New York City's Commission on Human Rights saw a staggering 60 percent jump in discrimination and harassment complaints in 2016. In 2017, complaints are up an additional 30% so far this year. Of these complaints, approximately 40 percent are reports of discrimination or harassment based on a person's race, religion, national origin and immigration status. The Commission says it has nearly doubled its investigations into that category of complaints in the past two years.
In a potentially important development for family-responsibilities discrimination law, the Eleventh Circuit upholds a $161,319.92 award for a woman who was forced to quit police work because the city would not accommodate her breastfeeding.
The Third Circuit holds, in a 2-1 decision, that an individual may be a "supervisor" for purposes of imputing liability to the employer vicariously for sex harassment if they are "tasked with creating a work schedule" for their subordinates.
Two years ago, when Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced he was taking paternity leave to spend time with his wife and newborn daughter, it was hailed as a breakthrough for paid family leave. Soon after, a rush of press releases from Twitter, Netflix, Microsoft, IKEA, American Express, Amazon and other well-known companies announced more generous policies. Men, they said, would be encouraged to take parental leave as well.
Parental leave, it seemed, was fashionable, even for the hard driving, workaholic men of Silicon Valley and boded well for the rest of Corporate America.
In theory, more men are taking parental leave -- though it has been an incremental process. A study released last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 46 percent more men were taking advantage of family leave after California's Paid Family Leave (PFL) program took effect. However, it should be noted that only 2 percent of men were taking parental leave before the PFL, and that jumped to 3 percent after the program was in place. So, it is not as if men are rushing in droves to take family leave.
By now, we are all aware of former Google employee James Damore's internally published manifesto complaining of a company culture of shaming that suppresses legitimate discussion about discrimination against women working in technology.
In his memo, entitled "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber," Damore asserts that there are fewer women than men working in tech, not because of bias or discrimination, but because females are physiologically different from males and, as he sees it, often just not suited to science, technology, engineering or math careers. On the one hand claiming that he values diversity and inclusion, he also argues that left leaning organizations - suffering from the ills of compassion and a search for justice - unfairly discriminate against white males to achieve the goal of equitable employment of women and minorities.
Damore's memo purports to rely on "facts and reason" to prove that left-leaning biases demand acquiescence to policies that promote women (and minorities) to the detriment of men. But it is not just leftie rhetoric that does or should drive us to the goals of equality, diversity, and inclusion. Those goals are our moral imperative, now deeply embedded in state and federal laws. And the real facts reveal that we are, sadly, far from meeting our societal imperatives, moral, legal, cultural, and familial.
Alongside this summer's blockbuster movies and sleeper hits something else has been pulling focus in Hollywood: pay equity. And it's about time.
Of course, most of the conversation has centered around "Wonder Woman." Directed by Patty Jenkins and with a predominantly female cast led by Gal Gadot, the movie has eclipsed all others - even the sequel to "Guardians of the Galaxy" - as the highest-grossing film of the summer. Its box office take as of July 18 was $387 million.
This also means "Wonder Woman" has earned the most of any live action film directed by a woman. It's spawned countless think pieces by writers who are just realizing that women in Hollywood can be bankable. As a result, many feel "Wonder Woman" could be something of a watershed moment for women in general, and women directors in particular, in film and television.
The Seventh Circuit reverses and remands a Title VII claim for trial that it describes as a potentially "strong case of race discrimination." In particular, it reminds district courts that the "same actor" inference - that a manager who hires Black employees is unlikely to be biased against them - is at most an argument for trial, not a rule for deciding summary judgment.
The Ninth Circuit has proven to be a thorn on President Trump's side since he took office, blocking President Trump's original order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries and the revised ban released in March 2017. And in April, a district court judge in the Ninth Circuit blocked Trump's order cutting funding to sanctuary cities. Trump has responded by threatening to break up the Ninth Circuit (though the president does not have the unilateral power to change federal courts).
Co-Written by Outten & Golden LLP Paralegal Toby Rae Irving
In the six months since his inauguration, President Trump and his cabinet have been pushing forward to fulfill his myriad of campaign promises, with mixed success. Two days ago it became evident, however, that his continuity from the campaign ends with his supposed support of the LGBTQ community. Members of the trans community face challenges and lack of legal protection around the primary concerns of most Americans: employment, housing, and healthcare. Instead of addressing these issues central to daily life, President Trump has, once again, rolled the clocks backward on rights for trans people by banning transgender people from serving in the military. The President cited concerns around medical costs and "disruption."
Co-Written by Outten & Golden LLP Law Clerk Ryan Elias
On July 26th, President Trump issued a policy shift via Twitter laying out a ban on transgender individuals from serving "in any capacity in the U.S. Military." His reasoning: transgender service members detract from the military's focus on "decisive and overwhelming victory" and "burden" the military with "tremendous medical costs and disruption."
This policy shift runs contrary to evolving case law and is based on unfounded factual allegations that ignore the fact that transgender people serve in the military at nearly twice the rate of the general population.