Kevin Costner Sued By ‘Horizon 2’ Stunt Performer Over Unscripted Rape Scene

One day in May 2023, stunt performer Devyn LaBella showed up to the Utah set of Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 2, the second part of the sprawling Western series from Kevin Costner, expecting to double for one of the film’s stars in some basic, fairly boring shots. Instead, she says, she was surprised by being subjected to an unscripted, brutal rape scene without proper notice, consent or the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

Now, LaBella is suing Costner and the film’s production companies for sexual discrimination, harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment. Moreover, the complaint alleges LaBella faced retaliation after she reported the incident by not being called back for subsequent work on the Horizon series and never being hired again by the film’s stunt coordinator, with whom she had worked previously.

“On that day, I was left exposed, unprotected, and deeply betrayed by a system that promised safety and professionalism,” LaBella said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “What happened to me shattered my trust and forever changed how I move through this industry.”

In a statement, Costner’s attorney Marty Singer said his client “always wants to make sure that everyone is comfortable working on his films and takes safety on set very seriously.” He says, however, that the lawsuit has “absolutely no merit” and is “completely contradicted by [LaBella’s] own actions — and the facts.”

The suit represents the latest legal battle for Horizon, as Costner’s loan-out firm for the series was recently hit with an arbitration claim for allegedly breaching its co-financing agreement with New Line Cinema. This complaint was filed after settlement discussions with Costner and production company representatives broke down, says James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini, one of the attorneys representing LaBella, with support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund.

The Horizon series is the product of decades of hustle from Costner, a veteran of the Western epic, from Dances With Wolves to Hatfields & McCoys to Yellowstone. With no major studio willing to fork over the cash he felt was needed, Costner invested $38 million of his own funds, with the series’ first film premiering to anemic box office in June 2024.

An ascendant stunt performer who had worked on Barbie and American Horror Stories, LaBella was hired on Horizon’s second installment as the lead stunt double for actress Ella Hunt, who plays one of the film’s main characters. Hunt’s role did involve sexual violence. As part of her contract, the lawsuit maintains, Hunt negotiated a mandatory intimacy coordinator on all nude or intimate scenes, which, as her stunt double, would apply to LaBella as well. Moreover, given that Hunt and LaBella are members of the performers union SAG-AFTRA, their intimate scenes would also be subject to the labor group’s regulations, which call for prior notice, consent and a closed set.

Everything went by the book for a scripted rape scene that shot on May 1, according to the suit: The scene — where LaBella performed the more physical, rough aspects of the action — was detailed on the day’s call sheet, rehearsed with a stunt coordinator and an intimacy coordinator, later monitored by that intimacy coordinator, took place on a closed set and was structured such that performers got breaks in between shots.

But rules were allegedly thrown out the window the next day, when LaBella showed up on set to double for two non-intimate sequences and was asked by Costner to stand in for Hunt for a shot. Unbeknownst to LaBella, the complaint claims, Hunt had just walked off of the set, “visibly upset,” after Costner told her he had just added an impromptu scene of sexual violence perpetuated by a different character than the previous day’s scene.

LaBella, instructed to lay down on a wagon, allegedly only found out that this was a rape scene after Costner called for actor Roger Ivens to simulate nonconsensual sex on top of her: “Mr. Ivens violently rustled Ms. LaBella’s skirt up as if trying to penetrate her against her will” while pinning her down per the director’s orders, the complaint states. No notice had been given, the scene had not been rehearsed, no intimacy coordinator was on set and all of the action was aired on monitors that could be viewed by the entire crew, according to the suit.

Costner’s attorney Singer maintains that this was a rehearsal without cameras rolling and not a filmed scene itself. The film’s stunt coordinators were present, he added. After this rehearsal, LaBella “gave her Stunt Coordinator supervisor a ‘thumbs up’ and indicated her willingness to then shoot the scene, if needed,” he states; the scene ended up being shot with a stand-in performer and not LaBella.

The lawsuit emphasizes that Costner did not consistently call “action” or “cut” during this process, leaving LaBella without time to fully comprehend what was happening as the action repeated. Meanwhile, “Mr. Ivens never separated from Ms. LaBella,” the suit says, consistently keeping his hand on her body. Moreover, the complaint claims the wardrobe department had not prepared LaBella for her undergarments to be exposed, as they were by the directions Costner was giving Ivens.

