• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Gender Discrimination

Employer’s Religious Beliefs vs. Employee Discriminatory Termination. Who Wins?

14 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in EEOC, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Religious Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on Employer’s Religious Beliefs vs. Employee Discriminatory Termination. Who Wins?

Tags

EEOC, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor, Religious Beliefs

Can an Employer’s Religious Belief Defeat a Discriminatory Firing? By Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor

http://bit.ly/1RXE7gy

Can an employer’s religious beliefs defeat an otherwise discriminatory termination? Employers in Michigan may soon have much-needed guidance on this issue based on an employment discrimination case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Federal District Court in Michigan.

Specifically, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. In 2013 over its decision to fire a transgender funeral director (EEOC v RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Complaint).

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

Tags

Alexis B. Kasacavage, Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, Wrongful Termination Claim

Dis-Orderly Conduct: Hospital Security Guard Fired After Incident With Psychiatric Patient Cannot Advance Discrimination Claims, by Alexis B. Kasacavage, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP Blog  

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=729cc33f-832f-49e3-97f6-7a1c3c8f1997

Interesting analysis on how the courts came to the same conclusion but for different reasons. -CCE

 In Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, et al., the Sixth Circuit recently upheld a Michigan district court’s decision to dismiss a 52-year-old African-American female security guard’s age, race and sex discrimination claims arising from her discharge following an incident with a combative psychiatric patient at the hospital where she worked.

Continue reading →

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Houston Law Firm Fires Pregnant Employees.

18 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Arbitration, EEOC, Employment Contracts, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Law Office Management, Pregnancy Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on Houston Law Firm Fires Pregnant Employees.

Tags

Arbitration, EEOC, Employment Law, Pregnancy Discrimination, San Antonio Employment Law Blog, Thomas J. Crane

Wayne Wright Fired Another Pregnant Worker, by Thomas J. Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q57966e

A law firm in Houston, Texas, fired a female employee because she became pregnant. The employee filed a charge against the firm with the EEOC, and then sued the firm. You would think that, if the firm somehow missed that this was an employment no-no, this experience educated management at the firm.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. The firm, which has offices in several locations, fired a paralegal from its El Paso firm when she became pregnant. The paralegal sued the firm, but this one has a twist. The firm invoked an arbitration agreement.

The matter went up to the El Paso Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. The paralegal’s case will go to arbitration. Why wasn’t this a slam dunk against the firm? -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Note Limited Time to File Employment Discrimination Charge!

14 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Anti-Retaliation, Bullying, Disabilities, EEOC, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Note Limited Time to File Employment Discrimination Charge!

Tags

Anti-Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, EPA, Equal Pay, Harassment, Sex Discrimination, Title VII

Time Limits For Filing A Charge, U.S. Equal Employment Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/timeliness.cfm

The anti-discrimination laws give you a limited amount of time to file a charge of discrimination. In general, you need to file a charge within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis. The rules are slightly different for age discrimination charges. For age discrimination, the filing deadline is only extended to 300 days if there is a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforcing that law. The deadline is not extended if only a local law prohibits age discrimination.

Note: Federal employees and job applicants have a different complaint process, and generally must contact an agency EEO Counselor within 45 days. The time limit can be extended under certain circumstances.

Regardless of how much time you have to file, it is best to file as soon as you have decided that is what you would like to do.

Time limits for filing a charge with EEOC generally will not be extended while you attempt to resolve a dispute through another forum such as an internal grievance procedure, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation before filing a charge with EEOC. Other forums for resolution may be pursued at the same time as the processing of the EEOC charge. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Standard for Proving Sexual Harassment.

27 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Harassment

≈ Comments Off on New Standard for Proving Sexual Harassment.

Tags

Hostile Work Environment, Lexology, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Sexual harassment, Title VII

Two New Cases Demonstrate High Bar For Proving Sexual Harassment, by Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Lexology®, in cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel

http://tinyurl.com/luwkehs

Not all sex-related behavior in the workplace gives rise to an actionable claim for sexual harassment. In order to violate Title VII, the actions complained of must be unwelcomed, and must create a hostile and offensive working environment based on the victim’s gender. Two new federal appellate cases show how alleged workplace behavior can be obnoxious and unwelcomed, and yet still fail to reach this threshold. . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

Arizona Anti-Gay Bill Vetoed.

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Employment Law, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, Gender Discrimination, Government, Hostile Work Environment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Anti-Gay Bill, Arizona, Center for Arizona Policy, Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Governor Jan Brewer, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Religious Liberty, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senate Bill 1062, Super Bowl

Arizona Governor Vetoes  Anti-Gay Bill, by Dan Nowicki, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, and Alia Beard Rau, The Arizona Republic, USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/arizona-governor-vetoes-anti-gay-bill/5849187/

It will be interesting to see how Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto will affect similar legislation in other states, such as Oklahoma, Idaho, and Kansas, and if the pressure from businesses and the public have not already done so. -CCE

Facing intense pressure from political and business interests and a growing public outcry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday that she had vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays and others based on religious beliefs.

Brewer said the bill was unnecessary legislation that threatened the state’s recovering economy by driving away high-profile events such as next year’s Super Bowl and corporations looking to relocate to Arizona.

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value — so is non-discrimination,” Brewer said at a news conference announcing the veto.  She said the proposed law, known as Senate Bill 1062, was too broadly worded and could have resulted in “unintended and negative consequences.” . . .

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

2014 Employment Law Predictions.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affirmative Action, Bullying, Criminal History, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Health Care Benefits, Health Reform, Internships, Medical Marijuana, Minimum Wage, Pregnancy Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on 2014 Employment Law Predictions.

Tags

Arbitration Fairness Act, Background Checks, Donna Ballman, Employment Law, Family Act, Health Care, Internships, Legalized Marijuana, Minimum Wage, Pregnancy Discrimination, Screw You Guys I’m Going Home Blog

Donna’s Employment Law Predictions for 2014, by Donna Ballman, Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mqokell

Minimum wage, legalized marijuana, health care, internships, background checks, pregnancy discrimination, and more. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...

“Must Read” for HR – Evidence of Hiring Discrimination Using Social Media.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Affirmative Action, EEOC, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Race Discrimination

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Discrimination, Facebook, Jason Shinn, Job Hunt, Michigan Employment Law Advisor, Recruitment, Social media, Wall Street Journal

Everyone knows by now that human resources professionals and employers use social media to screen potential employees. Studies now show that some employers illegally discriminate against applicants based on what they find. CCE 

Study Finds Evidence of Unlawful Discrimination in Using Social Media to Recruit Employees, posted by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor

http://tinyurl.com/k63s24l

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (reported on 11/21/2013 by Jennifer DeVries) discussed a study showing bias in the hiring process when social media is used to screen job applicants. Because of the potential for unlawful discrimination and losing out on otherwise qualified job applicants, the article and study should be a “must read” for every human resource professional or anyone with hiring responsibilities.

Share this:

  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Telegram

Like this:

Like Loading...
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…

Recent Comments

Eric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
How to Treat Bad Cli… on Why Do Bad Clients Deserve The…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 486 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: