Florida Legislator Wants To Make It Illegal To Say Gay (Or Your Pronouns) At Work

Florida seems to be in a race with Texas and some other red states to see which can be the worst state for employees in the nation. Now a legislator has proposed a law (which will likely pass, because GOP be cray cray) that would be similar to the now-infamous Don't Say Gay bill but apply to workplaces. 

Some gems from this ridiculous-but-likely-to-become-law bill include:

Training is illegal: It would be illegal to provide training that included issues of gender expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Pronouns are illegal: It would be illegal to discuss your preferred pronouns or for your employer to tell anyone else your preferred pronouns.

Misgendering is legal: It would be illegal for an employer to punish coworkers for deliberate misgendering.

This idiotic law would apply to state employees and nonprofits. So nonprofits that cater to the LGBTQ community would not be able to train employees, discuss pronouns, or punish employees for deliberate misgendering of trans people, including their clients. 

As I said, Florida is likely to pass this law, and our governor will, of course, sign it. So brace yourselves.

The good news is that LGBTQ discrimination is illegal under Title VII, so I'm sure there will be litigation over this. The Supremes are the ones that said Title VII applies to sexual orientation and societal expectations regarding gender roles. Will they reverse themselves? Very possibly.

Vote well friends. Vote blue in every single election if you want the crazy train to stop.

Did The Supreme Court Just Make It Legal To Discriminate?

As I'm sure you've heard unless you've been in outer space for the past couple weeks, the Supreme Court ruled that a person who thinks she might want to have a web designer business (but who has never actually designed a website in said business) could refuse to design a website for a gay marriage that she was never actually asked to design. SMH. Let's put aside the issue of whether this should have been a case in the first place, and deal with the question that is on everyone's mind: 

Is it legal to discriminate now?

Answer: Well, no. Not really. But maybe. Sigh.

The actual ruling says this: "Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." Seems not so bad, right? And it has nothing to do with hiring and firing, so it has no express immediate effect on employment discrimination laws. But the decision does open the door to future interpretations that are pretty bad.

The interesting part of this ruling is that it isn't based on religion. The Court didn't say people can use their religion to discriminate. At least not yet. Well, at least not in this particular opinion. Instead, they based it on free speech.

So people are asking me, can I post a sign on my business that says, "We don't hire bigots or homophobes"? The answer is probably, but you probably could have done that before this decision. What you (probably) can't do is post a sign that says, "We don't hire evangelicals." And in places like my county which prohibits political affiliation discrimination, you (probably) can't post a sign saying, "We don't hire Republicans."

The fake web designer in this case swore up and down that she would accept business from LGBTQ customers, and that her only problem was with gay marriage websites. Do we believe her? Heck no. She doesn't even have an active web designer business yet, and the only alleged customer who asked about a gay marriage site is straight and says it never happened. But still. The Court focused not on discrimination against LGBTQ people, but on this: "Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction." They also focused on the fact that her alleged profession is creative one that is "expressive in nature."

So let's look into the future and assume she actually will eventually have a real website design business. Let's assume she will be so busy she needs staff. What will happen if a gay website designer who is married to a person of the same sex applies? Can she say that the business reflects her personal expression and her sincere beliefs prohibit her from endorsing gay marriage  by hiring such a person? Probably a stretch, but I can see it happening. Can she hire the person but say that her sincere beliefs prohibit her from providing insurance to his spouse? Very possible (see the Hobby Lobby case).

How will this case apply to employment law in the future? Well, I have some strong suspicions about how evangelical employers will try to apply it. But what about other employers? What if your beliefs are similar to those of The Chosen? What if your sincere belief is that those who deliberately misgender must, forever after or until they relent, be called by the opposite gender, and those who refuse to use non-binary pronouns, must forever after or until they relent, be referred to as they/them. Can you ask in interviews about the person's beliefs on pronouns and misgendering? Maybe. If so, can you automatically disqualify anyone who says their religion requires the opposite? Hmm. Unclear. If you hire them when they admit that they deliberately misgender due to their sincere beliefs, when you forever call them by the gender opposite that on their birth certificate can they claim sex or religious discrimination? Possibly.

As you can tell, I have lots of questions about this case and how it will apply to employment law in the future. Questions such as:

• Can a man whose sincere belief says women belong in the home now refuse to work with women?
• Can a woman whose sincere belief says that Black people are under the "Curse of Ham" and are thus inferior pay Black employees less than white ones? (This excuse was used to justify slavery).
• Can an employer whose sincere belief is that women are suited only to secretarial work refuse to hire female truck drivers?

This "sincere belief" stuff cuts both ways.

• Can an employer whose sincere belief is that anyone who voted for Trump is ethically deficient refuse to hire Republicans?
• Can a woman whose sincere belief is that anyone who believes that abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape, incest, and for the health of the mother is unfit to lead anyone refuse to grant a promotion to Catholics?
• Can a man whose sincere belief is that anyone who supports book banning is unfit to teach refuse to hire evangelical teachers?

I think these questions will be answered soon. The answer under the law a year ago is no to all of the above. But now, apparently anything goes. So hold onto your hats and just assume things will get crazy before they settle down.

Right now, employment discrimination is still mostly illegal. But that could change. Be ready.

The Only Way "Don't Say Gay" Is Consistent With Title VII Is Complete Gender Neutrality

I'm following up on my post Florida Don't Say Gay Bill Arguably Requires 100% Gender Neutrality Until 4th Grade, one, because I've thought more about it, two, because the law really irks me, and three, because I want to explain why an employment lawyer is writing about an education law.

If I go through my memories of law school, back when dinosaurs roamed, one of the things they taught us is the rules of statutory construction. That is, how judges are supposed to interpret laws after they are passed. And one thing that the rules of statutory construction say is that separate statutes must be read together, when possible, to achieve a harmonious statutory scheme. It is assumed that the legislature does not intend to create inconsistency. (Ha! Have they ever listened to a legislative debate?) But anyhow, that's one of the things a judge has to look at. 

And I keep coming back to two laws that are the backbone of any employment law practice: Title VII, which is the federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, and the Florida Civil Rights Act, which is the state law prohibiting workplace discrimination. We all know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination covered by Title VII. So sexual orientation discrimination or harassment based upon sexual orientation violates laws prohibiting sex discrimination in the workplace. That is established law. 

So how does that affect the interpretation of Florida's Don't Say Gay law? Let's look at it again: "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Let's look at two second grade teachers. Bob is married to a woman. Barb is married to a woman. Bob and Barb are both asked about their spouses by their students. If school boards, schools, or the state interpret this law to mean that Bob can answer but Barb can't, then they have violated Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. If Barb is disciplined for mentioning her same sex spouse but Bob is not disciplined for mentioning his opposite-sex spouse, that is sex discrimination.

Barb is terrified that she might accidentally mention her spouse during class. If she is subject to extra scrutiny of her teaching methods due to her sexual orientation, that's sex discrimination.

Both Bob and Barb assign students a project to draw their families. Susie draws two dads. When it comes time for each student to discuss their families, do they have to skip Susie? Or tell her she can't mention the dads? Does that make Barb feel upset or attacked? If so, she is being harassed due to her gender. 

The school removes all books with two moms, two dads, any LGBTQ characters. Only straight characters and opposite sex marriages allowed in the library. Barb feels uncomfortable with this. She is being harassed due to her gender.

Now let's look at the gender neutral way to interpret the statute. Both Bob and Barb can talk about their spouses, but not use the terms "husband" or "wife." They can say spouse or partner. Both are treated equally. The kids label moms and dads as "parent" and refer to them as such. Both Barb and Bob are comfortable. The school leaves the books alone. Or removes all books relating to any kind of marriage or romance, including heterosexual ones. Both Bob and Barb feel comfortable. Nobody is being treated differently or made to feel uncomfortable due to their sexual orientation. 

So I repeat my assertion from last week. The Don't Say Gay bill may be the most accidentally woke law I've ever seen. I think that parents and students should insist that it be interpreted as requiring absolute gender neutrality. If schools, school boards, or the state of Florida does otherwise, school employees can bring workplace discrimination claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. And, although I don't do education law, students could have claims under Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in education.

Don't let the bigots get you down. Make them follow their new law to the letter, assuming it gets signed.

Florida Don't Say Gay Bill Arguably Requires 100% Gender Neutrality Until 4th Grade

 Florida teachers and school boards will have to be very careful now that the Florida legislature has passed the "Don't Say Gay" bill. It's actually called the "Parental Rights in Education" bill, and it addresses a number of issues. The big one, the most controversial one, is meant to keep teachers and schools from discussing LGBT issues in class. But that's not quite what it says.

Here's the provision:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 

Nowhere does the bill define either "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" to limit those terms to only LGBT issues. So we're left with the standard definitions of those terms. 

Websters defines "sexual orientation" as "a person's sexual identity or self-identification as bisexual, straight, gay, pansexual, etc. : the state of being bisexual, straight, gay, pansexual, etc."

Yes. Straight is included. Heterosexual is included.

Websters defines "gender identity" as "a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female."

Yes, people born male and identifying as male are included. People born female and identifying as female are included.

As I read this, strictly construing the actual words used in the statute, there can be no instruction in K-3rd grade using the terms "boys," "girls," "husband," "wife," "mother," or "father." All instruction must be completely gender neutral, using "they" or "them." Students cannot be instructed to use the "boy's room" or the "girl's room." For gym, they cannot be instructed to use the "boy's locker room" or the "girl's locker room."

Is this what the legislature intended? Probably not. It was intended as a measure to bully LGBT students and their parents. But I think those parents can fight back by demanding absolute gender neutrality in their student's education in K-3. Once they're in 4th grade, the school can then instruct them about gender identity, including boy/girl, and sexual orientation, including heterosexuality.

So when teachers tell their students to draw a picture of their families, they can say the picture is of a parent, but not mom or dad. When teachers discuss married couples in history, they can say they were spouses, not husband or wife. And maybe that's the way it should be.

I think parents of LGBT should demand their rights under this statute once it's signed by the Governor. If my kids were still in school, I'd do it immediately. Tell the Florida legislature to be careful what they wish for.

Under the rest of the bill, there's a process. School districts must develop a plan and notify parents of the process to address any concerns, first at the school level, and then at the district level. Then, if not resolved, the parent may either ask for an administrative magistrate to hear the issue or file a lawsuit.

Teachers should advise the schools that they will only teach in gender neutral terms. School boards should set policies in accordance with the actual language of this bill.

Teachers who object to any other form of non-gender-neutral instruction can argue they are protected whistleblowers if they are disciplined for refusing to disobey this ridiculous law.

What To Expect In #Employment Law In 2022

 If you are a regular reader, you've probably noticed that I haven't done any predictions in the past few years. Because how could anything have possibly been predicted? But employment law is becoming more predictable now, and I think it's time to take a deep breath and do my Cassandra bit. Here are my predictions for 2022:

1.    More pro-employee NLRB: We've already seen this with some very pro-employee, pro-union decisions coming down regarding Amazon, Starbucks, and other unionization attempts. As the year progresses, we'll see NLRB cracking down on employer retaliation and union busting efforts. We'll also be back to seeing more pro-employee decisions on non-union "concerted activity" retaliation.

2.    EEOC will re-energize: They were cut to the bone in budget and staffing under the last administration, so it's taking a bit for them to bounce back. They'll also focus on issues like sexual orientation that got pushed aside under the last administration. I hope they'll fully staff the mediation divisions, because those folks are really terrific at settling cases.

3.    Supremes go anti-employee: Unfortunately, while the agencies will be more pro-employee, the courts are going to take a sharp anti-employee turn. Look for really pro-management decisions on the federal level.

4.    Paralysis on noncompetes: Even though President Biden issued an executive order asking the federal agencies to focus on noncompetes, there's little the agencies can do without legislation. Congress won't do anything. Neither will the Florida legislature. Maybe some pro-employee states will limit or ban noncompetes. Some have done it already. Will more follow?

5.    Sexual harassment crackdown: With President Biden's order criminalizing sexual harassment in the military, the issue will get more attention. Where the military goes, usually goes the rest of the nation, so we should see some more crackdown on sexual harassers.

6.    COVID, COVID, COVID: The virus will continue to be an issue. OSHA will continue to try to get employers to maintain safe workplaces. The Supremes and the right wing will continue to fight. Florida will continue to be the Wild West. 

7.    More unions: As NLRB becomes more employee-friendly, we'll see more unionization attempts. Once Amazon is forced to allow a union (and it will happen this year), employees of other workplaces previously thought impossible will begin efforts to unionize. Some will succeed. The Great Resignation has made employees more conscious of working conditions. They'll continue to fight to be treated fairly. Union busters will make a fortune this year as employers try to fight back.

8.    Disability discrimination: Now that employees realize that it's easy to work remotely, and now that employers want employees back in the office, we'll see more disability discrimination cases. Employees who seek remote work as a reasonable accommodation will face resistance, but employers will lose the argument that granting the accommodation is a hardship. After all, they had a year or more of remote work very successfully. 

9.    Zoom: I don't know about you, but I love Zoom. Having to do a 2 - 3 hour round trip for a 5 minute hearing is a huge waste of resources. Judges like it because they have more control. For non-evidentiary hearings, Zoom will remain in many courtrooms. We'll also continue to see more Zoom depositions and mediations, which work very well on that platform. This will make attendance by employees much less onerous. They won't miss as much work, for one. In employment law, it will be a huge benefit. I find that employees are way more likely to settle in a Zoom mediation where they feel comfortable and more relaxed. Employers will also continue to utlize Zoom or similar platforms for meetings rather than having employees commute from remote locations. 

10.    Anti-employee laws: We'll see some extreme anti-employee laws in red states as the right wing pushes to be more and more extreme. Expect some laws attacking LGBT folks, abortion, marijuana, protests, and free speech. Some of these laws will give employers extra protection against lawsuits for terminating employees for their activities outside of work.

Well, that's about all I think I can predict for now. Let's see how I do. It's still crazy out there, but hopefully things will get a bit more normal as 2022 progresses.

“BE HEARD in the Workplace” Act Attempts To Fix Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Laws

Don't get too excited. It will probably pass in the House, fail in the Senate, and be vetoed even if it does pass. But still, the “BE HEARD in the Workplace” Act (short for “Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination in the Workplace Act”) just introduced would be a major step in the right direction on sexual harassment law.

The bill would fix some major issues with existing sexual harassment laws that I've been complaining about for years:

Intern sexual harassment would be illegal: Right now, there is not a single federal law making sexual harassment of unpaid interns illegal. They aren't employees, so Title VII doesn't protect them. New York City, along with Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Oregon, have laws against sexually harassing unpaid interns. Otherwise, interns are currently sitting ducks in the workplace. The law also extends protections to  independent contractors, interns, fellows, volunteers, and trainees, regardless of remuneration or academic credit, and employees of smaller companies (right now it's 15 or more employees, so small employers get a free pass unless there's a state or local law saying otherwise).

Protection for LGBTQ employees: This law would add gender identity and sexual orientation to Title VII protections, clearing up any doubts about whether Title VII currently protects these employees (which I think it already does based on Obergefell).

Damages fixed: While age discrimination cases are currently subject to different damages and all damages are capped, this would eliminate damage caps and eliminate the ageist bias in the current law.

Fixes sexual harassment standard: The law would eliminate the ridiculously difficult-to-prove "severe or pervasive" standard (which management-side lawyers and some courts say is severe AND pervasive), clarify that sexual harassment is a form of workplace harassment, define workplace harassment as a practice that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, and identify factors to be used to determine whether a practice constitutes workplace harassment, but also clarify that no single factor alone can determine whether a practice constitutes workplace harassment.

Fixes standard of proof: The law clarifies that employees must only prove that discrimination or retaliation was a motiving factor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act (right now courts have said that age must be the sole factor in age discrimination cases, and for all it must be both a substantial and a motivating factor).

Statute of limitations: Changes the statute from 180/300 days (depending on the state, which is silly) to file with EEOC to 4 years.

No mandatory arbitration: The law prohibits pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements, and creates guardrails for post-dispute arbitration agreements.

Contractor discrimination prohibited: The law reinstates the Obama ExecutiveOrder reversed by Trump that ensures federal contractor compliance with workers’ rights laws, including maintaining workplaces free from harassment and discrimination. 

These are just a few of the key provisions. It's basically my wish list for fixing employment law, so thanks to the bill's sponsors Senator Patty Murray, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.

Now, if only it had a chance in he** . . .

My 2018 Predictions

Okay, okay. So I've been promising these for awhile. It has taken me a bit to wrap my head around things that have happened so far since the presidential election. The good news is that the GOP remains the party that couldn't shoot straight (no pun intended). So far, little has been done against employees on the legislative front. It's mostly been done by executive order.

So what can we expect for the rest of 2018? Here are my predictions:

Sexual harassment: Despite all the brouhaha on #MeToo and sexual harassment, no new legislation will pass and we'll see some judicial and jury decisions penalizing sexual harassment victims. There will be backlash, and lots of it.

Agcncy paralysis: With cuts to EEOC, DOJ and NLRB, these agencies will develop backlogs and go into paralysis. Employees can expect little help from the feds this year. The one hopeful thing I see is that EEOC mediations are still going strong. The EEOC mediators, at least down here, are some of the best I've ever seen, government or private. We will still see cases resolved in EEOC mediations unless the mediation program is cut too.

Guns at work: Thanks to high school students down here, we may start to see states revisiting those idiotic guns at work laws that have been all the rage. On the other hand, the orange one is pressing to arm teachers in classrooms. What could possibly go wrong? I think we will actually see some baby steps on common sense gun control for the first time in this country in a long time. It will take awhile, probably years, but there will probably ultimately be a drop in workplace shootings if these laws pass.

Immigration raids: We've already started to see employers being raided to round up illegal immigrants and arrest the bosses for hiring them. We're also seeing traffic stops to round up immigrants. That will continue. Employers  and employees beware.

Antitrust: The Department of Justice has announced it will start cracking down on no-poach agreements between employers. That's a ray of sunshine in what will be an awful year for employees. I would caution employers who threaten to sue competitors for hiring former employees, then quietly settle with a no-poach agreement. The government will come after you as well as my colleagues and me for these illegal arrangements.

LGBT rights: The courts will continue to battle over whether or not Title VII'a sex discrimination prohibition covers sexual orientation. I don't think the Supremes will get to the issue this year, so we'll have a split among circuits on this. So far, the 2nd and 7th Circuits say it's covered. The 11th, which covers my home state of Florida, says no.

Marijuana crackdowns: I've been predicting for awhile that the feds will start cracking down on legal marijuana use. It's still illegal on the federal level, no matter what your state says. That handy-dandy card allowing you to buy will be a nice tool for the feds to use to claim probable cause to search your house. They'll probably go after growers and dispensaries first, but if people don't rise up and resist, they'll come after individuals next. I'm guessing the crackdown this year will be on the businesses, not on individuals.

Overall, this won't be a good year for employee rights. But then, you knew that already. Resistance is not futile.

New Bills In Florida That Will Impact #Employees If Passed

The Florida legislature is in session through May. They may or may not pass some legislation that will affect employees and employment law. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Here are some of the bills to watch:

SB 160 - Minimum Wage: Revising the formula for the adjusted state minimum wage, etc.  See HB 945. This is an attempt to slowly bring Florida's minimum wage up to a living wage by adjusting an extra $1 - $1.50 per year until 2021. Since Republicans hate the minimum wage to begin with, it won't pass. 

SCR 194:  The annual and inevitably failing attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Sigh.

HB 319:  Discrimination in Labor and Employment: Creates "Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act." This bill, which won't pass. would add gender identity to the categories of illegal discrimination, prohibit pay and other discrimination based on sex and gender identity,  and prohibit employers from punishing employees for discussing and comparing wages and benefits. 

HB 443:  Verification of Employment Eligibility: Requires employers to use E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility; prohibits employer from knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized alien. This bill really has more of an impact on employers, and criminalizes the hiring of illegal aliens. However, it will make it more difficult for anyone with an accent or foreign-sounding name to get a job if employers become skittish about possible jail time for a bad hiring decision. This one has a shot at getting passed as we continue anti-immigrant fever in this country, but I'm guessing the Chambers and business interests will freak out and oppose it. My prediction is it probably won't pass.

HB 623:  Prohibited Discrimination: Provides that sexual orientation & gender identity are impermissible grounds for discrimination, provides exception for constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.  Related bills are SB 666, HB 659, SB 742. Despite the fact that major corporations and business interests support this, and the fact that it will be good for Florida's tourism and economic interests, this has failed every time it has been attempted. It will fail again.