The complaint describes LaBella as shaken and “terrified” following this experience. Afterward, she raised concerns and made complaints to several stunt coordinators and to the film’s intimacy coordinator, later feeling that many in the production team were treating her with kid gloves, the suit states. She received some apologies from colleagues on the film, but was directed to stay in her trailer, fully costumed and not used on set for several days, the complaint claims.

Singer disputes that LaBella made a complaint to the film’s stunt coordinators, saying “she was in good spirits and made no complaints to them” at a dinner the night after the scene. He says that LaBella took stunt coordinator Wade Allen to a thank-you dinner following the production, and sent him a text stating, “Thank you for these wonderful weeks!”

Ultimately, LaBella was not called back for the third film in the series, and Allen did not hire her again, though he had hired her for projects before Horizon.

The lawsuit alleges that LaBella’s career came to an “abrupt halt” after the incident. Not only was Allen not hiring her again, but “the workplace, and stunt work in general, which was once a source of purpose and fulfillment, is now a place of heightened apprehension and the whole experience has left Ms. LaBella feeling ‘disposable’ and ‘worthless,’” the complaint states.

If the case goes to trial, LaBella and her attorneys are asking the jury to determine any potential punitive damages. Beyond compensation, the point of the suit is also to “address the continued failures at the highest levels of Hollywood production companies to comprehend and address the impacts of performing in sexually explicit and violent ‘scenes’ and the need for intimacy coordination,” the complaint reads.

The use of intimacy coordinators in Hollywood exploded after the #MeToo movement prompted a reappraisal of power dynamics on set. Choreographing scenes of an intimate nature, intimacy coordinators are intended to be watchdogs for performer safety and comfort. While some famous performers have embraced them (Rachel Zegler, Phoebe Dynevor), others have waved them off or said they didn’t feel they need them, like Mikey Madison and Sean Bean.

Per the lawsuit, in this case an intimacy coordinator was mandated by a performer contract, amplifying existing union protections. Says Jennifer Mondino, the senior director of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which supported the case, “The guidelines that are supposed to be followed on regular movie sets weren’t being followed.”

Adds LaBella’s lawyer Vagnini, “If it can happen on a size of a production worth $100 million or more, imagine what happens on smaller ones where you’re really trying to cut corners.”

As for Singer, he says, “The facts are clear and we are beyond confident that Kevin will prevail.”

Read The Full Article On The Hollywood Reporter

Understanding New York’s Sick Leave Laws: What You Need to Know

By Di Tian

New York State has implemented a comprehensive sick leave law to ensure that private sector employees have access to paid or unpaid sick leave. Here’s a detailed look at how these regulations affect workers and employers.

Who is Eligible for Sick Leave?

In New York State, all private sector employees are entitled to sick leave. This includes employees of non-profit organizations, private schools, and charter schools. However, it does not cover federal, state, or local government employees.

Accrual of Sick Leave

Under New York State law, employees accrue sick leave at a minimum rate of one hour for every thirty hours worked. This accrual began on September 30, 2020, or from the date of employment, whichever is later.

Some employers may provide the full amount of sick leave—40 or 56 hours—at the beginning of each year. If they do this, they cannot reduce the amount based on the actual hours worked by the employee.

Paid vs. Unpaid Sick Leave

The type of sick leave an employee receives depends on the size of the company:

  • Companies with 4 or fewer employees: Only unpaid sick leave is required.
  • Companies with 5 or more employees: Must provide paid sick leave.
  • Companies with 4 or fewer employees but with a net income of more than $1 million in the previous tax year: Must provide paid sick leave.

Pay Rate for Sick Leave

Employees are entitled to their regular rate of pay for paid sick leave. However, tips are not included in the sick leave pay.

Maximum Accrual Limits

The maximum number of sick leave hours an employee can accrue annually varies by company size:

  • 0-4 employees: Up to 40 hours (unpaid).
  • 5-99 employees: Up to 40 hours.
  • 100+ employees: Up to 56 hours.
  • 4 or fewer employees but net income is greater than $1 million: Up to 40 hours.

Unused sick leave accrues from year to year, though employers may limit the amount of leave used each year according to company policy.

Checking Sick Leave Balance

Employers are required to maintain records of sick leave accrual and usage for at least 6 years. Employees can request this information, and employers must provide it within 3 business days.

