Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes California’s recently passed Fair Pay Act, which promises to help alleviate the equal pay gap where the federal government has fallen short. Grossman explains the key findings by the California legislature and the new law changes the landscape for female workers in that state.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court that she argues illustrates a pattern of courts erroneously failing to see the illegal and harmful stereotyping embodied in sex-specific dress codes.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a recent ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes sex discrimination for the purposes of Title VII.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar describes some important takeaway points from two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week—Elonis v. United States and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake continue their discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court held that a pregnant UPS driver who was denied a light-duty accommodation that was routinely made available to other employees with similar lifting restrictions should have the opportunity to prove that the employer’s denial was discriminatory.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. UPS, in which the Court resolved some issues over the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a second column, Grossman and Brake will comment on the implications of the ruling on other aspects of employment discrimination law.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman and University of Pittsburg law professor Deborah Brake comment on a recent lawsuit filed by Leigh Castergine against her former employer, the New York Mets, alleging pregnancy discrimination. Grossman and Brake argue that based on Castergine’s allegations, she is likely to prevail in her case; however, they describe the inconsistent results in many seemingly similar pregnancy discrimination cases across the country.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a recent decision by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to revoke an offer to Steven G. Salaita of a tenured faculty appointment after Salaita tweeted strong criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Dorf explains why the University’s decision presents serious issues of academic freedom and free speech, and even contract law.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing some issues arising out of sexual acts between prison employees. Grossman describes the background of the case and explains why the appeals court ruled as it did.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s new Enforcement Guidance on pregnancy discrimination. Grossman provides an overview of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as well as a history of courts’ treatment of pregnancy discrimination claims. She describes how the new Guidance clarifies the Act and serves to help pregnant women begin work, continue working, and return to work throughout the reproductive process.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on recent changes in the legal profession and specifically on the progress of female lawyers. In assessing the changes within the industry, Rotunda calls for deeper inquiry into the reason that female attorneys receive lower compensation within their profession.
Justia columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that the effects of Mississippi’s recent passage of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) should inform the U.S. Supreme Court as it presently considers two cases arising under the federal RFRA, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Hamilton points out that the new Mississippi law has ignited major conflict between businesses that simply want to do business with willing customers and those who want to impose their beliefs on employees and customers. Hamilton cautions that if the Supreme Court makes the federal RFRA’s language to applicable to organizations like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, it will surely cause national unrest.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf proposes a limiting principle to explain the NBA’s treatment of LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Dorf argues that if private speech can be the basis for employment decisions generally, then Sterling’s example could be highly problematic. If, however, Sterling is understood as having created a hostile work environment under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, then the potentially broad and troubling employment implications of disciplining private speech are appropriately curtailed.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on a charge of discrimination filed against the City of New York for an allegedly unlawful testing accommodation policy. Grossman describes the facts alleged in the charge: an NYPD police officer was denied the opportunity to reschedule a sergeant’s exam despite that she was scheduled to give birth on the same day as the exam. Grossman then discusses the applicable laws, and she argues that the discriminatory policy is a manifestation of the erroneous mindset that pregnancy is a condition not worthy of even minor accommodation.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the continuing gender inequality in the federal workforce. That inequality, in 2010, led the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to convene a working group to “identify the obstacles that remain in the federal workplace that hinder equal employment opportunities for women.” Grossman comments on what they found, and how far—or near we are from the sexist world that the movie 9 to 5 depicted.
Justia columnist, George Washington law professor, and economist Neil Buchanan comments on the compensation that college athletes receive, and notes that they would probably do worse under a wage-paying system. He also contends that the reason that people often dismiss the idea that college players are paid is that the payment comes in the form of athletic scholarships. The cynical view is that this payment is not real, with players being deprived of the education that schools pretend to offer them. However, Buchanan notes, it turns out that the reality is different than the cynics’ take on it, and much more nuanced.
Justia columnist and Cornell law professor Michael Dorf comments on the legal and other aspects of the incidents by which Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito bullied and racially harassed his teammate Jonathan Martin, to the point that Martin left the team. Dorf also notes that, interestingly, several U.S. Supreme Court cases are relevant to the controversy regarding Incognito’s behavior.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the U.S. Senate’s passage of the Employment Discrimination Act (ENDA) of 2013, which would prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the measure is not predicted to survive the House, Grossman contends that its passage in the Senate is noteworthy and encouraging.
Justia columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman comments on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) on its 35th anniversary. Although the PDA was a key landmark, Grossman notes that pregnant workers today continue to face high levels of discrimination and to lack some basic legal protections that are necessary to enable some women to continue working throughout their pregnancies, indicating that additional legal reform is necessary. Moreover, she notes that instead of following the plain language of clause two of the PDA, requiring pregnant workers to be treated as well as other workers “similar in their ability to work,” lower courts are increasingly demanding evidence of a discriminatory intent lurking behind such policies before striking them down.
Justia columnist and attorney David Kemp discusses a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on the first day of its 2013-2014 Term. That case, Madigan v. Levin, raises the question whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) precludes age discrimination claims brought directly under the Equal Protection Clause. Kemp notes that the particular facts of the case and the tone of arguments at the Supreme Court suggest that the Court may not decide the case on the merits. However, he argues that the case does present important questions on the power of Congress to abrogate individuals’ right to sue for constitutional violations, and its duty to do so only when the statutory remedies are both adequate and broadly accessible.