Labor & Employment Developments Blog

Significant attention has been given to President Trump’s actions regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and policies, but the impact of those actions on private sector employees has not been clear. On his first two days in office, President Trump signed multiple executive orders addressing the use of DEI programs in government. One order, Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, directed executive agencies to terminate all DEI offices, positions, plans, initiatives, or similar programs. Another order, Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, directed all executive departments and agencies to terminate any discriminatory or unlawful preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. President Trump took this action citing his administration’s position that such policies violate the text and spirit of longstanding federal civil rights laws.

Recent executive orders have caused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to abandon litigation and guidance on LGBTQ+ protections and other areas that were priorities during the Biden administration

On Oct. 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services –a reverse discrimination case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the heightened “background circumstances” rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit for reverse discrimination cases is discriminatory and runs afoul of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule is an additional requirement imposed by certain circuits for proving discrimination in cases involving members of majority groups – so-called reverse discrimination cases. A plaintiff typically satisfies the “background circumstances” by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023)

In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed, including

In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed, including:

COVID-19 and Masks: The CDC has issued new guidance for vaccinated individuals - what does this mean for employers? 

The CDC COVID-19 Tracker is here: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view

Mandatory Vaccination Policies: The U.S. Department of Justice has issued an opinion on the meaning of the Emergency Use Authorization status of COVID-19 vaccines, which has formed the basis for some challenges to employers’ mandatory vaccination ...

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a new landmark ruling clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits workplace discrimination—applies to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.

One of the most common requests that I receive as an employment attorney is to review severance offers.  I’ve had these kinds of requests from friends, relatives, acquaintances and (on rare occasions) clients and I seldom turn them down. I have probably handled hundreds of reductions in force for various corporate clients so I like to see how others handle them.  In the past month, I have reviewed two severances packages and both failed to follow the requirements of the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”).  I was not at all surprised.  If I had to guess, I would say that over 50% of the severance offers I’ve reviewed over the years are not in compliance with the OWBPA.     

New Rules for Federal Contractors:

On December 3, 2014, the Department of Labor announced a Final Rule changing OFCCP’s regulations so that they prohibit discrimination based on, and require treatment of applicants and employees without regard to, sexual orientation or gender identity.  These final rules were issued as a result of President Obama signing an executive order in July, 2014, extending workplace protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans in the federal contracting workforce. 

This Wednesday, December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Young v. UPS, No. 12-1226, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.  The Young case has received significant attention because it asks the Court to directly address the question of what, if any, accommodation is required for a pregnant worker with work limitations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, where the employer provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations, such as those affected by on-the-job injuries or a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.   

What do Rolling Stone magazine and the United States Senate have in common?  They’re both talking about the discrimination faced by individuals with non-conforming gender identity.