Rojgar Job News

By now, you may have read about yesterday’s decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Connecticut is in that federal circuit (along with New York and Vermont).  You can download the decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., here. (You’ve been warned though — there are 163 pages to the various opinions!) The decision talks a lot of “associational discrimination” and other academic theories of proving a case under Title VII; that’s beyond the practical aspects of this blog for employers but practitioners in the area should review the decision as a whole. So what IS the practical impact on Connecticut employers?  Not as much as you might first think. Connecticut state law already bars employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, last year, I wrote that the debate over whether federal law includes a bar against discrimination on sexu...

The American Bar Association (ABA) holds its Midyear Meeting later this week in Vancouver (Canada!) and the House of Delegates is scheduled to debate several resolutions of interest to employers and employment lawyers. As readers of this blog, you happen to “know” the Connecticut State Delegate (me!), coordinating a delegation of several esteemed lawyers from Connecticut. Thus, if you have any questions or concerns about the resolutions, please e-mail me this week at dschwartz@goodwin.com. Or feel free to add a comment below. You can review all the resolutions here but the few that I would pay attention to are as follows: Resolution 116A supports an interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that defines sex discrimination by covered employers to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Resolution 117 urges courts to recognize that service in the United States Armed Forces should not be restricted and that individuals sh...

In the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court case in many years, the Court ruled this morning that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. You can download the 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, here. Connecticut has long prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity so the court’s decision will have less of an impact here for LGBT workers.  In fact, back in 2016 the Connecticut District Court already offered these protections for Title VII cases in this state in a decision that I covered back then.  In states without such protection, the new protections now offered to employees nationwide will be significant. And moreover, the message that this case is sending is unmistakable too: The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and  momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions....