Posts

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

This case ruled that employees alleging a discriminatory job transfer do not need to demonstrate significant harm, only “some harm.” This decision simplifies the process for proving harm in discriminatory job transfer cases.

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

The court emphasized that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only needs to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action. This effectively lowers the burden of proof for whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

This case concluded that a coworker’s social media posts can be considered when assessing a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. This allows social media evidence to be used in harassment cases.

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

The ruling prohibits discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status, extending protections to U.S. citizens.

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

The court clarified that the anti-retaliation provisions of certain laws do not apply outside of the United States, limiting protections under anti-retaliation laws for employees working abroad.

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

This ruling upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which limits protections for workers classified as independent contractors.

7. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office:

The case established that a single use of a racial slur can be actionable for creating a hostile work environment, thereby strengthening protections against racial harassment in the workplace.

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

This decision determined that a party opposing arbitration does not need to show prejudice to establish a waiver of their right to arbitration, which protects employees from unfair arbitration agreements.

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

The court ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises for security inspections is compensable as “hours worked,” ensuring employees are fairly compensated for time spent on work-related activities.

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

The ruling stated that an employer is not liable for penalties under Labor Code section 226 if wage statements were provided in good faith. This sets a precedent for employer liability in cases relating to wage statements.

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

The court decided that an arbitration agreement signed during one period of employment may not apply to subsequent employment. This clarifies the applicability of arbitration agreements across different employment periods.

12. Mar v. Perkins:

Employees were found to be bound by an arbitration agreement if they continue working after a policy modification, establishing that continued employment constitutes consent to arbitration.

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

This ruling protects employees from defamation claims related to HR complaints by defining pre-litigation statements made to HR as conditionally privileged protected activity.

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

The court mandated that plaintiff comparators need to be similar “in all relevant respects” for discrimination cases, strengthening the standard for using comparators in such cases.

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

The court clarified that stocks are not considered wages under the Labor Code, elucidating the treatment of stocks in employment cases.

Are you being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace? At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have highly qualified employment law attorneys ready to fight on your behalf. Don’t suffer in silence; reach out to us for expert legal representation. At our firm, you’re not just a number—you’re a valued individual deserving justice and equity. Contact us today.

This post is based on information published recently in Advocate Magazine authored by Andrew Friedman and Erin Kelly. READ MORE…
Posted on

Republic First Bancorp Inc. Settles Sexual Harassment Case Amidst Bank’s Downfall

The law ensures a workplace free from sexual harassment -Helmer Friedman LLP.

Last week, Republic First Bancorp Inc. concluded a tumultuous chapter by reaching a settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former employee. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following this agreement.

The lawsuit was brought by Jasmine Zuber, a former universal banker at Republic First, who alleged that she was wrongfully terminated due to a fabricated claim of a cash-drawer imbalance. According to Zuber, the true reason for her termination was retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor.

Zuber and her supervisor, Hall, had initially engaged in a consensual sexual encounter at work. However, the situation deteriorated when Hall repeatedly sought further sexual interaction, leading to confrontational incidents. After receiving a text message from Zuber urging Hall to transfer or face repercussions from HR, branch manager Leitz and HR Director Zangrilli intervened. Although they assigned different shifts to Zuber and Hall after their discussions, Zuber’s position was soon jeopardized when her teller drawer was allegedly found to contain an overage of $1,000.

As events unfolded, the Bank relieved both Zuber and Hall of their duties, citing the cash-drawer discrepancy for Zuber and a violation of the Bank’s fraternization policy for Hall.

Sadly, the sexual harassment lawsuit was not the only challenge Republic First faced. In February 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities seized the Bank amid rumors of a potential buyer. This occurred after the Bank was delisted from Nasdaq for failing to provide its fiscal year 2022 report, further damaging its credibility.

In its efforts to explain the absence of the report, the Bank blamed the shortcomings of its former executive team, which had failed to maintain adequate internal controls. Alarmingly, the Bank’s auditors had previously warned of “material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.”