Usage of Sick Leave

Sick leave can be used for various reasons:

  • Sick Leave: For personal or family illness, preventive care, or medical diagnosis.
  • Safe Leave: If the employee or their family member is a victim of domestic violence or related offenses.
  • Prenatal Leave: Starting in 2025, New York will mandate 20 hours of paid prenatal leave for pregnant employees for related medical care.

Notifying Employers and Documentation

Employees are generally required to notify their employers before taking sick leave. While employers cannot request confidential medical information, they can ask for verification for absences longer than 3 consecutive workdays.

Minimum Increment for Sick Leave

Employers can set a minimum increment for sick leave, but it cannot exceed 4 hours. This means if the minimum increment is 4 hours, employees must use at least 4 hours of sick leave per request.

Reimbursement for Unused Sick Leave

Employees are not entitled to reimbursement for unused sick leave when they leave their job.

Examples

  • Part-Time Restaurant Worker: If you work 20 hours a week at a restaurant with 11 employees, you’re eligible for paid sick leave. After 6 weeks of work, you would have accrued 4 hours of sick leave.
  • Using Sick Leave for a Physical Exam: If you use sick leave for a 30-minute annual physical exam, you’ll need to use at least 4 hours of sick leave if that’s your employer’s minimum increment.
  • Pay Rate for Sick Leave: If your regular rate is $13.35 per hour plus $6 in tips, your sick leave pay rate would be $16 per hour, which is the state minimum wage.

For more information or if you have specific questions about your sick leave rights, don’t hesitate to reach out to our office. We’re here to help you navigate these regulations and ensure your rights are protected.

Protecting Privacy: New York State’s Social Media Access Law

In a world where digital presence is ubiquitous, protecting personal privacy in the workplace is paramount. Recognizing this, New York State has enacted a groundbreaking law aimed at safeguarding the privacy of employees and job applicants in the realm of social media.

As of March 12, 2024, employers in New York State are now prohibited from requesting access to an employee’s or job applicant’s social media accounts. This means employers cannot ask for usernames, passwords, or any other login information that would grant access to private social media accounts.

Moreover, individuals cannot be coerced into providing access to their social media accounts or sharing content from those accounts as a condition of employment or consideration for a job. This crucial provision ensures that individuals maintain control over their personal online presence and are not subjected to undue scrutiny or invasion of privacy by their employers.

Equally significant is the prohibition against employers penalizing or retaliating against employees or job applicants who refuse to share their social media account information. This protection ensures that individuals can assert their rights without fear of reprisal in the workplace.

However, the law does contain exceptions to accommodate legitimate employer interests. Employers are still permitted to access publicly shared content on social media platforms when investigating misconduct. Additionally, access is allowed in situations where there is a legal obligation, when employees use employer-provided social media accounts, or when access is restricted on employer-provided equipment.

Crucially, the law extends its coverage beyond traditional social media platforms to encompass any forum involving user-generated content. This includes blogs, video platforms, and other forms of user-shared media, reflecting the evolving nature of online communication and content creation.

For individuals who believe their rights under this law have been violated, legal recourse is available. Any non-compliance with the legislation on or after March 12, 2024, is actionable under state law. In such cases, seeking assistance from an employment law attorney is advisable to explore available options and remedies.

New York State’s social media access law represents a significant step forward in safeguarding privacy rights in the digital age. By establishing clear boundaries between personal and professional spheres, the law ensures fair treatment and respect for individuals’ privacy in the workplace. It sets a precedent for other jurisdictions to follow in prioritizing privacy and autonomy in an increasingly connected world.

Customer Service Reps Get Narrow Collective Cert. In OT Suit

By Abby Wargo/Law360

A Texas federal judge agreed Tuesday to certify a collective of customer service representatives alleging that a medical technologies corporation failed to pay them for off-the-clock work, finding they were all subject to the same policies while declining to toll the statute of limitations and extend the class period.

In an opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle granted Angelita Floyd’s motion to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective of customer service representatives at Stryker Corp.’s Flower Mound, Texas, facility who did not receive time-and-a-half overtime premiums for hours worked over 40.

However, Judge Boyle would not toll the statute of limitations from Nov. 1, 2022, through April 3, 2023, ruling that there were no outstanding circumstances warranting equitable tolling and limiting the class period to Jan. 2, 2021, to the present. She ordered a 60-day notice period for Floyd to communicate with potential collective members.

Floyd showed that the customer service representatives were all subjected to the same productivity requirements, under the same supervisory umbrella and paid the same $20 hourly rate, regardless of whether they held a senior role or not, the judge found.

