Sexual Harassment, Disabilities, and Discrimination
Does Title VII anti-discrimination law extend to sexual orientation and gender identity? The Supreme Court will decide.
While bullying and harassment may seem similar at first glance, in spite of a few commonalities, each has a very different definition and legal significance in the U.S. workplace.
What should an organization say after someone is fired for sexual harassment or misconduct—within the organization, to outsiders, or to future employers?
If an employee has a mental health-related disability, when and how can an employer require medical examinations and how should the employer approach this problem? A recent case gives some insight.
Need a reminder of “what not to do?” Here are ten easy ways for organizations to land in court over sexual harassment in the workplace, without really trying.
Check out highlights and lessons learned from some important 2017 Americans with Disabilities Act cases impacting Colorado and the rest of the country.
I am getting the picture that some in missions have been quite loosey-goosey about what to measure and when. what are some thoughts and strategies an agency might consider as they begin to develop, provide, or determine if they can provide accommodations?
A new Sixth Circuit case, Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, decided on August 22, 2012, potentially raises a new set of problems for churches and mission organizations. Requiring employees to get mental health counseling is likely a violation of the Americans with Disabilities except in certain narrow circumstances. Religious organizations should consider what circumstances apply and be prepared.
Each side in the debate over the mandate for insurance for reproductive services grapples with a real problem, but the mandate is only a symbolic solution to the underlying women’s rights issue. The HHS mandate requires businesses, including many religious institutions, to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and some abortifacients. Religious institutions that are morally opposed but not exempt deeply oppose the mandate. The reality is that the mandate creates a free exercise problem without solving a genuine women’s rights issue.