Discrimination & Disability
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy or national origin.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employment discrimination against those 40 years of age or older.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability and requires employers to make reasonable accommodation to those individuals.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
All three statutes have jurisdictional requirements that must be met for a particular statute apply to an employer, entity or governmental unit.
For Title VII to apply to a public or private sector employer, at least 15 employees must be employed for 20 calendar weeks in a year.
For the ADEA to apply to a public or private sector employer, at least 20 employees must be employed for 20 calendar weeks in a year.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
The ADA requirements are the same as Title VII except it does not cover the federal government. A separate statute has been enacted to define the responsibilities of the federal government employers to the disabled.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is charge with enforcement of all three statutes. All three statutes require all individuals wishing to allege violations of the statutes by an employer to first file those complaints in writing with the EEOC. The EEOC is charge with then investigating those complaints. Generally, the employer will be notified of the complaint and invited to respond.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
After the employer has had an opportunity to respond to the charges and submit any evidence it may desire, the EEOC may chose to undertake enforcement of the statutes on behalf of the complaining individual. This rarely occurs. Most often, the EEOC concludes its investigation by issuing a right to sue letter to the complaining individual.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
An individual cannot sue an employer in civil court alleging violations of the three statutes until the EEOC has concluded its investigation and issued a right to sue letter. Note that this right to sue letter is not an endorsement of an individual’s claims. It is simply a statement that the EEOC is not going to act on behalf of the complaining individual and therefore that person may go forward now with a civil suit.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
All three statutes prohibit any retaliation of any form against any employee for making any complaint with or against any employer alleging any violation of the three statutes.
All three statutes have attorney fee shifting provisions. An attorney successfully presenting a claim on behalf of an employee alleging violations of the statutes will be awarded attorney fees to be paid by the employer.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
Individuals cannot sue State governments and its employees in civil court because of sovereign immunity. However, the EEOC may sue State government and its employees to enforce the statutes.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
The federal antidiscrimination statutes also require employers have rules and regulations in place to insure workplace compliance with the law. This then places a duty upon an employer to act reasonably to insure a hostile work environment is not created by its employees and customers. An employer will be held liable for creating a hostile work environment only if it failed to take corrective action for a situation it knew or should have known existed when the appropriate rules and regulations are in place.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
ENFORCEMENT
Distinguish quid pro quo discrimination. If quid pro quo discrimination is committed upon an employee by a manager or supervisor, then the employer is strictly liable.
This is a form of respondeat superior.
*
ANTIDISCRIMINATION
Scheduling- If an employee cannot comply with a work schedule or condition because of that individuals sincere religious belief, then the employer must work with the employee to accommodate those views unless such an accommodation would cause the employer an undue hardship. The courts have interpretated undue hardship to mean costing more than a de minimis amount.
*