Stryker had argued that senior representatives and nonsenior representatives had different job duties and that more senior workers had additional responsibilities, but the judge said the workers do not have to prove they are identically situated and only need to show that they had some commonalities.

Floyd sued in May 2022, alleging that she and other customer service representatives worked off-the-clock without pay for Stryker. Since then, 10 opt-in plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit, records show.

Customer service representatives were all hourly paid and scheduled to work 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday, but Floyd said they often had to work after-hours to keep up with the volume of customer orders, as they were required to process after-hours orders before 10 a.m. the next day. If they failed to do so on time, Stryker would reprimand them and threaten to place them on a performance improvement plan, thus pressuring them into performing unpaid work, Floyd alleged.

A medical technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Stryker opened its customer service department in Flower Mound in 2020, records show.

Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, who is representing the workers, told Law360 the judge’s decision was well-reasoned and thorough. 

“We agree with the court’s decision to credit plaintiffs’ argument that the type of work performed is a more appropriate factor than an employee’s title, when deciding a FLSA motion for certification,” Valli said. 

Counsel for Stryker did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The workers are represented by Alexander M. White and Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.

Stryker is represented by Amanda E. Brown, Joseph J. Mammone Jr. and Paulo B. McKeeby of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Floyd v. Stryker Corp., case number 3:22-cv-01131, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

–Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

Read the article from Law360 here.

5 Notable Workplace Bias Verdicts From 2023

By Anne Cullen/Law 360

Law360 (December 15, 2023, 6:32 PM EST) — A $36 million jury verdict that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission secured in September on behalf of a deaf truck driver marked one of many eight-digit damages awards that workers won in discrimination battles this past year.

Trials held all over the country yielded eye-popping wins for workers. Jurors in Nebraska handed down the EEOC’s trial victory in the trucking case, while a jury in Texas slapped Omni Hotels & Resorts with a $25 million damages bill in an equal pay suit in March.

Later that month, a Massachusetts jury awarded a Thermo Fisher Scientific subsidiary executive a $24 million win in her case alleging she was ousted because she suffered from anxiety.

Sarah N. Turner, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP who advises employers, said the big jury awards are increasingly originating beyond states where they are typically expected.

“The large jury verdicts are no longer isolated to large politically liberal-leaning cities, i.e. New York, Los Angeles,” Turner said. “Large jury verdicts in excess of a million dollars are becoming more common in smaller cities, i.e. Portland, Oregon, and more conservative jurisdictions, i.e. Houston.”

While some of these awards will be cut down — due to statutory caps or employer appeals — McDermott Will & Emery LLP employment partner Jeremy White said these results emphasize the legwork that businesses facing a workplace bias claim must do before jurors are impaneled.

“These jury verdicts exemplify the uncertainty of going to trial,” said White, who is a management-side attorney. “They also show that employers need to win these cases in the trenches, during depositions, which will require additional investment at the discovery phase of litigation.”

Here’s a look at five major trial victories for workers in the past 12 months.

Jury Slaps Luxury Hotel Chain With $25.1M Damages

In March, after three days of trial, a Texas jury found that Dallas-based luxury hotel company Omni Hotels & Resorts violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act when it underpaid a food and beverage director because she’s a woman.

Sarah Lindsley, who worked for Omni for about 16 years, had risen from a part-time server to food and beverage director at the chain’s Corpus Christi location, according to case filings. However, she said that despite her hard work, she was consistently paid less than her male peers.

Lindsley also alleged the company ignored the multiple complaints she said she made about the inequity. A jury found Omni had violated federal laws by undercutting Lindsley’s pay, and awarded her $100,000 in emotional damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

A federal judge later knocked the total award down to $300,000 because of statutory damages caps, but experts said the reward is still notable because of how high the punitive damages were compared to the rest of the award.

Deborah S. Brenneman, a management-side employment partner at Thompson Hine LLP, said this demonstrates that the jury was angry at the company. And she said this could have originated from Lindsley’s allegation that Omni didn’t take any corrective action after she complained.

“The plaintiff was able to, at least from what we’ve been able to see, paint a picture that the employer didn’t take their concerns seriously, and juries punish the companies for that,” Brenneman said.

Speaking broadly about this and other verdicts from this year, she said a key takeaway is that management has to take action when it hears concerns, and make a record of the steps that followed.

