The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the landscape of human rights across the country. Title VII is the most hotly debated portion of that law in that it forbids discrimination based on five key metrics: race, color, religion, sex and national origin. In spite of the law’s nearly fifty years as a part of United States Code, it still requires active, repeated interpretation to ensure proper enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is responsible for making sure that act is enforced. Since Title VII’s inception, the EEOC has never ruled that transgender individuals are covered under the sexual discrimination cause of that Act—until April 2012.
Past EEOC Rulings Regarding Transgender Sexual Discrimination
Has discrimination on the basis of gender alignment always been a Title VII issue? Historically, it has not. In the past, when complaints were filed with the EEOC regarding discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals, the complaint was handled as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On three past occasions ranging from 1984 to 1986, the EEOC ruled that transgender discrimination did not constitute a Title VII claim. In April 2012, as the EEOC reviewed a complaint by Mia Macy against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the EEOC ruled differently. As a result, transgender complaints are now considered under the purview of Title VII.
What is Gender Discrimination?
Gender discrimination under Title VII occurs when employment opportunities are denied or the terms and conditions of one’s employment are altered due to an individual’s gender. The interpretation of the law, previous to 2012, has excluded transgender individuals. The new interpretation of the law is important to the transgender community and for Title VII law. As an interpretation of an existing law, it may fundamentally modify the legal system’s understanding of gender.
When is Gender Discrimination Appropriate Under the Law?
Are there situations where gender discrimination is deemed legally appropriate? Yes, there are. Gender preferences are permissible when an employer takes an affirmative action hiring policy to rectify past discrimination. In addition, there are narrow cases where gender discrimination is inherent to the working conditions, i.e. male or female modeling, etc.
A Time of Change in Transgender Rights
With this important EEOC ruling regarding transgender discrimination under Title VII, the American legal understanding of transgender rights is in flux. If you would like to find out more about the rights and actions surrounding an act of transgender discrimination, contact Valli, Kane & Vagnini for a free consultation.
The American Corporate Landmark Readies Once Again for Litigation
One of the biggest names in American industry is under fire. Complaints of racial discrimination have resulted in a lawsuit against Coca-Cola plants. The Coca-Cola brand is now under fire, with a total of sixteen employees joining together in the claim.
An Isolated Incident?
The accusations are clear, complete, and troubling. The sixteen Hispanic and African American employees claim use of the N-word on the job, other racially derogatory name calling, and preferential work assignments given to white employees while minority employees were forced to do dirty jobs. White workers were permitted overtime earnings, say the plaintiffs, while minorities did not receive the same opportunity. The plaintiffs claim that promotions were purposefully given to white workers in preference over minority workers. Equally troubling to some is that the charges were leveled not against one manufacturing plant, but two. This is not indicative of an isolated incident, but, according to the plaintiffs, a cancerous racial discrimination problem.
Coca-Cola’s Defense
Coca-Cola is firing back, claiming that many of the charges involve incidents that are years old, and resolved. In addition, the company claims several minority employees are defending the company as opposed to the workers who have brought the lawsuit. Coca-Cola further claims that no culture of racial or discriminatory practices exists at the two manufacturing plants in question, which are both based in New York. Finally, Coca-Cola claims diversity is a corporate value, an instilled passion of Coca-Cola associates around the world.
Past Litigation
Coca-Cola has lost racial discrimination cases before. Most notably, the company settled the largest discrimination case in American history in 2000. The accusations were similar: black employees claimed that Coca-Cola denied pay raises, promotions and positive evaluations based on race. The payout was nearly $200 million, a huge blow to a company that stands for American fun. At the time, the corporation avowed commitment to nurturing diversity in its workforce.
A Sound Case, or a Continuing Saga?
Is the latest chapter in Coca-Cola’s storied history of racial litigation a ruse on the part of over a dozen employees, or a legitimate claim against a company that never made good on its decade-ago commitment to ending illegal racial policies? Only the courts can decide.
Are You a Victim?
If you feel you’ve been victimized by discrimination, like the Coca-Cola employees discussed above, you need an attorney that knows racial discrimination law. Call the Law Offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini now. Take action today to end racial discrimination in the workplace.
Illegal Employment Interview Questions
We are in an economy where jobs are at a premium. There are too many people competing for too few jobs. This puts the employers in the driver’s seat. But whether you are on the West Coast or in New York, employment attorneys will tell you that this does not give the employers carte blanche in the way they treat job candidates. There are laws that apply to the hiring process. These laws range from conduct of the interviewer to the basis of the decision to hire; from questions that an interviewer cannot ask to what can be considered in a hiring decision.
How Can Job Interview Questions be Illegal?
Employers have broad latitude when it comes to the question they can ask a candidate during a job interview. However, starting in the 1960s, a series of federal employment laws have protected certain types of information. These laws shut down questions along the lines of race, religious beliefs, health, age, sexual orientation and marital status. In addition to federal law, New York State and local anti-discrimination laws lend additional protections to job candidates.
