Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

On October 1, 2018, New York State released final documents and resources in connection with its new sexual harassment prevention requirements. Along with the updated guidelines, the deadline to provide a first round of sexual harassment prevention training has been extended from January 1, 2019 to October 9, 2019.  Despite that New York State has extended the deadline for providing sexual harassment prevention training, New York City employers must continue to satisfy the requirements of the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act, which as previously reported, requires all employers with 15 or more employees to conduct sexual harassment prevention training beginning on April 1, 2019.  Read more about it here.

 

Last week, we addressed the looming sexual harassment notice and training requirements affecting all New York State and New York City employers.  We also wrote about the pending issuance of public resources containing model policies and other materials that would comply with the New York State mandates.  The day after we posted our blog, New York State published a website – Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, which provides resources to employers and employees on sexual harassment.  Among other things, the new site contains:

Both New York State and New York City have passed legislation intended to curtail sexual harassment, while at the same time, expanding accountability for such.  These laws impact large and small businesses that operate in the State and/or City.  Read all about it here.

In case you missed our discussion in a March 20, 2018 post, the New York City Council introduced a series of bills last month targeting sexual harassment in the workplace — The Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act.  The City Council enacted the Act on April 11, 2018 and awaits the Mayor’s signature.  These amendments make substantial changes to the New York City Human Rights Law in matters involving sexual discrimination, and impose additional obligations on New York City employers, some of which will be effective immediately.   Read my and Melissa Federico’s detailed discussion on these amendments in our latest blog post .

The #TimesUp and #MeToo movements continue to be a force of national reckoning over sexual assault and harassment. This month, the New York City Council harnessed the energy from those social movements and transformed it into legislative action by introducing a series of bills aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.  The Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act is a package of eleven bills that would significantly expand the obligations of many employers to prevent sexual harassment.

Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

Int. 632 would require that all private employers with 15 or more employees to conduct annual anti-sexual harassment training. The training would be “interactive”, defined as participatory teaching whereby the trainee is engaged in a trainer-trainee interaction, use of audio-visuals, or other participatory forms of training as determined by the commission.

Apparently believing that employers are not capable of considering employees’ requests for reasonable accommodation on their own, the New York City Council has decided to dictate how those requests should be handled.  An amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, which takes effect on October 15, 2018, obligates employers to engage in a “cooperative dialogue” with an employee who might need a reasonable accommodation:

  • for religious needs;
  • relating to a disability;

Allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against business leaders, politicians and artists, have become a front page staple of newspapers across the country.  Many are shocked by the allegations and claim to wonder how they could have stayed secret for so long.  Despite the numerous cases of sexual harassment filed each year in courts throughout the country, rendering the allegations a matter of public record, a bipartisan group in Congress is blaming the increased use of nonpublic arbitrations for keeping allegations quiet.  As a result, they seek passage of a bill intended to prohibit sexual harassment and gender discrimination cases from being resolved privately in arbitration.

The bill, Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment, would prohibit businesses from enforcing predispute arbitration agreements of sex harassment and discrimination claims covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.  A “predispute arbitration agreement” is defined by the bill as “any agreement to arbitrate a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.”  It targets arbitration agreements that an employee might be asked to sign as a condition of getting hired or remaining employed.  The bill does not seek to eliminate predispute arbitration agreements in connection with other types of discrimination claims.

The bill does not address class action waivers, which increasingly have been included in arbitration agreements and require that claims be asserted individually and not on a class basis.  Class action waivers can exist outside the context of arbitration, but they are not addressed in the bill. The bill also does not address the use of confidentiality agreements following the settlement of sexual harassment claims.

The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) was amended back in May 2017 to prohibit employers and employment agencies from inquiring into the salary history of job applicants Employers and employment agencies had six months to prepare for that ban, which takes effect on October 31, 2017.

Although we previously covered the amendment in May 2017, a quick summary of its material provisions is in order:

  • The salary history inquiry ban applies to all employers and employment agencies, regardless of size, that are hiring job applicants in New York City. This also includes situations where the job is located outside of New York City, although interviews occur in New York City.  Consequently, the law affects employment outside of New York City as well.

President Trump’s 2018 budget, released on May 23, proposes to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the end of FY 2018.  The proposed merger purports to result in “one agency to combat employment discrimination.”  The Trump administration asserts that the merger would “reduce operational redundancies, promote efficiencies, improve services to citizens, and strengthen civil rights enforcement.”

Both business groups and employee civil rights organizations have opposed the measure, albeit for different reasons.  The OFCCP is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, while the EEOC is an independent federal agency.  Although both deal with issues of employment discrimination, their mandates, functions and focus are different.  The OFCCP’s function is to ensure that federal government contractors take affirmative action to avoid discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability and protected veteran status.  The OFCCP, which was created in 1978, enforces Executive Order 11246, as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1975.  The EEOC administers and enforces several federal employment discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, gender identity, genetic information, and retaliation for complaining or supporting a claim of discrimination.  Its function is to investigate individual charges of discrimination brought by private and public sector employees against their employers.  The EEOC was established in 1965, following the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Business groups oppose the OFCCP’s merger into the EEOC due to concerns that it would create a more powerful EEOC with greater enforcement powers.  For example, the OFCCP conducts audits, which compile substantial data on government contractors’ workforces, while the EEOC possesses the power to subpoena employer records.  Combining these tools could provide the “new” EEOC with substantially greater enforcement power.  Civil rights and employee organizations oppose the merger, believing that overall it would result in less funding for the combined functions currently performed by each agency.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination because of sex.  It does not, however, expressly prohibit discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.  Recently, federal courts have started to disregard this distinction in favor of concluding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination because it inherently involves gender stereotyping.  Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont, has been reluctant to find that sexual orientation discrimination is illegal under federal law, Chief Judge Katzmann of the Second Circuit explained just last month in Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., that sexual orientation discrimination should be considered sex discrimination because “such discrimination is inherently rooted in gender stereotypes.”  A prior opinion from the Second Circuit suggested that stereotypical “notions about how men and women should behave will often necessarily blur into ideas about heterosexuality and homosexuality.”  In light of these statements from the Second Circuit, lower courts have started to accept that federal law does, in fact, prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

Most recently, on May 3, 2017, Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss a claim for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII in Philpott v. State of New York, insisting that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination because “sexual orientation cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex.” In refusing to dismiss the claim, Judge Hellerstein stated that he “decline[d] to embrace an ‘illogical and artificial distinction between gender stereotyping discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. . . .”  The court viewed the plaintiff’s allegations as supporting a claim of gender stereotyping discrimination.  These allegations included statements attributed to the President of SUNY Optometry that referred to the plaintiff as “sensitive,” “flamboyant,” and “frenetic.”  This same official told the plaintiff that “separate but equal treatment of gay people might be best,” and that upon learning that plaintiff’s relationship with his domestic partner had ended, this official told the plaintiff that “this marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is a distraction to the College.”

A finding that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination as a form of sex discrimination would not affect employers and employees in states such as New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts that already prohibit such discrimination.  Nevertheless, the federal court’s decision in Philpott highlights that even high-level management officials in states like New York, where sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal, require workplace training to instill that stereotyping is discrimination, and cannot form the basis for workplace decisions.