labor lawAdivision of labor law center

There is no Utah law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but Salt Lake City recently passed such an ordinance.

The Salt Lake City Antidiscrimination law goes into effect on April 2, 2010.

Mayor Ralph Becker of Salt Lake City signed an ordinance that makes it illegal to

Under the law, an employer may not commit discrimination against employees or applicants based on the employee’s sexual orientation, including gay, lesbian, homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

The law prohibits discrimination in employment decisions including:

• Hiring
• Discharge
• Promotion
• Demotion
• Termination
• Compensation
• Terms of Employment
• Working Conditions 

The law also prohibits employers from harassing any employee based on his or her sexual orientation, and from retaliating against employees who file complaints.

All of the above protections also apply to (more…)

Both the US House and the Senate have tabled ENDA for the present. Efforts to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will clearly continue in 2010, but success is far from certain.

In early December 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee failed to reschedule a cancelled November markup session for the bill, also referred to as H.R. 3017.

ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation nationwide. While a number of states including California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois currently have statutes that prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, there is no ban under federal law.

Key issues under discussion include the focus on attorney fees and whether victims of job bias could seek relief under ENDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

At least some members of Congress are optimistic that ENDA (more…)

Employers across the nation need to review HR practices and employee wellness programs to ensure they do not violation GINA, the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act.

The newest GINA regulations issued by the US Department of Labor, the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services go into effect for plans starting on December 7, 2009 or later.

GINA prevents employers from gathering information on employees’ genetic makeup, and from making employment decisions based on that information. Many employers are surprised to learn that while they do not engage in genetic testing, common HR practices may still put them in violation of the law.

In addition, every employer needs a to prominently display a GINA poster in the workplace.

A behavior as simple as asking an employee returning from an uncle’s funeral about the cause of death may be a GINA violation.

Genetic information is interpreted very broadly under the sweeping new GINA regulations. In addition to genetic testing, GINA also includes an employees requests for or receipt of genetic services, and family medical history. This includes any manifestation of a disease or disorder in the employee’s family members including dependents plus all relatives to the fourth degree without regard to whether they are related by blood, marriage or adoption. This would include (more…)

Any employer who is not prominently displaying a GINA Non-Discrimination poster is in violation of the law.

Effective Nov. 21, 2009 the GINA mandatory posting requirement went into effect, meaning that employers can be fined or penalized for not complying.

Under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, employers are prohibited from gathering information regarding an employee’s genetic predisposition for disease. This includes querying an employee before or after hiring about a family history of heart disease or cancer, just to cite one example.

This law does not cover lifestyle issues such as smoking, drinking alcohol, handgun ownership or use of seat belts.

GINA was signed into law by then-president George W. Bush on May 21, 2008. The law primarily addresses genetic discrimination by by health insurance companies. It addresses a fear that, for example, a health insurance provider might refuse coverage to a healthy individual, merely because his father and grandfather died of heart attacks.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits insurance companies and employers from discriminating on the basis of information obtained through genetic testing. With more than 40 genetic tests for various health conditions available, the fear (more…)

A recent federal court ruling requires that employers be even more vigilant about seemingly “casual” negative remarks in the workplace.

This case heard by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the fact that supervisors and even coworkers should not ask questions about or discuss an employee’s religion, national ancestry or country of origin. Nor should employers make derogatory remarks about Muslims or members of other religions, even in passing.

It also emphasizes the importance of an employer conducting anti-discrimination training for all managers, after any reported incident.

In EEOC v. Go Daddy Software Inc. the court ruled that two passing remarks, more than a year apart, by two different supervisors, were enough to show a pattern of illegal discrimination against a Muslim employee.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged discrimination based on religion and national ancestry. Youseff Bouamama, a Muslim born in Morocco, was hired by the company in late September, 2001. In December 2001, the employee’s hiring manager overheard him speaking French to a customer. The manager quizzed the employee on his religion and birthplace. Shortly after the 911 terrorist attacks on New York, the supervisor also made comments to the effect that Muslims needed to die.

Nineteen months later, (more…)