HB 1255:  Florida Commission on Human Relations. This bill would adjust quorum requirements for the Commission and would make clear that the statute of limitations for suing for discrimination is 4 years from the date of discrimination, which is the law now but is continually the subject of litigation. Mostly, it guts the discrimination provisions regarding private clubs. It could pass.

HB 7047: Would deregulate/change regulations regarding a huge list of professions, including labor organizations.

Guns in workplaces: There is a giant batch of pro-gun legislation pending that could well pass, and it will affect workplace safety and also employee rights to carry. These bills include the right to bring guns to colleges and universities, passenger terminals of airports, public meetings, basically anywhere, career centers,  athletic events of schools and colleges,  the Florida legislature (okay, this would serve them right). Then there's SB 140 and SB 646 that would make Florida an open carry state. If business organizations aren't freaking out and screaming bloody murder, they should be. Can you imagine what will happen if a bunch of Floridians are running around with guns in all these places? Mayhem will ensue. And then there's the one that is the voice in the wilderness that would increase penalties for carrying weapons into schools and school events. It won't pass. Neither will the one adding public theaters and performing arts centers to the list of places you can't carry weapons.

Medical marijuana: Of the many bills relating to marijuana use, not one would protect employees from being fired for using prescribed marijuana, even the low THC kind. For shame.

SB 1208: Would add intentional touching in a lewd or lascivious manner the breasts, genitals, genital area, or buttocks, or the clothing covering such areas to the crime of sexual battery, which could give sexual harassment victims more ammunition. It's by a Democrat so it probably won't pass.

SB 1148: Unemployment compensation. Would provide for an alternate base period for those currently being screwed out of unemployment benefits for arbitrary calendar reasons, would punish employers who refuse to give wage/employment info (which happens all the time now and delays unemployment benefits by weeks or months) and would add to the reasons an employee can resign and still get benefits. There is no way this will pass. Florida has done everything it can to screw people out of their unemployment benefits and will continue to do so.

HB 575: Threats to kill or do bodily harm. This one will affect many employees. It makes it a felony to post on the Internet or in social media, as well as email, etc. any threat to kill or do bodily harm. This means anyone who posts, "I could just kill my boss for what happened today," or "I could just strangle my coworker," whether or not there was any intent to do the harm and whether or not it was just venting, could face felony charges. This bill could be crazy overbroad and could result in lots of employees ending up in handcuffs. Right now, the threat has to be made to the actual person. Now, if anyone else sees the threat you can be prosecuted.

HB 561: Providing for a veteran's preference tax credit, which may help veterans get employment.

HB 31: Would "ban the box" and prohibit employers from asking about arrests/convictions and from refusing to interview based on criminal arrests and convictions. They can still do background checks once a conditional offer of employment is made. It won't pass.

SB 126: Would loosen the state's anti-nepotism laws. Somebody has a relative who needs a job. Could it be somebody who also wants to turn the state into the wild west? Could be.

HB 11: Would make it way easier to decertify labor organizations/labor unions. It will probably pass.

The good news is there are no bathroom bills this year. Will the legislature do anything to help employees this year? Not likely. I'll let you know if they do.

What A Broad Religious Exemption To Discrimination Laws Will Mean

While the Trump Administration announced that it would keep in place President Obama's Executive Order protecting employees of federal contractors from LGBT discrimination, there have been reports of another proposed executive order that would provide a religious exemption from all discrimination laws.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”

If signed this Executive Order could conceivably be used to argue exemptions to race and sex discrimination laws as well as LGBT discrimination. While I don't think the President (who is not king or dictator, yet) can change existing laws with the stroke of a pen, this could result in years of litigation on these issues.

There are certainly many (if not most) religions that consider women to be second-class citizens. Some religions believe women should be subordinate to men, should not work outside the home, and/or should cover themselves from head to toe. Will the Administration be so intent on allowing LGBT discrimination that they forget about women's rights?

Indeed, the Bible was used for years to argue in favor of race discrimination and slavery. Such a broad exemption could be used to justify race discrimination by certain religious groups.

On the other hand, it would be conceivable that someone (maybe John Oliver, Trevor Noah or Samantha Bee) could form a religion to counter all this nonsense. A religion that says it is sinful to discriminate against LGBT, Muslim and other oppressed communities; that it is sinful to participate in oppressing the poor; that it is sinful to participate in increasing wage disparities; that it is sinful to deny excellent education to the poor and middle class; that it is sinful to employ people who would participate in such activities. Some religions already hold similar beliefs.

What would be the effect of such a religion? State and federal employees who were members could use a religious justification to refuse to enforce or participate in enforcement of any laws or policies that are against their religious beliefs. Closely-held for-profit corporations could refuse to employ anyone who held homophobic views, voted for Trump or walk around with Ayn Rand books. I'm betting that those who want to use their religion to discriminate would be the first to howl at such practices.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. A broad religious exemption to discrimination laws might not have the effect Mr. Trump and his cronies are looking for. Be careful what you wish for.

Grow Up! Florida Legislators Need To Get Over Potty Issues

Potty issues are apparently a big political concern here in Florida.

When I first moved to Florida from the liberal Northeast, I became involved in the campaign to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. I thought it was a no-brainer. But while phone banking I encountered numerous people arguing with a straight face that passing the ERA would mean unisex bathrooms. I was astounded. Well, now we have plenty of unisex bathrooms in this country and the world didn't end.

Yet Florida legislators haven't gotten over their potty issues. Last year, a bill that would have made it a crime to use a bathroom marked for the opposite sex passed one committee before dying a well-deserved death in another. The bill was so poorly written that it would have been a crime to change a male baby's diaper in a women's restroom. All for the purpose of harassing the transgendered.

Just when I thought the worst of the potty issues had come and gone, this happened: a bill to make LGBT discrimination illegal in Florida failed because Florida legislators fear they'll pick up gay cooties in the potty. Well, okay, they didn't actually say cooties. But, in the words of one Republican lawmaker, “you could have a lot of weirdos doing weird things in bathrooms.” These legislators claim they fear that men could dress up as women and really be sexual predators out to attack women in bathroom stalls. Alrighty then.

Here's the thing. Sexual predators could do that very thing right now. There's nothing to stop them other than that it's already illegal to sexually assault people, whether in restrooms or elsewhere. And there has not been a single reported instance of any attack by a transgender person against a person of the opposite sex in any restroom in any state where LGBT anti-discrimination laws have passed. Not one. Zero. Zip.

I'm way more concerned for the transgender man who identifies as a woman and the post-op transgender woman who dress as females yet have to use the men's room. Not only are they being forced to put themselves at risk of physical or mental abuse, but isn't that more disturbing to men and women than just letting people use the potty they feel comfortable using?

The argument, in short, is specious. Which brings me back to cooties. Because that's the only explanation I can come up with for this silly argument. Yet we are continuing to allow legalized discrimination against gay workers in Florida all because Florida legislators haven't gotten over their potty issues.

