Employment Law Chronicle for Virginia & the District of Columbia

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

Like the federal Equal Pay Act and Title VII, the Virginia Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying males and females in the same establishment different wages for substantially similar work. As set forth below, the Virginia Equal Pay Act covers the limited group of employers who are not covered by the federal Equal Pay Act.

Continue reading "Virginia Equal Pay Act (VA Code § 40.1-28.6)" »

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about Title VII:

WHAT IS TITLE VII?

Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employers and other covered entities from discriminating against an employee or job applicant because of the person's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is incorporated into Title VII. Title VII also protects against retaliation and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religion.

WHAT TYPE OF EMPLOYER ACTS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER TITLE VII?

Title VII protects employees and applicants from discrimination in all terms, conditions or privileges of employment. For example, it is illegal to engage in sexual harassment or to harass an employee based on any other protected category, such as race, religion, or national origin. It is also illegal to discriminate in hiring, job advertisements, recruitment practices, tests, assignments, training opportunities, promotions, pay, benefits, discipline, discharge, employment referrals, breaks, leave, perks, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

Continue reading "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended" »

Characterizing this employment discrimination case as reflecting "certain grit and perseverance," a panel of the 4th Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer, thereby allowing the employee's case of sex-based termination to proceed.

Central to the dispute was employer Old Dominion's claim that it fired truck driver Deborah Merritt because Ms. Merritt had failed a physical ability test ("PAT"), which was administered because she had suffered an ankle injury. According to Old Dominion, the PAT demonstrated that Ms. Merritt was unable to perform the physical requirements of her job. As reflected in this quote from the opinion, the PAT was problematic:

According to Merritt, the tasks with which she had problems were unrelated to her ankle injury. For example, on one portion of the PAT, Merritt was unable to place a box of weights on an overhead shelf simply because the shelf was too high for her (at barely over five feet, one inch tall) to reach. On another part of the PAT, Merritt had difficulty walking backward pulling a cable due to people bumping into her in a crowded hallway.

Problems with the test as a measurement of Ms. Merritt's physical ability to perform the job, combined with other evidence suggesting sex-based animus, led a panel of the 4th Circuit to conclude that "the record as a whole supports Merritt’s claim that a jury could find that discrimination on the basis of gender was afoot." Early in the opinion, the panel noted that of the 3,100 drivers employed by Old Dominion in the same position as Ms. Merritt, only six were women.

Putting a fine point on the importance of this decision, in a concurring opinion, Judge Davis wrote:

I particularly appreciate the majority opinion’s reminder that, in intentional discrimination cases, we should not examine the trees so minutely that we lose sight of the forest. The ultimate question in this case, as in all intentional discrimination cases, is not whether the McDonnell Douglas test is satisfied. It is instead, as the majority opinion teaches, whether the plaintiff has generated a genuine dispute of material fact that she is the victim of intentional discrimination, notwithstanding facially plausible reasons offered by the employer for its adverse employment action. The proof scheme is but a useful tool to help identify and resolve that real issue.

Virginia employment lawyers should take note of this decision and other recent decisions in which the 4th Circuit has reversed summary judgment and reinstated plaintiffs' claims.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
Decided: April 9, 2010, Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reversed

Click on the published opinion.

The House of Representatives is considering two employment discrimination bills today: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, H.R. 11; and The Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 12. Both bills are designed to strengthen equal pay laws.

Here is a good summary from the AP.

As a courtesy to employment lawyers and employers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

The DC Human Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin. sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation.

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on public sites.

The Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability.

The U.S. Department of Labor's, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued a press release announcing a $1.5 million settlement against a federal contractor accused of discriminating against women and certain minority men in hiring procedures. OFCCP determined that applicant testing and screening procedures used by a Texas company, Vought Aircraft Industries, disproportionately eliminated African American men, Asian men, and all women from certain beginner jobs in aircraft assembly.

This case serves as a reminder to federal contractors and subcontractors in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and nationwide that it is important to screen your screening tools to eliminate the potential for claims of sex, gender or other forms of employment discrimination.