Fulton Bank subsequently took over the operations of Republic First’s 32 branches across Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, promising to revitalize them under the Fulton Bank brand. The seizure of Republic First marked the fourth such case since 2023, sending a strong message about the dangers of inadequate internal controls and unethical workplace practices.

If you or someone you know has faced harassment at the workplace, know that there are paths to take. Contact an experienced employment attorney and hold corporations accountable for creating safe and fair work environments. Speaking up about harassment isn’t just about personal justice—it’s about ensuring that nobody else has to endure the same abuse.

Posted on

Charlotte E. Ray

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

In 1872, Charlotte Ray became the first black female attorney in the United States. She was active in the NAACP and the suffragist movement.

Fun fact: she applied to and was admitted to Howard University Law School under the name “C. E. Ray,” in a possible attempt to hide her gender. #BlackHistoryMonth

Posted on

California Worker Freedom Act Explained (SB 399)

Captured ideas

SB399: The Worker Freedom From Employment Intimidation Act

California has long been a legislative trailblazer, driving progressive reforms that protect employees’ rights and promote workplace equity. The introduction of Senate Bill 399, also known as the California Worker Freedom from Employment Intimidation Act (the Act), is yet another step toward ensuring that employees can work free from coercion or fear.

This blog unpacks the intricacies of California Senate Bill 399 and what it means for employees across the state. Whether you’re an employee concerned about workplace protections or an employer navigating compliance, this guide helps clarify the Act’s key provisions, its impact, and its implications for the future of the workforce in California.

What Is California Senate Bill 399?

California Senate Bill 399 (SB 399) addresses a critical issue that many workers face but may not openly discuss—intimidation or coercion by employers during work hours, especially regarding personal beliefs, political activities, or unionization efforts. Championed by labor advocates, SB 399 makes it illegal for California employers to compel workers to participate in meetings or activities unrelated to their job performance, particularly if those meetings involve political or religious discussions.

Titled the “California Worker Freedom from Employment Intimidation Act,” the bill seeks to draw a line between professional obligations and personal autonomy, highlighting the state’s commitment to defending the rights of its workers.

How the Act Affects California Employees

For California employees, SB 399 represents a significant victory. Under the Act, employers are restricted from requiring workers to attend or engage in activities where political or religious positions may be endorsed or mandated. This change empowers employees with the freedom to maintain their personal beliefs without feeling pressured to conform to their employer’s stance.

For example, imagine being asked to attend a mandatory meeting endorsing a particular political candidate or initiative unrelated to your role. Under SB 399, such coercion is now prohibited, giving workers the peace of mind that their job security does not hinge on aligning with their employer’s political or religious preferences.

Key Provisions of SB 399

Here are the foundational protections and provisions of the Act:

  1. Prohibited Activities

According to SB 399, employers cannot require employees to participate in workplace meetings or discussions regarding:

  • Political issues or opinions
  • Religious beliefs or practices
  • Support or opposition to labor union activities
  1. Retaliation Safeguards

Any form of retaliation against an employee for refusing to participate in these discussions is strictly forbidden. This includes terminating, demoting, or discriminating against workers exercising their rights under the Act.

  1. Exemptions for Religious Organizations

Religious organizations are granted limited exemptions under SB 399. If an employer’s primary purpose is religious, conversations concerning faith may legally occur as part of the work environment, given that they directly relate to the organization’s mission.

  1. Employee Right to Recourse

Workers who believe their rights under the Act have been violated can pursue legal recourse. Employees may file complaints through California’s Labor Commissioner, or, in some cases, take legal action against their employer to seek compensation or remediation.

These provisions collectively aim to protect employees from unnecessary coercion in their workplace, ensuring their personal beliefs are not used as leverage by their employer.

The Legislative Pathway of SB 399

Every piece of legislation goes through a rigorous process before becoming law, and SB 399 is no different. Introduced by Senator Maria Elena Durazo, the bill garnered widespread support from workers’ advocates, labor unions, and civil rights organizations.

The California Legislature debated numerous elements of the bill, particularly its broader implications for employer-employee relationships. Proponents highlighted its role in improving workplace fairness, while critics raised questions about unintended consequences or challenges in enforcing the law. Ultimately, SB 399 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, solidifying California’s stance against workplace intimidation.

The Act’s Implications for Employers and Employees

SB 399 has implications for both employees and their employers. For employees, the Act guarantees stronger workplace protections, enhancing trust and equity. It fosters an environment where individuals feel safe to express themselves and retain their autonomy over personal beliefs.

For employers, SB 399 necessitates a careful re-evaluation of workplace policies. Conducting mandatory meetings or communicating organizational endorsements of political or religious beliefs can now present legal risks. Organizations must adapt their internal procedures to ensure full compliance with the Act’s requirements – missteps could lead to costly lawsuits or reputational damage.

Compliance and Implementation Guidelines for Employers

Employers can follow these steps to ensure smooth implementation and compliance with SB 399:

  1. Educate Leadership and HR Teams

Train leadership and HR staff to understand the nuances of SB 399. This includes clearly distinguishing between permissible workplace discussions and those that fall under the Act’s prohibitions.

  1. Update Employee Handbooks

Update company policies and employee handbooks to reflect the new rights protected under SB 399, ensuring transparency for workers.

  1. Develop Clear Complaint Mechanisms

Establish straightforward processes where employees can report suspected violations anonymously without fear of retaliation.

  1. Consult Legal Experts

Legal counsel familiar with employment law in California can assist in aligning policies with all facets of SB 399, reducing the risk of inadvertent violations.

By taking proactive steps, employers can ensure compliance while preserving an equitable workplace environment.

Future Outlook and Potential Revisions to SB 399

The passage of SB 399 sets a strong precedent for similar legislation at both the state and federal levels. Moving forward, policymakers may consider refining aspects of the bill, such as tightening its language to address potential loopholes or adding more robust enforcement frameworks.

Additionally, SB 399 is likely to spur conversations around balancing employer rights with employee protections beyond political or religious contexts. For example, as debates around workplace data privacy intensify, new legal developments could build upon the framework SB 399 has established.

Why SB 399 Matters for California Workers

California Senate Bill 399 represents a bold step forward in safeguarding worker freedoms. Far too often, the boundaries between professional obligations and personal beliefs can blur, creating environments where employees feel pressured to compromise their values. This Act affirms the rights of California workers to uphold their individuality without fear of retaliation or coercion.

By aligning workplace practices with this new legislation, California employers have the opportunity to lead by example and foster environments that respect diversity and encourage authentic employee engagement.

If you’re a California employee seeking further clarity on your rights or an employer looking to implement compliant practices, seek guidance from reputable legal professionals or labor organizations.

Chamber of Commerce Lawsuit to Stop Enforcement

The California Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit to block SB 399 highlights the friction between protecting workers’ rights and preserving long-standing employer practices. The Chamber represents numerous business interests and has historically opposed legislation perceived as limiting employer authority or imposing new compliance burdens. Captive audience meetings, which the legislation seeks to restrict, have remained a tool for employers to disseminate messaging, particularly during union organizing efforts or discussions on workplace policies. By challenging SB 399, the Chamber aims to preserve these employer-led forums, which critics argue can coerce employees into engaging with one-sided rhetoric. This dynamic underscores the Chamber’s vested interest in maintaining practices that enable employers to control workplace narratives, often to the detriment of unbiased employee decision-making.

Posted on

Sarah Glenn: A Testimony of Resilience and Integrity

Forced arbitration clauses challenge consumers, employees. Helmer Friedman LLP aggressively protect your rights.

In September 2020, Sarah Glenn began her tenure as the Small Systems Certified Water Plant Operator for the city of Florence, Colorado. A professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified woman in her field, Glenn brought unmatched integrity to her position. However, her time at the city’s water treatment plant was marred by repeated instances of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The culprits? Two city employees, Lori Cobler and Brandon Harris.