As objective as the law may try to be, New York employment attorneys will tell you that the law is far from perfect. Though an employer may not discriminate based on the color of your skin, they can discriminate based on the color of something like your tie or shoes. The employer cannot choose to hire or reject you on account of something like your religious beliefs, but they base their decision on your personality and disposition during the interview or even where you may have worked in the past. In other words, an employer can discriminate as long as they do not discriminate in an area where the law designates specific protections.
If You Have Been Discriminated Against, What Are Your Options?
So what do you do if you are asked legally out-of-bounds questions like – What is your age? Are you a Christian (Jew, Muslim, etc.) Are you planning to start a family? Are you disabled? One of your options is to tactfully point out to the interviewer that the question was illegal. Once the interviewer is alerted, assume that the ball is in the employer’s court. However, New York employment lawyers say that it is probably a good thing to know right up front that the company is not up to speed on employment issues or, worse yet, intentionally breaking the law. It is certainly an indication that something worse may be around the corner if you do get hired!
Another option is to go ahead and answer the illegal question. You can answer it honestly, if you believe it will not harm you in any way. A final option is to give a misleading answer if the question is clearly illegal. The employer can hardly justify condemning you for lying in response to a question that violates your civil rights. No matter what you decide to do, make sure you take not of what transpires and if you feel you were not hired on account of your response, or lack thereof, you may have a claim against them for discrimination.
Finally, you may find your best option is to contact New York employment attorneys, Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP, for a free consultation to determine if you have been discriminated against and what your legal rights are.
Does Lack of State Level Prohibition Allow Discrimination in Texas?
Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys point out areas in the law where Texas civil rights and discrimination protection falls through the cracks. Discrimination may have different motivations such as race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation and disability. Texans are not all protected equally when it comes to civil rights violations and protection from discrimination. Examples include:
Public Accommodations
Most people agree that public accommodations should be free from policies that discriminate. Texas has no statewide law prohibiting such discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical handicap. Some local governments have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination in public places. This has resulted in confusion as to what is legal from one municipality to the next. Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys claim this highlights the need for statewide legislation.
Discrimination in the Workplace
According to state law in Texas, civil rights in the workplace exist in many areas including employees’ race, age, gender, religion, national origin or disability. However, Texas civil rights and discrimination state law does not extent to sexual orientation. Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys maintain that policies that favor non-discrimination are good business.
Discrimination in Education
According to Texas civil rights and discrimination laws there are no specific prohibitions stopping a public educational institution from discriminating on account of race, ethnicity, color, gender, disability, sexual orientation, disability, religion or national origin of the student or the parent of the student. There are laws in place prohibiting student on student harassment covered under bullying codes. However, there are no similar laws covering discrimination and harassment originating from employees of the educational institution.
Discrimination from Insurance Companies
Insurance companies are prohibited from discrimination because of race, ethnicity, color, gender, disability, marital status, disability, religion, geographic location or national origin. However, Texas civil rights and discrimination laws make no provision for the prohibition based on sexual orientation and sexual identity. This discrimination can take form of higher rates, refusal to insure, limited coverage, extent of coverage and nature of coverage.
Since in Texas, civil rights and discrimination protection does no extent to sexual orientation and transgender people when it comes to insurance coverage, many insurance companies deny coverage for procedures related to transgender and sexual orientation issues. Many are refused coverage for procedures because of their transgender and sexual orientation status and are required to put off the procedure or pay for it out of pocket when it should have covered by the insurance premium to begin with.
The Job Search and Discrimination by Age
When employers shut you out because you exceed some arbitrary age limit, this can be exceedingly frustrating. Not only is the employer perpetrating an obvious injustice, in many cases, it may be clear that you are best candidate for the position. There are laws prohibiting many types of discrimination. U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces these laws. It behooves an employer to know the relevant laws and regulations. Age is one of the areas of discrimination covered by laws.
Employers are not to treat job applicants or existing employees less favorably because of their age. Current law, covered by Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), applies to employees and job candidates equally. The law applies to people age forty and over. Employers can favor an older employee over a younger employee but not the other way around. The law applies even if both employees are over forty. In other words you cannot hire a 45 year old worker over a 55 year old employee due to age.
Work Contexts and Age Discrimination
The law covers discrimination in many aspects including hiring, termination, pay level and pay raises, work assignments, promotions, layoffs, benefits, training and general working conditions.
Harassment and Age Discrimination
Law forbids harassment due to age. Examples of such harassment could include offensive remarks about a workers age. Harassment is not everyday good-humored banter or an isolated remark. However, if the banter and remarks become so severe and frequent that it creates a work environment that is hostile or offensive, that is harassment and prohibited by law. If the adverse treatment due to age results in negative employment decisions, such as termination, that is considered harassment and prohibited by law. It will be considered harassment if it is the victim’s manager or supervisor, a coworker or even someone who is not an employee such as client or vendor.
Policies, Practices and Age Discrimination
Policies and practices implemented by an employer need to be applied to everyone without regard to age. When applied, policies and practices can be illegal if they can be shown to have harmed or impacted negatively employees forty year old or older due to their age. Areas commonly effected include:
- Training and apprenticeship programs.
- Want ads and job notices.
- Employment inquiries.
- Benefits and retirement policies.
Any employer with more than twenty employees is subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It also applies to all government agencies, federal, state and local.