So I say to Florida legislators, grow up! Get over your potty issues and pass a law that most of Florida's major corporations support and that will actually benefit voters in our state.

Florida Democrats Take Another Swing At Pro-Employee Legislation (That Won't Pass)

Another legislative session coming up, some more pro-employee legislation that will not pass. But here’s what some Florida Democrats (okay, I didn’t check them all, but c’mon, what are the odds that any of the co-sponsors of any pro-employee laws are Republicans?) are trying to pass in 2016 to help Florida employees:

$15 minimum wage: SB 6 and HB 109 would raise Florida’s minimum wage to $15/hour

ERA: SCR 74 and HCR 8001 would ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Better late than never.

Sexual Orientation: SB 120 and HB 45would add sexual orientation and gender identity to prohibited categories of discrimination in the workplace.

Social Media Privacy: SB 186 would prohibit employers from demanding your social media passwords.

Unemployment and Domestic Violence: SB 188 protects employees who leave or lose jobs due to domestic violence from being disqualified for unemployment benefits.

Paid Sick Leave: SB 294 and HB 205 would require state and local governments with at least 9 employees to provide paid sick leave to employees. Why only government employers? I'm really not sure that's what the sponsors meant to do, but that's what it says employers are.

Paid Family Leave: SB 384 and HB 603 would require employers to provide paid leave similar to FMLA for birth or adoption of a child and care in the first year, but it applies to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, applies to employers with at least 15 employees, and would permit up to 6 weeks of protected leave. Creates a rebuttable presumption that any demotion or discharge taken within 90 days against an employee who takes leave is a violation.

Ban the Box: SB 448 and HB 353 would prohibit employers from asking about criminal history in initial employment applications.

If you support any of these bills, start calling and writing your legislators now. Especially the Republicans. If any of these proposed laws get overwhelming support, they may just have a chance. My prediction: DOA.

EEOC Says Sexual Orientation Discrimination Is Already Illegal

This is my first post (other than the blog carnival) since I got a concussion. A lot has happened in the interim, so I have a lot to catch up on. This week I want to cover what I think is probably the most important development in discrimination law in a long time. That is, the EEOC has issued a decision that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination also prohibits sexual orientation discrimination.

But this is nothing new, you say? Sure, EEOC has been opining that transgender employees are protected under sexual stereotyping. They've also overturned "unable to determine" dismissal letters, ordering investigators to process sexual orientation discrimination charges under the category of sexual stereotyping. 

What's different is that this is the first time the agency has recognized that sexual orientation discrimination is flat-out sex discrimination. That is, the employer is treating the employee differently because of their gender. Here's the reasoning:

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised on sex-based preferences, assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, or norms. "Sexual orientation" as a concept cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex. A man is referred to as "gay" if he is physically and/or emotionally attracted to other men. A woman is referred to as "lesbian" if she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to other women. Someone is referred to as "heterosexual" or "straight" if he or she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to someone of the opposite-sex.  Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted." It follows, then, that sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex and. therefore, that allegations of sexual orientation discrimination involve sex-based considerations. One can describe this inescapable link between allegations of sexual orientation discrimination and sex discrimination in a number of ways.  

Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee's sex. For example, assume that an employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her desk , but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on bis desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a legitimate claim under Title VII that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse employment action. ("Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows 'treatment of a person m a manner which but for that person's sex would be different.'"). The same result holds true if the peron discriminated against is straight. Assume a woman is suspended because she has placed a picture of her husband on her desk but her gay colleague is not suspended after he places a picture of his husband on his desk. The straight female employee could bring a cognizable Title VII claim of disparate treatment because of sex.

(citations omitted).

Put more simply, sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because, if Jane loves Janice and she is discriminated because of that, had Jane been a man and loved Janice she would not have been subjected to discrimination. But for her gender, Jane would not have been discriminated against for loving Janice.

This is an argument I've made for years and people looked at me like I was insane. It's good to be vindicated.

This goes well beyond sexual stereotyping, which didn't cover all sexual orientation claims; it only applied where gay and lesbian employees didn't fit into stereotypical gender roles.

Will the courts apply this reasoning? I'm guessing some will and some won't, and we'll be back in front of the Supreme Court. If you ever thought that your choice of President doesn't matter, think of those Supreme Court appointments. What will the Court look like when this case finally gets to them? That's up to you.

Employment Law Bills Pending In The Florida Legislature

Since I've been writing about states that have pro-employee laws, and complaining about the lack of protections for employees in Florida law, I thought you'd like to hear about some legislation that has been filed in the Florida legislature for the upcoming session. Will any of it pass? Doubtful. Still, now might be a good time to contact your representatives and state senators to support some of these laws:

Intern Sexual Harassment: Rep. Joseph Geller has proposed a law expanding the Florida Civil Rights Act to include unpaid interns. Why? Because we currently have no laws in Florida prohibiting sexual harassment of interns. Who will come out in favor of sexual harassment of our teenagers? Stay tuned.

Florida Overtime Act: This proposed law revises the number of hours of labor that is a full legal day's work from 10 to 8; revises rates of overtime compensation; provides that commuting to and from certain locations is not part of a day's work; prohibits an employer from requiring employee to continue working after punching out; prohibits employers from paying an employee for less than the amount of contracted hours worked by the employee; and provides penalties for violations.

Fair Pay: The Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act would condemn gender-based pay disparity and have the Department of Economic Opportunity and the Florida Commission on Human Relations do research and disseminate information about unequal pay. No remedies for victims, but it could help prove that disparities exist and spread the word about what legal protections women have.

Minimum Wage: A law increasing the state's minimum wage to $10.10 probably doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Social Media Privacy: Right now, Florida employers can get away with demanding employee social media passwords. A law prohibiting this kind of invasion of privacy would make it illegal for employers to demand user names and passwords for personal social media accounts of employees and prospective employees.

Bullying: The Safe Environment Work Act would make employers liable for allowing an abusive work environment to exist. Will Florida join Tennessee in banning workplace bullies? Not likely.

Ban The Box: With this law, Florida would join the many states that ban employers from making prospective employees disclose their criminal history on an employment application. So far 13 states have passed ban-the-box laws.

LGBT Discrimination: One law that might pass, mainly because lots of Florida employers have come out in favor of it and it has bipartisan support, is the law proposing to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the categories of prohibited discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Although it isn't specifically related to employment law, there's yet another attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in Florida. The ERA was the first campaign I worked on when I moved here in 1981, and I thought it was a no-brainer. Here we are, 33 years later, with no ERA. Will it pass? No.

Vikings Football Player Speaks Up For Gay Marriage, Is Fired: Can He Sue? Maybe

Chris Kluwe is a punter for the NFL. He used to play for the Minnesota Vikings. That is, until he started speaking up in favor of marriage equality. He got permission from the team to do some ads for the cause, but things changed when he wrote and published a letter to a Maryland state official defending a Ravens football player's right to free speech on the same subject. After that, his coach asked him to stop. He didn't.

His coach began to make negative comments about gays repeatedly in Kluwe's presence that they hadn't made in all the years he had worked for them. He also made comments to the effect that Kluwe, "would wind up burning in hell with the gays, and that the only truth was Jesus Christ and the Bible"

He was singled out for harsh criticisms that others had not been subjected to. The comments got increasingly angry, such as: "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows."

He was instructed to kick in such a way that it helped the team but made him look worse in the stats. Ultimately, he was replaced. His full statement about what he says happened is here. A story that has the team's response is here.  The team is now investigating and maybe they'll do something, maybe not. 

Let's assume everything he says is true. Does he have a remedy? Let's examine what possible claims he may raise:

• Free speech: This would be a non-starter. I've written about the fact that there's no free speech at work here, here, here and here. The First Amendment protects you against government action, not corporate action.
• Sexual orientation discrimination: Minnesota has a law against sexual orientation discrimination, but there's no law protecting speech in favor of marriage equality. If he were fired for objecting to sexual orientation discrimination within the team, then he would be protected against retaliation, but there's still no openly gay football player in the NFL. The law in Minnesota does protect against perceived sexual orientation discrimination, but I see no indication that the coach actually thought he was gay. If Minnesota has an association discrimination provision in the law, then maybe he can argue he was fired for associating with gays. My guess is he's out of luck on sexual orientation discrimination.
• Political activity: Minnesota has a law on the books making it a crime to retaliate against an employee because of that person's political activity. I think this one may be a winner. The question will be whether he has a remedy under this law because it makes violations a misdemeanor. Any Minnesota lawyers out there want to weigh in?
• Contract: He almost certainly has an employment contract and I know absolutely zero about football contracts. I'd guess they can dump a player pretty much at will, although there may be some hoops they have to jump through. Unless he can only be fired for cause, or the contract says he can't be fired for political activity or for discriminatory reasons, he may have little or no remedy there. Anyone know what's in his contract?
• Religious discrimination: If his coach actually told him he'd burn in hell, this would be the way I'd probably go with it. The coach has strong religious beliefs against gay marriage and Kluwe doesn't share those religious beliefs. In Florida, with no law protecting against political activity discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination, this might be the only way to go with a case like this one. I recently wrote about whether religious discrimination laws allow harassment of employees for various reasons, which you can read here.

Can he sue? I'd say maybe. He has one possible federal claim, one pretty good state law claim and one possible state law claim. I'm guessing we haven't heard the last of Mr. Kluwe, so we'll soon find out.

I said it to conservatives and now I'll say it to liberals: it's best to keep those controversial opinions to yourself at work and in public. If you have a boss who holds strong contrary views, or if you're likely to offend your employer's customers with your opinions, keep them to yourself and your friends (but not in social media). I guess it's a good thing I'm my own boss . . .

Does Your Religion Excuse Homophobic, Racist or Sexist Behavior At Work?

When I wrote the piece about Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and his suspension for making racist and anti-gay comments in an interview done to promote his show, many readers told me that Mr. Robertson should be protected by religious discrimination laws. After all, the argument went, he was only expressing his religious beliefs about gays.

Bob
Tt is not freedom of speech, it is freedom of RELIGION--what Phil said was congruent with what the Bible says. Violation of the free exercise clause is the issue, not speech. Can you imagine firing an employee because they expressed atheist beliefs or supported Obama and his queer minions?????

Even though employers have to accommodate religious beliefs at work, do religious discrimination laws allow you to express your beliefs that "the gay lifestyle," and gay marriage are sinful? Are you allowed to tell your female coworkers that women belong in the home and should be subordinate to men? Can you dig out old Jeff Davis's views of the Bible to share with your African-American co-workers?

I write about the legal issues involved in determining how much religious expression at work is protected, and when it isn't in my latest article at AOL Jobs.

Donna's Employment Law Predictions for 2014

Last week I revealed how I did on my predictions for 2013 (pretty darned good, if I do say so myself). Today, I look into my crystal ball for 2014. Here's what I see on the horizon:

1. Minimum Wage: Raising the minimum wage will be a hot political issue in 2014. We saw some movements in 2013 to make significant increases, and that will continue. Unless something drastic happens in the midterm elections, it's doubtful we'll see anything significant on the national level, but look for more states to increase the minimum wage to the $ 9 - 10 range. Some may go even higher, like Seattle's move toward $15. Raising the minimum wage is great for the economy. Unlike trickle-down economics, it gets money circulating quickly. Henry Ford had the right idea: pay your employees enough so they can buy your products.
2. Legalize It: Legalized marijuana will spread to more states, creating some confusion for employers. Can they fire employees who test positive, like Colorado? Or will their state prohibit firings for legal marijuana use like Connecticut, Arizona, Rhode Island, Maine, Colorado and New York? Colorado has a law, as do other states, prohibiting firing/discrimination for legal off-duty activities, so watch for some litigation over this issue there. Look for marijuana growers and sellers to push for laws like tobacco users have in several states protecting them from discrimination at work. In the meantime, medical marijuana users will seek protection under the ADA and other disability discrimination laws.
3. Health Care: ObamaCare kicked in and it will change the way we look at health insurance. Sure, it isn't ideal. But when a million or so people who've never had health insurance or who haven't had it in years suddenly can get medical treatment, they'll start to expect to be treated like human beings instead of human waste. From here, we'll be very close to an upheaval in the way we deal with health insurance. This year, we'll see some confusion as the regulations kick in, some stupid employers dumping insurance and cutting people to part-time to avoid paying insurance, but the employer mandates have been delayed until 2015, so most of the stupid employer activity will be at the end of the year and into next year. I say that employers who do this are stupid because they'll ultimately lose good employees. With more people covered, there will be more health care jobs available.
4. Internships Cut: With employers under attack for unpaid internship programs that don't actually educate the interns and replace regular employees, some programs will simply disappear. That's not all bad, since the interns-as-slaves programs need to die. We'll see better internship programs cropping up, ones that are truly educational, or paid internships. But most of the new programs will start up after this year. This will be a year of lost programs. We'll also see some attempts to put interns under the protection of discrimination and sexual harassment laws. Some may succeed on the state or local levels, but there's no way that happens on a national level with Congress as it is currently configured.
5. Failed Again: Attempts to pass anti-bullying laws and the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act will fail just like they do every year.
6. NLRB and EEOC Cut Off By Courts: NLRB and EEOC will continue to try to expand the protections employees have. Courts will continue to stop them. Still, they'll inch forward with some new progress for employees. Baby steps.
7. Lip Service: While the midterm elections kick in, we'll hear lots of big proposals to help employees. Little or nothing will pass due to gridlock. Failures will include the FAMILY Act, Arbitration Fairness Act, and ENDA. However, the fact that each of these bills will be blocked will become fodder to take down some of the more anti-employee members of Congress. Maybe 2015 will see some progress.
8. Background Checks: EEOC's efforts to demonstrate that criminal background checks have a disparate impact on blacks have been pretty well crushed so far. However, there will continue to be efforts to ban credit checks. More states will ban or limit use of credit information in hiring. The federal efforts to do so will fail. More states will pass ban-the-box laws barring many inquiries about arrest and conviction records in job applications. There is zero chance such a law will pass on the federal level this election year.
9. Pregnancy Discrimination: The issue of whether pregnancy is covered under the Florida Civil Rights Act will be resolved one way or the other by the end of the year. I think the Florida Supreme Court will say it is already covered. If not, then the legislature will pass a fix. The difference will be for all those women caught in between. If the Court doesn't rule for employees, lots of new moms who thought they were covered and sued under state law will be out of luck. Rule wisely, Supremes.
10. LGBT Protections: States and local governments will continue to pass discrimination laws banning LGBT discrimination. The feds will fail again, but EEOC will continue to push for application of existing law to LGBT employees.
11. Religious Discrimination: Religious employees will push the limits on their ability to proselytize and pray at work. There will be a disconnect between the right to practice religion vs. the right not to be harassed for not sharing a religion and also LGBT rights. Look for right-wing religious groups to push the argument that religious discrimination laws allow them to speak out against gay rights in the workplace. In an election year, we'll see extreme positions pushed on both sides.

Well, that's it for my predictions. I think this year will be one where employees start to wake up to how few rights they have and start to push for more. Major change will come only with a change in Congress.

Call Me Prescient: How My 2013 Employment Law Predictions Fared

If you are a regular reader, you'll recall that I made predictions at the beginning of 2013 about what I thought we could expect. How did I do? Call me Cassandra.

Here's what I said would happen, and what really did:

1. Even More Active NLRB: Look for stepped up activity against employers on social media restrictions, attempts to suppress worker concerted activities and lopsided agreements. NLRB will do what other government agencies have punted on: help employees.

Sure enough, NLRB didn't disappoint. They were up to full strength by the middle of  the year. They continued to press for employee rights in non-union workplaces. They struck down some overbroad social media policies and policies on confidentiality of investigations. They rolled out an app to inform employees in union and non-union workplaces about their rights. It wasn't all pro-employee. NLRB upheld several Facebook firings. See also here and here for some of 2013's social media cases.

2. EEOC Will Start Stepping Up Not to be outdone by NLRB, EEOC will become more active as well. This year saw the beginnings of activity to address gay rights and retaliatory confidentiality agreements. Look for more activity that actually helps employees, and for an agency that no longer accepts employer position statements as gospel.

EEOC tried to step up with the issuance of a guidance and then a clarification to its guidance on criminal background checks, but was repeatedly shot down in the courts. Let's hope they don't give up on this important issue, which definitely has a disparate impact on minorities. EEOC also stepped up its enforcement of Title VII regarding LGBT employees under the theory of "sexual stereotyping." They also cracked down on overbroad agreements that limit employees' ability to file with EEOC. I still see a tendency to accept employer position statements as gospel, at least here in Florida, but there's definite progress. Baby steps.

3. Marijuana Litigation With flat-out legalization in two states and legal medical marijuana in many more, we’ll start to see litigation on the employment-protection provisions built into many of these new state statutes. The fact that it’s still illegal under federal law will make things complicated. Will the feds finally give up and recognize state’s rights? Probably not this year, but definitely within the next 5 years.

Sure enough, the litigation has begun. See also here and here. Still nothing on the federal front to recognize states' rights, but it's only a matter of time.

4. Gay Rights Expansion Speaking of states’ rights, with gay marriage spreading across the country, the feds can’t be far behind. We probably won’t see Congress adding sexual orientation to Title VII or gay spouses to FMLA this year, but I think it’s going to happen this Presidential term.

Wow! What a year for gay rights. The Defense of Marriage Act was stricken down, which led to the Feds deciding that FMLA and EBSA do protect gay couples in states that legalized gay marriage. While there was no legislation passed to amend Title VII or FMLA, ENDA did pass the Senate (although it is stalled indefinitely in the House).

5. Strikes All of a sudden, workers are waking up. They’ve realized they don’t have to put up with crappy working conditions in silence. We’ll see more non-unionized workforces going on strike. We’ll also see some Wal-Mart and fast food corporations retaliating for the strikes that have happened last year and which will continue in 2013. Fortunately, I think NLRB will take action to slap employers for illegal retaliation.

2013 saw more fast food strikes and Wal-Mart strikes.  As predicted, Wal-Mart retaliated and NLRB slapped them.

6. Federal Courts Become (Slightly) Less Anti-Employee While federal courts have long been a sad place for employees, especially here in the 11th Circuit, some recent cases indicate that the times may be changing. Look for some rulings in favor of employees for a change. All it will take is a couple of Supreme Court appointments over the next four years and it will be a different world for employees. This year, the Supremes will, for the most part, continue to bend toward corporate interests instead of the working people.

There were some baby steps toward becoming more pro-employee in the federal courts. The usually very pro-employer 11th Circuit sided with the NLRB in a recess appointment case.  Several federal courts found that sex discrimination includes sex stereotyping, providing protection for LGBT employees. Some other pro-employee decisions here and here. Still, the Supremes came in overwhelmingly pro-employer this year. Overall, the federal courts remain a relatively unfriendly place for employees in many circuits.

7. Arbitration Under Fire Although arbitration clauses have been the darling of employers, who are sneaking them into applications, handbooks and that giant stack of papers employees sign on their first day, look for some attacks this year coming from government agencies. Watch for NLRB, EEOC, FTC and maybe even DOJ to subject arbitration agreements to extra scrutiny. It’s doubtful Congress will take action this year, but if they do something to help consumers, employees will probably be able to benefit.

Some courts have tossed one-sided pro-employer arbitration agreements. However, the Supremes upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements. The NLRB lost when it attempted to invalidate an arbitration agreement. Meanwhile, FTC is challenging a consumer arbitration clause. No legislation passed to help consumers or employees this year.

8. Bullies Will Slide Although states periodically consider anti-bullying laws, they always fail to pass. It’s likely 2013 will be no different. Watch for more consciousness-raising but no legal action this year.

Still no anti-bullying laws passed in 2013. Sigh.

9. Privacy Protections More state legislatures will pass laws against demanding employee social media passwords and other egregious employer snooping. Congress might even do something to stop some of the worse invasions of privacy, but I won’t hold my breath. They’re too busy with gridlock to actually do anything that might protect their constituents.

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington passed laws against demanding social media passwords, with at least 36 states trying to follow suit.

10. Background Check Restrictions More states will place limitations on background checks and what background information employers can use against applicants. Watch for laws limiting use of criminal records, unemployment, and credit history against applicants. EEOC will continue looking for disparate impact of background check information against women and minorities. It’s only a matter of time, say 2013 or 2014, before we see a case arguing that use of criminal records has a disparate impact on men, but it won’t come from EEOC.

