be sure that you clearly state your case and are not walking that thin line between business necessity and discrimination.
1. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, in a case involving the allegations of a Caucasian assistant basketball coach who had claimed he was discharged because he married an African-American woman. The Court held, “[w]here an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race.”
2. In a Sixth Circuit decision, three Caucasian women sued their employer, alleging they were discriminated against based upon their friendship with, and advocacy for, African-American co-workers. Examples of the allegedly racially discriminatory incidents included: overhearing co-workers using racial slurs and telling racist jokes, being told “missed you ladies at the [Ku Klux] Klan meeting last night”, viewing racial graffiti in various places in the plant, being “snubbed” because of the employee’s association with African-American employees, receiving less desirable work assignments, and not being considered for promotions.
3. the Seventh Circuit overruled the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor the employer, holding that “an employee, fired because her spouse has a disability that is costly to the employer (i.e., he is covered by the company’s health plan) is within the intended scope of the ‘associational discrimination’ section of the ADA.” A jury was allowed to consider the plaintiff’s claim because she had established that direct evidence of “associational discrimination” may have motivated the employer’s decision to fire her.
What does this mean to you? It means that you need to add to your consideration all factors involved in a reduction in force to be sure that you clearly state your case and are not walking that thin line between business necessity and discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment