New York residents may be dismayed to learn that discrimination against pregnant employees remains widespread even though federal and state laws exist that are intended to protect them. This discrimination might range from firing employees who say that they are pregnant to refusing accommodations such as lighter duties or a stool to sit on.
In employment ads in New York and across the country, a new term is being used by employers who are apparently seeking younger applicants. Rather than asking for "new grads" or "young blood," which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says is illegal and in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employers are now asking for "digital natives."
Millions of Americans suffer severe hearing impairments that make it difficult for them to communicate. Although such impairments may result from many things, people who are exposed to loud noises or sounds at work may also have permanent hearing losses as a result.
On April 1, a 22-year-old transgender woman from Brooklyn filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against clothing store Forever 21 claiming that the management at one of their New York locations harassed her. The federal lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Pregnant workers in New York may be interested in hearing about a new qualifying test used in pregnancy discrimination cases, developed by the Supreme Court in conjunction with a March 2015 decision. For the new tests, lower courts need to look at employers' accommodations of non-pregnant workers unable to work in their regular positions to determine whether workplace discrimination has taken place. The law also require for lower courts to examine whether discrimination appears to be intentional and whether a company has non-discriminatory reasons for treating pregnant employees differently.
As many New York workers know, some employers have health wellness programs for employees. Joining wellness programs may have a positive effect on some workers' health and possibly insurance premiums. Even the Affordable Care Act allows for a different premium based on participation in such schemes.
For the most part, an employer may mandate that a worker wear a certain uniform while on the clock. If an employee needs or wants to wear something outside of that dress code for religious purposes, an employer is generally required to make reasonable accommodations. However, the employer is not required to do anything that would cause an undue hardship to the company.
Job seekers in New York who have suffered from age-based employment discrimination when applying for a position might wonder how they will be able to prove it. Although some employers make a practice of age discrimination quite obvious, this kind of blatant discrimination is rare. In most cases, an investigation into the employer's hiring process will be necessary to prove that it took place.
Some readers from New York may be interested to learn that Saks & Co. is facing criticism over a discrimination lawsuit. Media sources say that an ex-employee was allegedly fired from Saks for issues related to her transgender status. In its defense, Saks issued a filing requesting the lawsuit's dismissal because the employee is not entitled to Title VII protection under the Civil Rights Act.
Individuals in New York may be aware that since 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has included transgender people as one of the groups protected against workplace discrimination, but now the federal government is changing its interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2006, the Justice Department said Title VII did not apply to discrimination against transgender people, but it has reversed that decision. It is now asserting that it will now bring claims on behalf of state and local government transgender employees who are asserting that they have been subject to discrimination, and will no longer maintain its position that Title VII does not apply.