The Oldest Blog
A first amendment blog for school administrators and attorneys.
On January 24, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released updated guidance on how the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to job applicants and employees with hearing disabilities. The Q&A resource comes on the heels of the EEOC’s announcement of two settlements—one for $44,250 and the other for $180,000—with two employers accused of adverse employment actions against deaf individuals in violation of the ADA. Although the EEOC guidance does not contain new legal mandates, it is an important reminder to educational employers of how the agency will apply existing legal standards in cases involving individuals with hearing disabilities. Employers should review the guidance and their policies, procedures, and practices to mitigate the risk of challenges of employment discrimination by applicants and employees with hearing disabilities. The following is a summary of the major points from the guidance that employers should know.
The post EEOC Issues Guidance on Accommodating Job Applicants and Employees with Hearing Disabilities appeared first on Educated Employer.
Does a person have a constitutional right to livestream (video and play on social media in real time) their encounter with the police or other government officials, or can livestreaming be prohibited on the grounds of safety?
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could soon broaden the scope of employment actions that may serve as grounds allowing an employee to file a discrimination claim. Currently, Fifth Circuit precedent requires plaintiffs to show they experienced a discriminatory ultimate employment decision, such as being hired, granted leave, discharged, promoted, or compensation issues. Those who claim they suffered other discriminatory conduct that falls short of the “ultimate” action bar cannot pursue a discrimination claim. The Fifth Circuit, however, may be in the process of reconsidering and eliminating that requirement.
Federal law under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)—as well as parallel Texas state anti-discrimination law—prohibits employers from discriminating against any person with respect to their compensation or the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of their employment on the basis of the employee’s race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Fifth Circuit’s decisions—unlike most other federal courts nationwide—have limited the availability of discrimination claims to circumstances when an employee experiences an “adverse employment action” that constitutes an “ultimate employment decision.” In other words, Fifth Circuit precedent strictly defines and limits the types of events that alter the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment. The Court has repeatedly held that “ultimate employment decisions” only include events such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, or compensation. A plaintiff who has not experienced one of these adverse employment actions cannot bring a discrimination claim in Texas federal or state courts.
The post The Fifth Circuit Reconsiders What Workplace Actions May Form the Basis of a Discrimination Claim appeared first on Educated Employer.
On January 31, 2023, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a fact sheet clarifying that diversity, equity, and inclusion training and similar activities “are not generally or categorically prohibited” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The OCR fact sheet provides a list of activities, such as DEI training, training on the impacts of racism or systemic racism, cultural competency and other nondiscrimination training, and using specific words, such as equity, discrimination, inclusion, diversity, systemic racism, or similar terms in school policies, programs, or activities. It says that Title VI does not “categorically” prohibit such activities and that deciding if there is a violation requires assessing the totality of the circumstances in each particular case.
According to OCR’s press release, it issued the fact sheet “in response to confusion regarding the legality of [DEI] activities in schools.” Although OCR does not elaborate, stories about the importance of conservative activism around how school teach racism abound. The issues are similar in the Title IX realm, with a small but mighty contingent of challengers to programs for girls such as coding camps, scholarships, grants, and mentorships claiming that such programs, which are aimed to remediate past and current discrimination against women in various spaces, are discriminatory against men.
Does OCR’s fact sheet remove the confusion? Not even close. Keep reading to find out why.
The post Not So Fast: OCR’s Fact Sheet on DEI Efforts is Only Half the Story appeared first on Title IX Tips.