Menopause in the Workplace: A Multi-Faceted Issue

Menopause is something that approximately 50 percent of the workforce will experience during their working lives, but it is still infrequently discussed or considered in the workplace and many of us are unaware of how menopause can affect those going through it. However, employers are seeing an increase in employees concerned about menopause and their experience with it at work. This is a multi-faceted issue that encompasses a range of potential employment law issues.

Discrimination

Most countries do not recognise menopause as a characteristic that is specifically protected by discrimination laws. But employees experiencing menopause may be protected by discrimination laws relating to age, sex, disability and gender reassignment. Generally, people experiencing menopause are women aged between 45 and 55 so any unfavourable treatment (whether direct or indirect) towards an employee experiencing menopause could amount to sex and/or age discrimination. Gender reassignment discrimination may also be relevant if the employee experiencing menopause is transgender.

Continue reading “Menopause in the Workplace: A Multi-Faceted Issue”

DOJ Settles Discrimination Claims Involving Apple’s Recruitment and Hiring Practices Related to the PERM Process

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a $25 million settlement agreement requiring that Apple Inc. (Apple) pay toward a civil penalty and a back-pay fund to compensate certain individuals who were allegedly discriminated against in Apple’s Program Electronic Review Management process.

To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website here.

Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs

The American First Legal Foundation and other organizations like it, have taken the position that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs are illegal since the Students for Fair Admissions Inc. decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The groups have already filed actions against several companies for polices that include goals for the placement of people of color and women in leadership and leadership pipeline positions to match community demographics by a certain year; employee training and apprenticeship programs focused on underrepresented groups; and quantitative representation metrics for leadership incorporated into annual incentive compensation awards for senior leadership.

Continue reading “Life After Students for Fair Admissions: Dissecting Challenges to Employers’ Diversity Programs”

Next Stage Considerations About the Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision: How to Put the Warning Letter from the State Attorneys General in Context

As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199 (U.S. June 29, 2023), it is not surprising that elected officials — including 13 state attorneys general — have markedly different views about the philosophy and effects of affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. So, what should potentially affected organizations do in response to this legal uncertainty? We suggest taking a breath and bringing method to the madness.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Race-Conscious Admissions: Key Considerations for Postsecondary Institutions, Employers and Others

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., holding that race-conscious admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are constitutionally impermissible. Both public colleges and universities, and private institutions receiving federal funds, are prohibited from considering race in admissions decisions. As a result of the decision, institutions may also need to evaluate other areas in which educational services or benefits potentially take race into account, including but not limited to the provision of scholarships or grants. There may also be significant implications for employers’ voluntary affirmative action and DEI programs, as well as potential implications for mandatory affirmative action for government contractors, as a result of the decision.

Continue reading “U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates Race-Conscious Admissions: Key Considerations for Postsecondary Institutions, Employers and Others”

Supreme Court Decides Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al., No. 21-707, holding that the admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Continue reading “Supreme Court Decides Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy