Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Title VII to Protect LGBTQ Community

Client Alert
June 15, 2020

It is not every day that the United States Supreme Court issues a decision that dramatically changes the workplace, but it happened this week. In a landmark decision captioned as Bostock v. Clayton County, issued by the Court on June 15th, the Court ruled that federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex” will now include protections for individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity.

On its face, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in pertinent part, that it is an “unlawful employment practice for an employer” to discriminate against an individual “because of such individual’s race, color, sex, or national origin” (emphasis added).

In the decades since its passing, courts across the country have grappled with the meaning of “sex” within the text of Title VII and the extent of its coverage; however, today, the Court clarified that “sex” includes sexual orientation, transgender, and gender identity, extending employment protections to these protected classes of people.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in which he writes:

In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires [or discriminates against] an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.

This is a very important decision for all employers in America to recognize and follow as it will surely lead to liability and lawsuits for those employers that choose to ignore it. Practically, this decision prohibits an employer from considering an employee’s sexual orientation, transgender, or gender identification when making decisions concerning hiring, discipline, pay rate, job duties, and termination. As a result, employers should take this ruling as an opportunity to update employee handbooks and ensure provisions reflect the newly identified protected classes. As an additional measure, employers should use this decision as an opportunity to conduct re-trainings for all employees to ensure company-wide compliance with anti-discrimination and harassment policies, including the recent protections afforded to the LGBTQ community. Finally, this decision should spark employers to consider purchasing or reviewing their current Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) plan to ensure protection in the event of claims arising out of this decision.

Bryan Meek is a member of Brennan, Manna & Diamond’s Employment & Labor team and is available to assist you with responding to requests for information and/or appealing unfavorable unemployment decisions. Bryan can be reached at 330.253.5586, or bmeek@bmdllc.com. 

Supreme Courtlandmark decisionBostock v. Clayton Countydiscrimination on basis of sexprotections for individuals on basis of sexual orientationtransgendergender identityTitle VIIProtecting LGBTQ Communityemployersliability lawsuitsexual orientationemployee handbookDiscrimination
Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.Client Alert

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 15, 2024The Ohio Board of Pharmacy released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past month that will significantly impact pharmacy operations. Topics range from updates to the Terminal Distributor of Dangerous Drugs license to mobile clinics to mandatory rest breaks for pharmacists of outpatient pharmacies. A summary of the proposed changes is below, along with instructions for commenting on the rules. Your BMD healthcare attorney can help write comment letters and submit the comments on your behalf as well.Client Alert

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Guidance Issued by the Department of Labor

January 10, 2024On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its long-awaited final rule — effective March 11, 2024 — revising its prior interpretation of worker classifications under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new final rule rescinds the standard previously established in 2021, in turn, shifting the analysis of whether a worker is an employee (versus an independent contractor) of a business from a more streamlined “economic reality” test to a more complex “totality of the circumstances” standard.Client Alert

Increased Medicaid Rates to Take Effect This Month for Ohio Providers

January 5, 2024As required by House Bill 33, Ohio’s 2024-2025 operating budget bill, reimbursement rates paid by the Ohio Department of Medicaid will increase for a wide range of providers starting on January 1, 2024.
Older posts
Newer posts