A bill pending in the Delaware legislature would expand the state’s anti-discrimination statute. House Bill 4 would prohibit discrimination on the basis of domestic violence, sexual offense, or stalking. If passed, the bill would have important implications for Delaware employers. Here’s what you need to know. Continue reading
By Barry M. Willoughby
At our recent Annual Seminar, we discussed, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., an action involving alleged religious discrimination in connection with a refusal to hire that was then pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Attendees at the seminar will recall that the case involved an applicant for employment at Abercrombie who was turned down based on the Company’s “look policy,” because she wore a head scarf. Although the interview for this position did not involve any discussion of whether the applicant wore the scarf for religious reasons, and/or whether she would require an accommodation to allow her to wear the scarf while at work, the EEOC investigation established that the company’s representatives believed that the applicant was wearing the scarf for religious reasons and refused to hire her on that basis. Continue reading
By Lauren E.M. Russell
In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court interpreted the language of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires that employers treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other individuals who are similarly limited in their abilities. Among the Court’s conclusions is that a policy that provides job-related accommodations to those who are injured on the job and those who have disabilities governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act may also have to be extended to pregnant employees with physical restrictions. The decision opens a lot of questions, but Delaware employers may have a leg up in compliance! Continue reading
This article was written by Lauren Moak Russell.
This has been a month of major changes in the employment law landscape in Delaware. In addition to the Supreme Court’s three major decisions affecting employment law (addressing retaliation and harassment under Title VII, and the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act) and the legalization of gay marriage, Delaware also passed a law prohibiting employment and other types of discrimination on the basis of an individual’s gender identity. Here is what Delaware employers need to know about the new statute.
What Is Gender Identity?
Gender identity is a concept that many individuals outside the transgender community struggle to understand. Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation (being gay or straight) and it is not simply a matter of wearing clothes commonly associated with the opposite sex. Instead, an individual’s gender identity relates to his or her internal sense of self as male or female, as well as an outward presentation and behavior related to that internal sense of self. Developing from that concept, an individual may be described as transgender when his or her gender identity does not match his or her biological sex at birth. Because gender identity is based on what an individual feels inside, when addressing transgender employees, employers should be guided by the employee’s description of his or her gender, not outward appearance.
Protection Against Gender-Identity Discrimination
On June 19, 2013, the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (“DDEA”) was amended to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The statute defines “gender identity” to mean “a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The statute further provides that “[g]ender identity may be demonstrated by consistent and uniform assertion of the gender identity or any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity; provided, however, that gender identity shall not be asserted for any improper purpose.”
The DDEA provides the same protection from discrimination based on gender identity as it does for all other protected classifications. In other words, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee in any term or condition of employment on the basis of the employee’s gender identity. Only employers with four or more employees are subject to the provisions of the DDEA.
How to Prepare for the Change in Law
In light of the amendments to the DDEA, which are currently in effect, employers should begin educating employees about gender identity, and their non-discrimination obligations. While more than fifteen states currently have laws that prohibit gender-identity discrimination, it is still a concept that is frequently misunderstood. Outlining for employees and managers the differences between sex, gender, and sexual orientation will help individuals to better understand their workplace obligations with respect to the new law.
Employers should also be alert to workplace conduct that may implicate this new protected classification. Common issues implicating gender-identity include “joking” about an individual’s external appearance (e.g. dress, facial hair, or physical build; the use of proper gender pronouns to refer to a transgender individual; and the use of communal bathrooms that are designated for use by gender. While there are no hard and fast rules in addressing these issues, employers should be guided by the transgender employee’s personal preferences, whenever possible.
Delaware law now protects employees from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity. When preparing for this change, employers should make sure that their employees (managers and subordinates, alike) have a basic understanding of the concept of gender identity, and that they following basic workplace standards of respect. If conflicts or misunderstandings arise, employers should take their lead from the transgender employee-wherever reasonable-in how best to treat the employee with respect.
Delaware’s General Assembly has passed a law “relating to the removal of insensitive and offensive language.” When I first saw the title of this Act, I admit, I was alarmed that our State’s legislature was banning profanity in some context. I was relieved to read the text of the law, though, and learn exactly what it actually does provide.
According to the synopsis, the bill is part of a national movement, known as People First Language (“PFL”) legislation, intended to “promote dignity and inclusion for people with disabilities.” PFL requires that, when describing an individual, the person come first, and the description of the person come second.