Glenn attests that Brandon Harris, the city’s Water Superintendent and Operator since 2015, showed a history of improper behavior during his tenure. His record included infractions such as using government-owned equipment for personal use and working under the influence of alcohol. Despite these serious allegations, Harris was allowed to retain his position. A flagrant example of male privilege, his shortcomings, and malfeasance were swept under the rug, even as Glenn’s allegations of sexual harassment based on her sex were dismissed or outright ignored.

Moreover, Glenn was defamed by Lori Cobler, the city’s Finance Director and interim Human Resources Director. She spread false information about Glenn, damaging her reputation and work ethic and ultimately leading to her termination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) explicitly protect employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. Yet, despite these clear legal guidelines, Glenn was subject to an abusive work environment.

This scenario shines a spotlight on a pervasive issue in our society: men, especially those in higher positions, are often allowed to underperform with impunity, while others – particularly minorities and women – are held to an impossibly high standard. Those who are professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified for their jobs can often highlight the inadequacies of these men, making them targets of retaliation and malicious behavior.

The journey to justice for Sarah Glenn has been long and arduous, but the ultimate victory serves as a potent reminder of the importance of standing up to discrimination and retaliation. The first step toward justice is knowing your rights and seeking legal counsel. With the support of an employment law attorney, Glenn fought back against her oppressors and received a total settlement of $195,000. This sum accounted for her lost wages, non-wage damages, attorney fees, and case expenses.

Discrimination and retaliation have no place in a respectful and professional environment. It’s important to hold those who behave otherwise accountable. Drawing strength from Sarah Glenn’s story, let’s pledge to confront such situations head-on and ensure our workplaces are safe and respectful spaces for everyone.

Seeking advice from an experienced employment law attorney is crucial whenever you, a family member, or a friend suspect sexual discrimination in the workplace. These legal professionals possess the expertise needed to assess your situation, provide guidance on your rights, and chart the best course of action. Sexual discrimination often goes unaddressed due to fear or uncertainty, but consulting with a qualified attorney can empower individuals to take informed steps toward justice. An attorney acts as a critical advocate, ensuring that your voice is heard and that those responsible are held accountable for their actions.

Posted on

Thurgood Marshall

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Thurgood Marshall made immeasurable strides for the civil rights movement during his lifetime.

Working under his mentor and well-known civil rights icon Charles Hamilton Houston at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Marshall successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education which famously declared unconstitutional the “separate but equal” doctrine.

In 1965, Marshall became the first black person appointed to the post of U.S. Solicitor General. Two years later, he became the first black person appointed to the United States Supreme Court, where he served until 1991.

Posted on

Tech Industry Retaliation Misusing The Defend Trade Secrets Laws

Trust the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP to aggressively protect employee rights to a workplace free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

In the complex and ever-changing world of business, the laws established to protect trade secrets have recently been turned on their head. Instead of safeguarding proprietary information, a troubling trend is emerging where these laws are being employed as a weapon against employees. Companies across a wide spectrum of industries are cleverly exploiting trade secrets legislation as a legal strategy to strike back against claims of discrimination, unethical behavior, and whistleblowing.

This tactical approach accuses employees of misusing confidential information or proprietary business data. Strikingly, companies pursue these accusations even in instances where the information was procured or disseminated for valid reasons. These may include exposing illegal activities or reporting workplace misconduct.

Some workers were sued after gathering evidence of perceived wrongdoing in the workplace, what some attorneys call “self-help discovery” — despite whistleblower protections in the law.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, championed and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2016, ironically offers the legal foundation these companies need to launch trade secrets claims in federal courts. Under the provisions of this law, a trade secret is deemed misappropriated if it was accessed or unveiled without consent or through inappropriate methods, with no consideration given to whether it was shared with a competitor. This act has consequently lowered the bar for companies intent on taking legal action against employees suspected of breaching trade secrets.

For employees who have clues or evidence about such instances, it is crucial to contact an employment law attorney who specializes in employment law and has experience with whistleblower reporting. Legal professionals in this field can offer advice and represent individuals confronted with accusations of trade secrets as a form of employer retaliation. Having a clear understanding of your rights and available options when facing these potential legal hurdles is of paramount importance.

In conclusion, the fallout from the misuse of trade secrets laws to punish employees can be severe, encompassing financial setbacks, reputation damage, and emotional trauma. However, through a heightened awareness of this issue and by acquiring legal assistance, individuals can better shield themselves and fight back against unjust retaliation from employers.

This post was based on information in an article by Rob Price, a senior correspondent for Business Insider, who writes features and investigations about the technology industry.

Posted on

Age Discrimination Retaliation in Tech Industry Using Trade Secrets Law

Age discrimination is illegal and the ADEA protects employees.

Greg Robillard, a seasoned programmer at Opal Labs, initially saw the tech industry as a field full of promise and innovation. However, he soon discovered that it was anything but inclusive. Robillard encountered age discrimination and harassment—experiences that, unfortunately, are still too common today. He was often mocked as “old Greg” and dismissed as “some old guy in his 40s,” becoming the target of age-based jokes. The toxic environment escalated beyond mere words when he was let go for missing a meeting due to personal reasons, while younger colleagues faced no consequences for similar actions.

In a courageous move, Robillard filed a lawsuit against Opal Labs for age discrimination, among other claims. However, his quest for justice took an unexpected turn. Opal Labs retaliated by countersuing him, accusing him of violating trade secret laws by posting proprietary code on his GitHub account. This accusation was not about enforcing discipline or protecting intellectual property—it was a tactic intended to paint Robillard as a villain and distract from his age discrimination claim.

What followed was a grueling four-year legal battle, during which Robillard had to defend not only his claim but also his character. This situation highlights a troubling trend where companies misuse trade secret laws as a weapon against those accusing them of mistreatment.

$1,643,000.00 Mr. Greg Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP obtained an award on behalf of an employee who had been discriminated against and harassed because of his age.

It is crucial to recognize the legal protections available for workers facing age discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) serves as a strong defense against discrimination, specifically protecting individuals aged 40 and over. Additionally, there are laws designed to shield employees from retaliation when they report age discrimination.

This narrative emphasizes the importance of seeking legal assistance for anyone facing similar circumstances. If you have experienced age discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace, consulting with an experienced employment law attorney is vital. Remember, you have the right to a fair and age-inclusive work environment. It is time to stand up against discrimination and retaliation. By refusing to be silenced, we compel employers to reconsider their actions regarding age. Age is not a liability; rather, it reflects our valuable experiences, wisdom, and resilience.

Posted on

Standing Up to Harassment and Discrimination in Science and Academia

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Role of an Employment Attorney Standing Up to Harassment and Discrimination in Science and Academia

The fields of science and academia are often seen as exciting spaces for discovery, innovation, and enlightenment. However, they can also hide a darker side that includes sexual misconduct, harassment, and discrimination. These issues particularly affect women and women of color and persist despite the progress that has been made in these areas.

A recent article in Scientific American discusses these widespread problems. The authors—including Rukmani Vijayaraghavan, Kristy L. Duran, Kelly Ramirez, Jane Zelikova, Emily Lescak, and the organization 500 Women Scientists—share their personal experiences and highlight the systemic harassment and discrimination occurring within these fields.

Victims often face significant obstacles when trying to speak out. Fear of retaliation, a lack of institutional support, and societal norms that perpetuate predatory behavior all contribute to an environment where victims are silenced, offenders are protected, and misconduct goes unaddressed.

In their call for change, the authors emphasize the need for individuals, institutions, and policies to take a stand. They advocate for the implementation of advanced reporting systems, such as Callisto, and a revision of codes of conduct. The scientific and academic communities must unite against harassment and discrimination.

is where employment attorneys play a crucial role. With proven track records in handling discrimination and harassment cases, these attorneys provide invaluable support to individuals who have experienced misconduct in the workplace. This support is especially vital in science and academia, where victims often feel isolated or unheard.