“The plaintiffs were able to tell stories that the companies just weren’t listening, and it’s a big warning to employers,” Brenneman said. “It’s a big reminder that when somebody complains about an issue, companies need to show they’re taking the concerns seriously, and document why they did or did not make any change.”

The case is Lindsley v. TRT Holdings Inc. et al, case number 3:17-cv-02942, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Explore the remaining four noteworthy employment law verdicts of 2023 as covered by Law360 here.

Marilyn Manson’s Former Assistant Wins Appeal to Revive a Previously Dismissed Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Ashley Walters claims Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall when she was his assistant in 2011.

By Daniela Avila/ PEOPLE

Marilyn Manson’s former assistant has won a critical appeal that will revive her previously dismissed lawsuit against the rocker.

On Wednesday, a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with Ashley Walters and reversed a lower court ruling — sending the case back to a judge for trial, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.

In the court filings, Walters claims that Manson (whose real name is Brian Warner) forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, pushed her into a wall, forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, offered her up sexually to friends and associates, once required her to stand on a chair for 12 hours and fed her cocaine to keep her awake among other accusations. She also claims he used threatening behavior, like blackmail, to ensure her silence.

“We believe this ruling makes clear that courts must factor in trauma induced repression into the legal reasoning why survivors often come forward years after their trauma to raise claims,” Walters’ lawyer, James Vagnini, says in a statement to PEOPLE. “This clears a path, much like many of the newly passed laws sweeping the country, allowing victims of sexual assault and harassment to raise their claims against their abusers when they are able to, not by a deadline set by statute.”

In 2021, Walters sued Manson, 54, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sex discrimination. At the time, she argued that though the alleged abuse took place during her year of employment in 2011, the two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020.

Read the full article from PEOPLE here.

Worker Settles Overtime Suit Against Home Remodeler

By Caleb Drickey/Law360 · 2023-10-16 19:49:04 -0400 ·  Listen to article

A worker who accused a home remodeling firm of misclassifying him as an overtime-exempt, salaried employee asked a New York federal court Monday to sign off on an individual settlement to his wage action.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati, ex-PHRG Management LLC remodeling consultant Sean Wachter said that a proposed $11,500 settlement to individual age claims would make him whole for withheld back wages and was a fair resolution to disputed claims.

The total settlement equates to more than 100% of what the plaintiff could have recovered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, Wachter said, adding: “The proposed settlement agreement is both fair and reasonable.”

Under the terms of the deal, Wachter would receive approximately $6,500 after the payment of attorney fees and expenses. That sum, the worker said, outpaced the roughly $2,400 unpaid overtime wage bill he racked up during his tenure at the company and amounted to roughly 55% of his total potential damages figure.

That return was fair, Wachter said, in light of the risks of further litigation. The worker noted that his former employer maintained its belief that he had been properly classified as an overtime-exempt outside sales worker and contested the number of overtime hours he worked.

“The settlement alleviates plaintiff’s risk of a lower recovery or no recovery at all,” the worker said.

Wachter’s attorneys, meanwhile, would receive an above-benchmark 40% cut of the total settlement fund, plus roughly $230 in expenses, for a total of approximately $4,700. Although Wachter noted that the Eastern District of New York generally limits attorney awards to 33% of a worker’s return, he said that the Second Circuit dissuaded district courts from placing ceilings on fee awards in 2020’s Fisher v. SD Protection Inc. 

He also argued that the proposed fee sat below a nearly $9,500 lodestar figure and was thus reasonable on its face.

Wachter accused the company of violating the FLSA and NYLL in a proposed class and collective action filed in November 2022. In his complaint, he alleged that he should have received time-and-a-half overtime wages instead of a flat, $1,000-per-week salary to compensate him for his up-to-60-hour workweeks.

Representatives of the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

Wachter is represented by Alexander White of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.

PHRG is represented by Anthony Mingione of Blank Rome LLP.

The case is Wachter v. PHRG Management LLC, case number 2:22-cv-07155, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

–Additional reporting by Isaac Monterose. Editing by Nick Petruncio.

See the article from Law360 here.

How to Prepare a Strong Discrimination Claim Against Your Employer

By Kellie Hand

When faced with discrimination in the workplace, it is important to take action as soon as possible, as there are time limits for filing discrimination claims. The best way to protect yourself from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation is to (1) know your legal rights, (2) document everything allowed within state law and company policy (3) consult a legal professional, and (4) remember to take care of your mental and physical health. 

