Questions? Contact attorney James Sherman (952) 746-1700 or by email
|
|
Case Of Teacher Fired For Refusing To Address Transgender Student By Preferred Pronoun Awaits Supreme Court Ruling On Religious Discrimination Under Title VII
|
By James B. Sherman, Esq.
|
The case is Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Co. The plaintiff is an evangelical Christian high school orchestra teacher in Indiana who lost his job for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronoun. Kluge objected for religious reasons. According to court pleadings, initially, he worked out an agreement with the school to simply refer to students by their last names. However, after some students objected the school gave Kluge three options: use the pronouns demanded by students, resign, or be fired. A trial court in Indiana ruled in the school’s favor, finding that permitting the teacher to refuse for religious reasons to observe the pronouns insisted on by students, posed an “undue hardship.” The school had argued that its policy to promote acceptance and safety for all students, outweighed Kluge’s religious objection to using preferred pronouns. The case was then appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, to determine the scope of religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Seventh Circuit stayed further ruling on the case pending a much-anticipated decision expected from the Supreme Court in the case of Groff v. U.S. Postal Service. That case involves a mail carrier opposed to working on Sundays for religious reasons. The lower courts all backed the Postal Service on the ground that providing a blanket exception to working on Sunday, posed an “undue hardship.” These rulings followed longstanding precedent requiring very little of employers to deny religious accommodations based on hardship. That precedent, which has existed since the 1970s, favors employers by sometimes allowing mere inconveniences posed by accommodating religious beliefs, to qualify as an “undue hardship.” The fact that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear Groff’s case has many legal scholars predicting a new, more stringent definition of “undue hardship” that will force employers to provide a broader array of religious accommodations to employees and job applicants.
|
|
|
D.O.L. Wage And Hour Division Publishes Enforcement Bulletin On Pump Act Protections For Nursing Mothers
|
|
By Joseph H. Laverty, Esq.
|
|
The Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor just published a bulletin to provide its field staff with detailed guidance for enforcing amendments to the FLSA via the PUMP Act that was signed into law on December 29, 2022. This law requires that employers provide nursing employees with reasonable break time and suitable space to express breast milk. Many states already have similar laws, but employers will want to review the WHD bulletin since (a) it is what federal agents will use if they conduct a compliance audit of your business, and (b) it is extremely detailed and therefore likely contains some subtle differences from various state laws.
Questions? Contact attorney Joseph Laverty at (563) 333-9102 or by email
|
|
Protecting Employers Since 1985
|
|
|
Mistake Prone IRS Employee Failed To Pursuade Appellate Court Her Discharge Reflected Unlawful “Cultural Bias”
|
An IRS employee brought a national origin discrimination lawsuit after being fired for poor performance. The employee’s discharge was preceded by a disciplinary notice that documented over 100 mistakes she had made on the job. Undaunted by the overwhelming documented evidence of her failed performance, the plaintiff blamed management for its “cultural bias” against her Taiwanese ancestry. An Illinois trial court disagreed, finding the IRS justifiably fired the plaintiff for excessive mistakes. The plaintiff fared no better on appeal, where the court refused to infer cultural bias merely because the plaintiff was Taiwanese.
Unfortunately, employers face claims like this all too often. Rather than accepting responsibility for their own misconduct or poor performance, some employees assume the culprit is implicit bias toward a protected characteristic.
|
|
Twitter Faces Class Action Lawsuit By Laid Off Contract Workers Alleging WARN Violations
|
Not long after Elon Musk paid billions to acquire a majority interest in Twitter, the company laid off over half its workforce. Many of those laid off were contract workers supplied by TEKsystems Inc., a staffing firm. In the aftermath Twitter is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it failed to provide these workers with 60 days advance notice of their layoffs, as required under the federal WARN Act and California state law. One might ask how contract workers employed by a third-party staffing company can sue Twitter under laws that provide rights to “employees.” The fact is that this is commonly done in many different contexts, under many different employment laws beyond WARN, and not just in California. The lawsuit names both Twitter and TEKsystems Inc. as codefendants, alleging the two entities are “joint employers.” The outcome of this recently filed lawsuit is unknown.
|
|
|
Our June Client Alert celebrates 38 years of Wessels Sherman’s amazingly successful Phone Consultation Program! For a nominal monthly fee, program members can contact any of our experienced attorneys in four states, to consult on myriad workplace labor and employment law issues. Why are we proud? Let us count the ways:
- Hundreds of employers, large and small, rely on the Wessels Sherman Phone Program as a critical, cost-effective tool to avoid legal troubles or, frankly, to just sleep better at night knowing they are doing things right when it comes to complicated workplace laws.
- Every Wessels Sherman lawyer can recount multiple instances where they have helped a phone client avoid a legal nightmare, just though a short phone call that might otherwise never have been made if the caller had to worry about legal fees to seek legal advice.
- Our Phone Program participants choose to remain members for years, many for decades, notwithstanding that the program is month-to-month and can be cancelled at any time. To us, there can be no greater validation of this program’s value to our clients than the fact that hundreds of employers choose to remain in the program year after year.
For a historical perspective and more details on why we are proud of our Wessels Sherman Phone Consultation Program click here to read commentary prepared by Richard Wessels
|
|
|
|
Employment Law Questions?
|
|
Blog
A wealth of informational articles on labor and employment law. Visit Blog.
|
|
|
WESSELS SHERMAN | [www.wesselssherman.com]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|