An effective employment attorney can be a lifeline for victims. They are familiar with complex employment laws and can offer informed guidance on how to proceed with complaints. By advocating for victims, employment attorneys work tirelessly to hold offenders accountable. Their assistance may include evidence collection and representation during trials, ensuring that victims have a voice and seeking justice on their behalf.

Furthermore, employment attorneys can collaborate with institutions to develop practices and policies intended to prevent harassment and discrimination. They can provide essential advice on creating effective reporting systems, establishing mandatory education and training programs, and drafting codes of conduct that comply with legal standards.

As emphasized by the Scientific American article, systemic change is crucial to addressing these issues. Employment attorneys not only support victims on an individual level but also help push for much-needed institutional and policy reforms.

In a world that urgently needs to evolve, employment attorneys are at the forefront, advocating for safer, more inclusive, and equitable environments in science and academia. For victims of harassment and discrimination, an employment attorney can serve as a powerful advocate—a beacon of justice in the midst of challenges.

Posted on

High Price Extracted for Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Retaliation

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

A jury awarded a St. Louis County police officer nearly $20 million in a sexual orientation discrimination case. The plaintiff, Sergeant Keith Wildhaber, alleged that the police department repeatedly passed him over for promotions due to his sexual orientation and retaliated against him for filing a discrimination complaint.

The Case:

Wildhaber claimed that over a six-year period, he was denied 23 promotions. With more than 15 years of experience, a clean record, and strong performance reviews, he consistently ranked among the top candidates for promotions.

Additionally, Wildhaber asserted that a member of the Board of Police Commissioners told him he would need to “tone down [his] gayness” if he wanted to be promoted to lieutenant. This board member denied that the conversation ever occurred.

Wildhaber filed a discrimination complaint in April 2016. Shortly after filing the complaint, the department transferred him from a day shift at a precinct close to his home to an overnight shift at a precinct 27 miles away. Consequently, he filed a second complaint that included a charge of retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Wildhaber claimed that the department denied him promotions because his behavior and presentation did not conform to stereotypical ideas of how a male should behave. He further argued that the transfer to the night shift in a distant precinct was retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. The St. Louis County Police Chief contended that Wildhaber’s sexual orientation was not a factor in the department’s decisions regarding his promotions. During the trial, Wildhaber’s attorneys called witnesses who described a pattern of homophobia within the police department.

The Verdict:

On the sexual orientation discrimination claim, the jury found in favor of Wildhaber and awarded him:

  • $1,980,000 in actual damages
  • $10,000,000 in punitive damages

On the retaliation claim, the jury also found in favor of Wildhaber and awarded him:

  • $990,000 in actual damages
  • $7,000,000 in punitive damages

After the verdict, the jury foreperson stated that the jury wanted their decision to “send a message” that “[i]f you discriminate, you are going to pay a big price.” The $17 million in punitive damages is significant and may be subject to an appeal.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination under Title VII

Although this is a state case, it represents the ongoing discussion about whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related state laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Title VII states that it is an “unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to [their] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Supreme Court established that Title VII includes a prohibition on discrimination based on nonconformity to stereotypes of one’s assigned sex in its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The Court stated, “we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.” (490 U.S. 228, 1989).

As the Sixth Circuit explained in Smith v. City of Salem, “an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim’s sex” (378 F.3d 566, 574, 2004). This reasoning can apply to individuals in the LGBTQ community since discrimination based on nonconformity to stereotypical, heterosexual norms is inherently linked to a person’s sex.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII’s protections extend to the LGBTQ community.

Retaliation is Prohibited under Title VII

Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to take adverse actions against an employee because that employee engaged in a protected activity. Protected activities include filing a complaint or opposing unlawful employment practices as outlined in Title VII.

If you believe you have been discriminated against or retaliated against due to your sexual orientation, consider the following questions:

  • Were you treated unfavorably despite good performance at work?
  • Were individuals of different sexual orientations or gender identities favored for promotions compared to you?
  • Does your gender identity or sexual orientation deviate from societal stereotypes of your assigned sex?
  • Did you report mistreatment by your employer or file a lawsuit against them, after which you experienced further discrimination or unfavorable treatment?