For example, when using PFL, terms such as “the disabled” would be phrased, “persons with disabilities.” This language emphasizes that individuals are people first and that their disabilities are secondary. I think this is an outstanding initiative.
First, it is far easier to do (or say) the right thing when we know what the right thing is. So legislation like this, which makes clear what is (and is not) the right thing to say, is always helpful. Second, I think the approach is spot on. Individuals are people first. The same concept applies to all protected characteristics.
I have received countless calls from clients seeking advice with regard to a potential termination of an employee. The call often starts out like this: “We have an employee who is in a protected class and who is always late to work and who constantly undermines her coworkers.”
If the PFL concept were applied, the call would start out, instead, like this: “We have an employee who is always late to work and who constantly undermines her coworkers.”
What matters is what the employee is doing (or failing to do) with respect to her job-not that she is “in a protected class.” Start off by addressing what actually matters. Everything else, including a discussion about potential accommodations, etc., will follow if and when it’s appropriate.
See also, previous posts regarding Disabilities in the Workplace.
It’s easy to underestimate the power of words. Many supervisors fail to appreciate the importance of the words used in a performance review or evaluation, corrective action, termination letter, or other employment-related document. But it can go beyond the obvious instances.
In an age-discrimination case, a supervisor had attended a presentation by a contractor who was trying to bid work with the employer. The supervisor wrote in his notes that the type of work would be perfect for “young engineers.” What the supervisor meant was that the work being bid was well suited for entry-level engineers, who could gain valuable experience that, often, was quite difficult to find.
You may imagine that the plaintiff’s lawyer jumped on the word “young” from the supervisor’s notes, using it as an opportunity to make it look like the supervisor preferred young engineers over older ones. An age-based preference such as this would, of course, be unlawful if used in decisions to hire, fire, or assign work. As you also may imagine, it made for an unpleasant deposition of the supervisor–an experience he surely did not forget any time soon.
On the other hand, it also is possible to get far too caught up in the definition or meaning of a particular word. Lawyers are great at this, as this very funny video from the N.Y. Times makes clear.
The lesson to be learned? Words really do matter in every context. Be aware of what you put into writing–generally, less is more and the more specific, the better. But don’t play word games when the basics can get the job done.
Documentation in the workplace can be absolutely critical in preventing and defending against claims by employees. It may be time to consider a refresher course about best practices in HR documentation. If so, let us know–we have an excellent training program on this subject.
Delaware extended employment rights to volunteer firefighters and other first responders who must miss work due to emergencies or injuries sustained while providing volunteer rescue services.
Volunteer Emergency Responders Job Protection Act
Governor Markell signed two new bills affecting the employment rights of Delaware’s emergency responders. Under the Volunteer Emergency Responders Job Protection Act, employers with 10 or more employees are prohibited from terminating, demoting, or taking other disciplinary action against a volunteer emergency responder because of an absence related to a state of emergency or because of an injury sustained in the course of his or her duties as a volunteer emergency responder.
The Act defines a “volunteer emergency responder” as a volunteer firefighter, a member of the ladies auxiliary of a volunteer fire company, volunteer emergency medical technician, or a volunteer fire police officer.
Importantly, while an employer may not discipline or terminate an employee for being absent when performing emergency services, the employer is not required to compensate the employee for time away from work to perform such services. The employee also has an obligation to make “reasonable efforts” to notify the employer of a possible absence.
Under the Act, employers are also entitled to verify that an employee was absent due to emergency service or a related injury. Employers may request a written statement confirming relevant facts from either the volunteer department with which the employee serves or from a treating medical provider. The employer is entitled to the statement within 7 days of making such a request.
Amendment to the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act
The second bill signed into effect amends the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, to provide protection to volunteer firefighters, ambulance personnel, and ladies auxiliary members. More specifically, the bill makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discrimination as to the terms and conditions of employment based on an individual’s service rendered to a volunteer fire or ambulance company or related ladies’ auxiliary.
The bottom line is that Delaware employers have one more protected classification to be aware of. Hopefully these new restrictions will not impose a significant burden upon employers–comments made in connection with the bill signing indicate that the bills are a reaction to a single incident affecting an injured firefighter working in Wilmington. However, as always, employers need to give careful consideration to the circumstances impacting hiring and disciplinary decisions.