Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Avoiding Pandora’S Box: Why Federal Nondiscrimination Statutes Do Not Prohibit Health Insurance Coverage Exclusions Of Sex-Rejecting Procedures, Rachel N. Morrison

Catholic University Law Review

There is increasing litigation over whether employer-provided health insurance and state Medicaid plans can exclude coverage of procedures for “gender transitions.” Plaintiffs claim that gender-transition coverage exclusions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal nondiscrimination statutes. While Fourteenth Amendment claims should be foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in Geduldig v. Aiello, nondiscrimination claims require a separate analysis.

This article shows the proper analysis for whether coverage exclusions of transition procedures violate federal nondiscrimination statutes. Looking to the history of coverage exclusion claims, Part I traces sex and pregnancy discrimination claims challenging coverage exclusions of …

Unwelcomeness Reconsidered: Adapting Sexual Harassment Law In The Long Wake Of #Metoo, Collin Christner

Michigan Law Review

The federal cause of action for sexual harassment in employment grew out of Title VII’s prohibition of workplace sex discrimination. In many circuits, for sexual harassment claims to be actionable, the plaintiff must show they found the referenced conduct “unwelcome.” Commentators have criticized that requirement since its inception; nonetheless, it has been wielded by courts that are either resistant or reluctant to abandon it. “Unwelcomeness” (or lack of evidence thereof) has been used to permit swaths of inappropriate workplace conduct— enshrining old, sexist stereotypes into America’s employment regulations. This Note evaluates the current approach to the unwelcomeness requirement and proposes …

Misjudging A Reasonable Jury: Evidence That Courts Dismiss Meritorious Harassment Claims, Elizabeth C. Tippett, Jamillah Bowman Williams

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Courts assessing summary judgment motions in Title VII harassment claims commonly grant the motion on the basis that the alleged harassment is insufficiently “severe or pervasive” to meet the legal standard. This mixed-methods study empirically tests whether there is a gap between how judges and potential jurors assess the same set of facts on the severe or pervasive element of a Title VII harassment claim. We presented study participants with facts from 80 federal harassment cases. In each case, the defendant employer moved to dismiss the case, arguing that no reasonable jury would find the alleged harassment sufficiently severe or …

Data Rights For Workers, Pauline Kim, Rachel Leavitt

Scholarship@WashULaw

Workers are subject to immense amounts of data collection on the job, and the algorithmic management tools built with that data can produce negative effects, including deskilling jobs, unstable work hours, reduced wages, and dangerous and degrading working conditions. Workers thus have significant interests how their data are collected and used, and yet they have been excluded from nearly all the recently enacted or proposed data protection laws. Their exclusion stems from data protection’s roots in privacy law and theory, which primarily focused on consumers as data subjects. Current data protection laws, even if expanded to cover workers, would provide …

July 15, 2025 — Ada Letter To House Subcommittee On Health, Energy And Commerce Committee On "Legislative Proposals To Maintain And Improve Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, And Over-The-Counter Medicines.", American Dental Association

Advocacy in Action letters

No abstract provided.

Algorithmic Bias In Hiring: Amending Title Vii To Prohibit Ai Discrimination, Michael H. Leroy

Journal of Legislation

I propose amendments to Title VII to address discriminatory hiring related to AI technologies. Section 703(c)’s definition of an “employment agency” should be modified to include “any person who uses artificial intelligence” to procure employees. I also propose a new definition in section 703 that incorporates the expansive definition of AI in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3). These small changes would make AI hiring firms more responsible for discriminatory screening and selection of job applicants, and better protect applicants who are adversely selected by sex, race, disability and other protected characteristics.

Right Not To Work: Unions And Title Vii, Seth Oranburg

FIU Law Review

This article explores how Title VII's mandate for religious accommodation conflicts with union seniority rights, as revealed in Groff v. DeJoy. It argues that labor unions often oppose Sabbath accommodations not out of hostility to religion, but to protect bargained-for entitlements. The piece highlights a growing legal tension: whether co-worker burdens count as “undue hardship” under Title VII—a question with major implications for religious liberty in unionized workplaces.

Right Not To Work: Unions And Title Vii, Seth C. Oranburg

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article explores how Title VII's mandate for religious accommodation conflicts with union seniority rights, as revealed in Groff v. DeJoy. It argues that labor unions often oppose Sabbath accommodations not out of hostility to religion, but to protect bargained-for entitlements. The piece highlights a growing legal tension: whether co-worker burdens count as “undue hardship” under Title VII—a question with major implications for religious liberty in unionized workplaces.

Menstruation, Menopause, And The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, Marcy L. Karin, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Some workplaces are extraordinarily inhospitable to menstruators, especially those in low-wage jobs. Workers have been denied restroom breaks and then harassed or fired after menstrual blood leaked onto their clothes or their employer’s property. Employers routinely refuse to provide accommodations for menopause symptoms or time off for menstruation-related medical care. The failure to support menstruators is a significant barrier to ensuring workplace equality. This Article explains how federal laws, including the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), can—and should—be interpreted to help address these inequities. PWFA requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Menstruation …

#Employerstoo: Expanding Vicarious Liability For Sexual Harassment In Title Vii And Tort Law, Kassandra "Kassie" Fotiadis

Michigan Law Review

When an individual experiences sexual harassment through a workplace, she has limited options for recourse. One seemingly promising possibility is bringing a claim against her perpetrator’s employer. But this option—achievable through vicarious liability—has failed to realize its potential. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court established a standard to enforce vicarious liability for sexual harassment claims under Title VII. That standard, though, was limited in scope to begin with and has further narrowed over time. Common law principles also allow courts to hold employers vicariously liable for sexual harassment in tort. But few jurisdictions have adopted those principles, and there is …

A Case For The Ages: Thompson And Preserving The Adea Statutory Time To File, Rachel Gadra Rankin

Georgia State University Law Review

This Note analyzes the contractual shortening of the ADEA’s filing period, contrasting it with Title VII’s requirements and advocating for legislative or judicial clarification.

Labor Strife And Peace, Desiree Leclercq

Scholarly Works

This Article examines a significant yet underexplored feature in the decline of worker power: The gradual erosion of protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for workplace protest by rank-and-file, nonunion workers. Rather than protect their protest as necessary to galvanize workplace solidarity and organizing, current labor doctrine offers employers various opportunities to fire them. Focusing on nonunion workers standing up to management, this Article offers three key insights into U.S. labor law. First, it draws on social movements to confirm strife’s vital but uneasy role in workplace solidarity. Second, it unearths the NLRA’s original intention to protect the …

Does Title Vii Prohibit Discrimination In Employment-Transfer Decisions Only If They Cause Materially Significant Disadvantages For Employees?, Anne Marie Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

Case at a Glance: Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Department, was transferred to another unit within the department. Muldrow sued the City of St. Louis for making a discriminatory transfer decision in alleged violation of Title VII. This case presents the question of whether Title VII prohibits discriminatory transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the decision caused Muldrow materially significant disadvantages.

“You Don’T Bring Me Flowers Anymore”: President Clinton, Paula Jones, And Why Courts Should Expand The Definition Of “Adverse Employment Action” Under Title Vii’S Anti-Retaliation Provision, Lawrence Rosenthal

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) prohibit discrimination based on individuals’ protected characteristics. In addition to prohibiting this type of status-based discrimination, these statutes also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who assert their rights under the statutes or who assist others in asserting their rights.

Over the past several years, retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) have made up an increasingly high percentage of all charges filed with the agency. Specifically, …

Climate Discrimination, Duane Rudolph

Catholic University Law Review

This Article focuses on the coming legal plight of workers in the United States, who will likely face discrimination as they search for work outside their home states. The Article takes for granted that climate change will have forced those workers across state and international boundaries, a reality dramatically witnessed in the United States during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. During that environmental emergency (and the devastation it wrought), workers were forced across boundaries only to be violently discriminated against upon arrival in their new domiciles. Such discrimination is likely to recur, and it will threaten the livelihoods of …

Beyond Title Vii: Litigating Harassment By Nonemployees Under The Ada And Adea, Kate Bradley

Washington Law Review

Employees in the United States are protected from unlawful harassment that rises to the level of a “hostile work environment.” Federal circuits recognize that employers could be liable under Title VII when their employees experience hostile work environments because of harassment from nonemployees. However, outside of Title VII, not all federal circuits have recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protect employees from hostile work environments.

