It is not news that college athletics are big business. March Madness holds the entire country's rapt attention each year, and the revenues it generates for the NCAA are significant. The broadcast rights are worth more than $1 billion annually as of 2016. And, while the NCAA has indicated that 90% of that money goes to the benefit of the athletes, that may not truly be the case. March Madness is over, but many question whether the NCAA promulgates another form of madness, its amateurism rules that forbid compensation of college athletes.
Sterling Jewelers, Inc., the parent company of Jared the Galleria of Jewelry and Kay Jewelers, is facing explosive allegations - and a national class action lawsuit - alleging its "boys club" culture discriminated against women and encouraged sexual harassment. Hundreds of women have joined the lawsuit.
Since 2008, Sterling has been involved in arbitration with a plaintiff class of nearly 69,000 current and former employees over alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act. The women say they faced age discrimination, lower pay, and were denied promotions in favor of less experienced male coworkers. They were not allowed to discuss pay issues, and, if they complained, were often subjected to retaliation.
Those of us in the LGBTQ community will never forget June 26, 2015, the day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Obergefell represented acceptance of the notion that we and our relationships deserve, as Justice Kennedy stated, "equal dignity in the eyes of the law."
On April 4, the Seventh Circuit issued another momentous decision as it became the first U.S. federal court to broaden the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. This landmark ruling means that LGBT workers now have the same rights under Title VII as women, minorities, and other protected groups. The 8-3 decision in Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College represents a significant step forward in the fight for LGBTQ equality in the United States, and offers much broader workplace protections for gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer workers and employees.
Even just a passing glance at news headlines over the last few months reveals a troubling pattern: companies turning a blind eye when men who are important to the bottom line are accused of sexual harassment.
The year started out with a shocking blog post written by former Uber software engineer Susan Fowler who, having just joined the company, was sexually propositioned by her new supervisor the first day on the job. Fowler reported him to HR - with screen caps of the messages he sent her over the company chat system - but nothing was done. Unsurprisingly, the harassment did not stop.
This decision was an instant sensation in the news and social media: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 held to protect employees from discrimination because of sexual orientation (and, presumably, gender identity as well). Digging into the majority and separate opinions, we can trace different possible outcomes when this question inevitably reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.
Despite the more than 50 years that have passed since the enactment of the federal Equal Pay Act, based on the current rate of change it will take until 2152 - another 135 years - for the pay gap between men and women to be eradicated in the United States. It's a sobering fact to consider on this Equal Pay Day 2017, especially in light of the new Gender Pay Gap Reporting legislation that takes effect later this week in the United Kingdom.
This revelation, recently made in an American Association of University Women report, will come as a surprise to many who have hailed the progress made in diminishing gender pay disparity - and, indeed, progress has been made. U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that in 1964, shortly after the EPA took effect, women across the country earned 59 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts; by 2017, women earned 79 cents to every dollar earned by men. At the state level, New York leads the nation, with women making 89 cents to every dollar earned by men.
Three plaintiffs successfully defend a jury verdict totaling $204,000 in a Title VII, Equal Pay Act and Iowa Civil Rights Act case, plus $269,877.67 in attorney's fees. The court casts doubt on the use of a "market forces" defense by employers to justify lower pay for women, yet also holds that if such a defense were valid, the employer presented insufficient evidence to warrant an instruction.
It seems women working in traditionally male-dominated industries, such as finance, do not just face pay inequity or discrimination and harassment - they also receive harsher, career-limiting discipline far more often than their male counterparts. That is the startling finding from a new study titled "When Harry Fired Sally: The Double Standard in Punishing Misconduct" conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Stanford University, and the University of Minnesota.
The Third Circuit on Tuesday took up the issue of causation, and the amount of proof a plaintiff must present, under two federal anti-retaliation laws. In Egan, the panel holds that employees may pursue FMLA retaliation claims under a mixed-motive theory, as supported by a Department of Labor regulation. In Carvalho-Grevious, the court announces a lowered bar for establishing Title VII retaliation at the prima facie stage.
Last month, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded $8 million to a former general counsel for life sciences company Bio-Rad who was terminated after raising concerns about possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations by his employer. The verdict sent shockwaves through the legal community as it redefines the boundaries of general counsel privilege, and may spur others to act as whistleblowers themselves.