10 states and almost 60 local governments have passed "ban the box" legislation prohibiting or limiting the use of criminal background checks. Some major employers also announced they'd end the practice. There was one unsuccessful case arguing that criminal background checks had a disparate impact on men. It didn't come from EEOC. As I discussed in 2 above, EEOC lost a number of criminal background cases this year based on racial impact. It is no surprise that it didn't try to expand the theory to include sex discrimination.

Overall, 2013 was a mixed bag for employees. Better than some years, and we definitely saw some activity to protect employees. The biggest surprise was the passage of some minimum wage increases, with 13 states raising the minimum wage.

Stay tuned for my predictions for 2014.

ENDA (Banning Sexual Orientation Discrimination) Passes In Senate What It Will Mean If It Becomes Law

ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the Senate just passed it. I wouldn't get too excited yet, because unless Republicans lose their majority in the House in the midterm elections we aren't likely to see this become law anytime soon. Still, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss what the law will do (and what it won't do) if passed in the House and signed into law.

Read my article in AOL Jobs to find out what ENDA will do if it becomes law, and what it won't do, despite what detractors are saying.

The NFL Wants You (Unless You're Gay)

Here's a new post by my associate, Ryan Price. I think he's spot on with this important issue. If the military survived gays in the barracks, the NFL will survive gays in the locker room.

By:  Ryan Price

Are you ready for some football?!?!  The management of several National Football League (NFL) teams hope you are, unless of course you are homosexual.   In a not so shocking news story, several NFL teams questioned draft prospects about their sexual orientation at the annual scouting combine.  This story came not long after the Manti Te’o scandal, where the star Notre Dame player’s sexual orientation came into question after it was reported he was romantically involved with a fictitious girlfriend portrayed by a male. Now, Te’o’s draft status is in question because teams are afraid of what they may have to “deal with” down the road if news comes out that Te’o is indeed gay.  Why should this ever matter in any employment setting? At least in the NFL, Mike Florio of NBC sports says, “We have to step aside from the rest of reality and walk into the unique industry that is the NFL . . . .  Teams want to know whether Manti Te'o is gay. They just want to know. They want to know because in an NFL locker room, it's a different world. It shouldn't be that way." Is it really a different world? Is it really unique? Are there not homophobic and prejudiced people in many work environments?

Earlier this year backup San Francisco 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver stated he would not welcome a gay teammate in his locker room. What would he do? Quit his high paying job as a backup? I don’t think so. In fact, unbeknownst to Culliver, he did play with a gay teammate. His teammate was outed not long after the Culliver controversy following a domestic dispute with his boyfriend. Of course there are gay players in the NFL and all other major American sports. However, most do not come out while they play, but that may be changing soon. The fact of the matter is, whether or not someone is a homosexual does not affect their job performance, unless perhaps they are faced with a hostile work environment. Hostile work environments begin and end with upper management. 

When management questions prospective employees on their sexual orientation, they are creating or endorsing such hostile environments. Most people, including Culliver, would not quit their job because their co-worker is gay.  However, employers will lose quality employees if they endorse such hostile work environments.  

The NFL released a statement following reports that teams were questioning draft prospects about their sexual orientation.  They simply stated, “teams are expected to follow applicable federal, state and local employment laws." Further, "It is league policy to neither consider nor inquire about sexual orientation in the hiring process. In addition, there are specific protections in our collective bargaining agreement with the players that prohibit discrimination against any player, including on the basis of sexual orientation." The league vowed that it would “look into the report [about the] scouting combine. Any team or employee that inquires about impermissible subjects or makes an employment decision based on such factors is subject to league discipline."

NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith commented, "I know that the NFL agrees that these types of questions violate the law, our CBA and player rights.”  However, to date, there have been no reports that the league has done anything about these “illegal” hiring practices. Perhaps that is because such interviewing questions are not illegal at all and these statements were simply released for PR purposes.

Are there any protections for employees or potential employees who are questioned about their sexual orientation during the hiring process or after they are hired? Unfortunately, the answer is usually no. There isn’t any federal law protecting employees against sexual orientation discrimination. In our country, it is mostly legal to discriminate and harass on the basis of sexual orientation. (Note: EEOC says that discrimination based on gender identity is illegal sex discrimination, but it remains to be seen whether the courts will see it that way.)

The tide is slowly changing.  More and more states, counties, and municipalities are passing laws against these heinous practices. Sexual orientation is irrelevant in the determination of a person’s qualifications for a job. In addition, these companies are sabotaging their own competitive position by filtering out homosexuals. By discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation, companies are losing out on quality employees and also hurting their brand and image. Companies should hire the best of the best, not the best of the straight.

If you feel you have been discriminated against or harassed based on your sexual orientation you should check your state and local laws to find out what protections and redress you may have. Make sure to save copies of all applications and take notes following your interviews where you believe inappropriate questions were asked.  When in doubt, contact your local employee-side employment law attorney.

An Employment Lawyer's Debate Questions for President Obama

This is the first in a series that I am doing along with a group of employment attorneys around the country. Management and employee side attorneys will be providing their own debate questions for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates this week. The first candidate is President Barack Obama.

Here are some questions I’d ask the President at the debates if I had a chance:

The very first piece of legislation you signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, empowering women to recover wages lost to discrimination by extending the time period in which employees can file claims. You’ve also advocated for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have required employers to demonstrate that any salary differences between men and women doing the same work are not gender-related. Plus, you convened a National Equal Pay Task Force to ensure that existing equal pay laws are fully enforced. Why do you feel so strongly about the need for pay equity in America and what do you think about the Republican party’s strong opposition to your efforts toward pay equity?

Then I’d probably ask:

Your opponent wrote an editorial saying we should let the automobile industry go bankrupt rather than bail them out during the worst part of the recession. Do you think the bailout was worth it, and are you glad you saved over a million jobs and supported an industry that has added hundreds of thousands of new jobs when most industries are cutting workers?

I’d follow up with:

You’ve said that you believe people who work full time should not live in poverty. Before the Democrats took back Congress, the minimum wage had not changed in 10 years. Although Congress did raise the minimum wage during your administration, the minimum wage’s real purchasing power is still below what it was in 1968, and full time minimum wage workers are mostly below the poverty line. You’ve said you want to further raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit. Why do you think it’s important to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing?

Then I’d ask:

You repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which limited gay and lesbian Americans’ right to serve in the military and be honest about their sexual orientation. You’ve also instructed the Justice Department to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, and you are in favor of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as other couples. Why do you think it’s important to treat gays and lesbians with respect and to end discrimination against them, and what more will you do to ensure equality for all Americans?

I’d end with:

Most Americans probably think they’re entitled to some sick time off of work, yet three out of four low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. You’ve said you support efforts to guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year. Why do you think it’s unfair that a single mom playing by the rules can get fired or lose wages because her child or she gets sick, and what do you plan to do to ensure paid sick leave for all American workers?

There are, of course, lots more questions I could ask. I think the choice between the candidates as far as workplace issues is crystal clear.


Here's another perspective, from Robin Shea, a management-side employment lawyer.