As a result, employees are vulnerable with respect to age and disability-based harassment. This Comment argues that all federal circuits should allow …

Conspiracy Theories Are Not Religions: Scrutinizing Religious Exemptions To The Covid-19 Vaccine, Shirley B. Luk

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

Panel 5 - The Future Of Employment Law, Karla Gilbride, Geraldine Sumter, Stephen Rich, Marcia Mccormick, Michael Selmi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

FACILITATOR: All right everyone, welcome to our last panel, “The Future of Employment Law.” I want to quickly introduce our moderator, Karla Gilbride, the co-director of the Access to Justice Project. Karla, you can take it away.

Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry

Washington Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …

Hidden Figures: Wage Inequity And Economic Insecurity For Black Women And Other Women Of Color, Cassandra Jones Havard

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

One hundred years after women secured the right to vote, wage inequality remains prevalent in the United States. The gender wage gap, or pay inequity based solely on sex, arguably, is a measure of the current failure of full and equal participation by women in American society. The gender wage gap exists despite federal legislation designed to further wage equality. In fact, a difference as small as two cents over a lifetime costs a woman approximately $80,000. Currently, it is predicted that for a majority of white women, the pay parity will be attained between 2059–2069. However, Black women …

Transparency And Reliance In Antidiscrimination Law, Steven L. Willborn

Catholic University Law Review

All antidiscrimination laws have two structural features – transparency and reliance – that are important, even central, to their design, but have gone largely unnoticed. On transparency, some laws, like the recent salary-ban laws, attempt to prevent the employer from learning about the disfavored factor on the theory that an employer cannot rely on an unknown factor. Other laws require publication of the disfavored factor, such as salary, on the theory that it is harder to discriminate in the sunlight. Still other laws are somewhere between these two extremes. The Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, limits but does not …

Employment Law—Antidiscrimination—Falling Into The Legal Void: How Arkansas Can Protect Unpaid Interns From Discrimination And Harassment, Christina Redmann

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can I Touch Your Hair?: Business Diversity, Slavery, Disparate Outcomes, And The Crown Act, Ashley Jones

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This comment will begin by looking at why hair in the United States is related to issues of race. This comment will then look at how businesses’ rules for appearance and hair disproportionately affect Black employees. Next, this paper will look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to point out how the vague language has created loopholes, which allow businesses to lawfully discriminate against people with natural hair. We will then move to explore what role some city and state governments have had in creating natural hair-safe workspaces for employees in their respective boundaries. Lastly, we …

Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses the issue of whether a victim of caste discrimination based on untouchability can assert a claim of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981. This article contends that there are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is a form of religious discrimination under Title VII. The question of whether caste discrimination is a form of race or national origin discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981 depends upon how the courts apply these definitions to caste discrimination based on untouchability. There are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is recognized within the concept …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Trojan Zebra: Unmasking Bostock’S Potential To Undermine Lgbtq+ Protections, James E.A. Rehwaldt

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Engaging with the methodological framework endorsed by the Supreme Court’s holding and rejected by the dissents in Bostock v. Clayton County, this Comment critically examines both the limited scope and potential misuses of the Court’s decision recognizing protection against employment discrimination for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Cases And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain

Law Faculty Scholarship

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held that …

Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims In Federal And Minnesota Courts: A Historical Perspective On The Development Of The "Severe Or Pervasive" Standard, Frances Baillon, Michelle Gibbons

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Case And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain

Seattle University Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held …

Chambers V. District Of Columbia And The Future Of Title Vii, Andrew Melzer, Alok Nadig, Lindsay Marum

SLU Law Journal Online

Can blatant workplace discrimination escape the grasp of Title VII? In Chambers v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit is considering whether to revisit a rule that employment discrimination must result in “objectively tangible harm” to give rise to a Title VII claim. In this article, the authors argue that the D.C. Circuit should stay true to the language and purpose of Title VII and adopt a standard similar to the simple “treated less well” test used under the NYC Human Rights Law.