Know Your Rights

In the U.S., employees and job applicants are protected from discrimination in various aspects of employment under federal and state laws. These protections are based on specific “protected classes” such as Race, Color, National Origin, Religion, Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), Pregnancy (including childbirth or related medical conditions), Age, Disability, and Genetic Information. 

Note: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40+ years old from age discrimination. However, state laws may have a lower age threshold. For example, New York State’s age discrimination law protects individuals 18+ years old.

Employment aspects protected from discrimination include (but are not limited to):

  • Hiring and firing;
  • Compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
  • Transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
  • Job advertisements;
  • Recruitment;
  • Testing;
  • Use of company facilities;
  • Training and apprenticeship programs;
  • Fringe benefits;
  • Pay, retirement plans, and disability leave;
  • Other terms and conditions of employment.

Employees are also protected from retaliation if they engage in a legally protected activity, such as reporting discrimination or participating in a discrimination proceeding or investigation. 

Document Everything 

Start by keeping a record of each incident you believe is discriminatory. This can include emails, memos, text messages, or any other form of communication. Also, make a note of any verbal conversations. Be as detailed as possible – write down dates, times, locations, people involved, what was said, and any witnesses. However, please be aware that what you can record and document will vary depending on state laws and company policies. 

Report the discrimination to your supervisor, Human Resources department, or any other relevant authority in your organization. Be sure to follow the company’s procedures for reporting, and do this in writing so you have a record of your report. Additionally, keep copies of your job evaluations and any letters or memos that show you perform your job well. This can be crucial if your employer tries to defend their actions by criticizing your job performance.

Get Legal Advice

If you feel you may be experiencing discrimination, consult with an employment law attorney right away to ensure that you are taking the best possible steps from the start. An employment lawyer can provide advice tailored to your specific situation, guide you through the process, and help protect your rights. 

Take Care of Yourself 

Experiencing discrimination in the workplace can be emotionally draining. Therefore, it is important to seek support from friends, family, or a mental health professional. Taking care of your physical health is also vital during stressful times.

US appeals court adopts lower bar for proving workplace bias claims

By Daniel Wiessner/ Reuters

Aug 21 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court has thrown out its unique decades-old precedent that made it more difficult for workers to prove discrimination claims.

The en banc 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday revived a lawsuit claiming Dallas County, Texas, required female jail guards, but not men, to work at least one day each weekend, overruling its longstanding precedent that federal anti-discrimination law only prohibits bias in “ultimate employment decisions” such as hiring, promotions and setting pay.

That precedent imposed a more strict standard than Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act 1964 itself, which applies to any “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” the New Orleans-based court said.

“It is no wonder … that no other court of appeals applies so narrow a concept,” Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote for the 5th Circuit.

Jay Ellwanger, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the ruling makes clear that Title VII prohibits all workplace discrimination.

Read the full article from Reuters here.

New York City Bans Appearance-Based Discrimination

Updated May 30, 2023

New York City Mayor Eric Adams enacted an anti-discrimination law on May 26 banning discrimination based on an individual’s height or weight when it comes to employment, housing or access to public accommodations.  With the new legislation, residents of New York City will be able to bring claims of discrimination related to their physical appearance before the New York City Commission on Human Rights, a local agency responsible for examining cases of discrimination and harassment.

The bill, sponsored by Manhattan Democratic Councilman Shaun Abreu, will be effective on Nov. 22, 2023. Prior to that date, employers must review their official policies to ensure that they do not include discriminatory practices against height and weight The law includes an exemption for positions where a certain height and weight are required to complete the functions of the job, as stated in federal, state or local law, or if permitted by the NYC Commission on Human Rights.

New York State legislators are aiming to pass a similar bill on the state level, which would prohibit weight and height discrimination across the state. Other states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey, are considering similar legislation in their respective states.

Michigan is currently the only state that bans height and weight discrimination, and only three US cities already have an ordinance in place to ban appearance-based discrimination – San Francisco, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Urbana, Illinois.

Mayor Eric Adams said the passage of this bill is a significant step towards eliminating appearance-based discrimination in New York City.

“It shouldn’t matter how tall you are or how much you weigh when you’re looking for a job, are out on the town, or trying to rent an apartment,” he said. “This law will help level the playing field for all New Yorkers, create more inclusive workplaces and living environments, and protect against discrimination.”