This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
LGBT and ADA issues figure prominently among year's most relevant decisions
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
Three of the 10 most groundbreaking and relevant employment cases for HR professionals so far this year raise issues relevant to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Three more center around Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims. Speaking at the SHRM 2017 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louis Richard Lessig, an attorney with Brown & Connery in Westmont, N.J., discussed how these cases can serve as lessons—and warnings—to other employers.
In a case out of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College), the reach of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was extended to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. An associate professor at a community college who was openly lesbian did not get six jobs she applied for, and her part-time position was not renewed. She claimed she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation. After hearing her case, the 7th Circuit became the first appeals court to rule that Title VII bars sexual orientation discrimination. Lessig said HR needs to tell managers about this case, as it could signal a developing trend.
Another case (Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.) involved a supervisor who allegedly told an employee repeatedly that she dressed like a lesbian and had tattoos like a lesbian. The supervisor also would ask the employee to show her tattoos to co-workers and then ask them if they thought the tattoos made her look like a lesbian. Eventually the employee, who was heterosexual, went on leave and then resigned, alleging constructive discharge. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff had stated a claim of gender stereotyping in violation of Title VII. The bullying behavior allegedly took place for a year but nobody did anything to stop it, Lessig said. If HR professionals are asked why money is needed for training, Lessig said, "This is why."
Blatt v. Cabela's Retail Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied dismissal of a claim that gender dysphoria—or gender identity disorder—was covered by the ADA. (The case was both an LGBT and ADA case.) Lessig called the ruling the "first of its kind in the country." The plaintiff in
Blatt was fired after six months on the job, allegedly because of gender dysphoria, which the plaintiff asserted was an ADA disability. A major life activity has to be substantially limited for an impairment to be a covered ADA disability. The major life activities in this case included reproduction and social and occupational functioning. This is one area where plaintiffs will try to push the envelope, Lessig predicted.
Other ADA Cases
Lessig also highlighted an ADA case brought by a customer service representative with depression and anxiety who had attendance problems. The court dismissed the claim (Williams v. AT&T Mobility Services, 6th Cir.), but Lessig said it serves as a reminder that if employers need employees to be at work, they should say that in job descriptions.
[SHRM members-only toolkit:
Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]
In another ADA claim, a school counselor with depression and anxiety presented a doctor's note asking to be able to wear sneakers. The employer repeatedly asked for a more informative doctor's note, but the worker never provided one. Meanwhile, she was called to nine meetings on her performance. After she was fired, she sued under the ADA, but her claim was dismissed because the note's vague references to "medical documentation" were not sufficient to demonstrate a disability under the ADA (Eubank v. Lockhart Independent School Dist., W.D. Texas). "It's critically important to stay after employees who make reasonable accommodation requests when they are on the way out the door," Lessig said.
Five More Notable Decisions
The five other cases Lessig mentioned involved:
Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies