Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating and retaliating against employees. Employers who violate Title VII may be subject to a lawsuit in federal court. Before filing a lawsuit, however, employees who believe their employer has violated the law must file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC. But, is this rule a jurisdictional requirement or a procedural rule? Courts across the country have debated this, but on June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States settled the question. Today’s Long Island employment law blog explains the difference in the distinctions, SCOTUS’s decision, and the implications.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Further, Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the law. As part of Title VII, Congress included a requirement that aggrieved employees must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or local discrimination enforcement agency, before filing a lawsuit in federal court. Congress, however, did not expressly state whether this rule is a jurisdictional requirement or a procedural requirement. Because of this, federal courts across the country have been split on whether the rule is the latter or the former.

What’s the difference between a jurisdictional requirement and a procedural requirement? It’s not merely an academic point. Jurisdiction is a rule which allows a federal court the authority to hear a case. Jurisdiction can never be waived. In other words, if a court does not have authority to hear the particular kind of case before it, a party can raise the issue at any point during the litigation. In fact, a court may raise the issue on its own and may dismiss a case if it decides, at any point, that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Earlier this month, we wrote about the intersection of medical marijuana use and employment discrimination laws.  Based, in part, on this conflict, the New York City Council passed a law which would prohibit New York City employers from testing prospective employees for marijuana as part of the employer’s pre-hiring procedures. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses this new law.

In 2014, New York State passed the Compassionate Care Act which legalized marijuana for medical use. In early April 2014, we blogged about the complications which can arise when an employee lawfully uses medical marijuana, but the employer tests employees for marijuana use. A New Jersey court ruled that an employer may have engaged in disability discrimination when the employer terminated the employee after he tested positive for marijuana, which he used to treat a medical condition.

The New York City Council acknowledged that New York City residents may lawfully use marijuana to treat medical conditions. It further concluded that at least 34 states across the country allow citizens to use marijuana either for recreational and/or medical purposes. The Council determined that it would be unjust to allow New York City employers to test employees for the presence of marijuana, when the employee may have used it legally.

As more states enact legislation legalizing marijuana for medical and/or recreational use, issues concerning employers’ regulation of employees’ marijuana use are on the rise. Can employers regulate an employee’s lawful use of marijuana outside of work? Like most legal questions, the answer is complicated. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses a recent New Jersey court’s opinion on the question of medical marijuana use relating to a disability.

New Jersey has enacted the Compassionate Use Act. In brief, the Act is intended to prevent the prosecution of patients and caregivers involved in the use of marijuana to alleviate suffering from medical conditions. The portion of the Act relevant to the New Jersey case also notes that employers are not required to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in the workplace.

In the New Jersey case, Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the plaintiff was diagnosed with cancer and was prescribed marijuana as part of his medical treatment. He continued working as a licensed funeral director.

On February 14, 2019, Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott sponsored a bill in the United States House of Representatives which would amend the Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) laws. Entitled the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, the act is a reaction to a Supreme Court ruling issued nearly 10 years ago which was seen as limiting employees ability to prove age discrimination claims.  Today’s Long Island Employment Law blog discusses the proposed amendment.

In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, the United Supreme Court considered the standard of proof an employee must show to prove an age discrimination case. The dispute centered on whether employees can show mixed motives or whether an employee must show that discrimination was the but-for reason for an adverse employment action.

In mixed motive cases, an employee can prevail by showing that an employer was motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory purpose. In other words, the employer may have had many reason to fire or demote an employee, but if discrimination was one of the reasons that motivated the employer to act, and if the employee could prove that, then the employee could win.  In but for cases, employees must prove that the employee would not have been fired or demoted in the absence of discriminatory intent.

In February 2019, the New York City Commission of Human Rights issued enforcement guidance concerning race discrimination based on hair.  Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses this new guidance.

Federal law, New York State law, and New York City law have all made race discrimination unlawful and have done so for many years.  But, New York City has tried to set itself apart from other laws and other jurisdictions by ensuring its laws are liberally construed and that they provide the most protection possible to employees and the public.  Indeed, the New York City Human Rights Law directs courts and administrative agencies to interpret the law separately and distinctly from any other similar laws.

In its latest attempt to distinguish itself as leading the way in anti-discrimination laws, the Commission issued guidance about hair discrimination.  To begin with, the guidance makes clear that discrimination based on racial stereotypes is illegal.  Moreover, the guidance makes clear that hair discrimination can relate to other types of discrimination such as sex, gender, religion, disability, or national origin.  But, the Commission sought to “affirm” that acts which would tend to ban or otherwise inhibit hairstyles associated with Black people is illegal.