Discriminatory work dress codes are a contentious issue in many workplaces. Dress codes may unfairly target certain groups of employees based on their gender, race, religion, disability, or other personal characteristics. These dress codes can take many forms, such as: requiring women to wear high heels, dresses, or makeup; banning
Say Yes to the Dress…Code?
Holidays and Parties and Drinking, Oh My!
We are in the midst of the holiday season. As the holidays roll by, businesses everywhere are having their year-end holiday parties. Millions of people everywhere are going to restaurants, bars, and banquet halls to mix and mingle, to celebrate victories, and to close out the…
Never Forget Atlantis Sank and Camelot Failed: An Optimist’s Guide to Now
Posted in Constitutional Law, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination
It’s dark out there right now.
In Texas, it is judicial fact that women and people of color have less rights than they do almost anywhere else in the country. Regarding women, I am obviously talking about the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the flagrantly unconstitutional 6-week…
Wearing My Crown Proudly – Your Tradition is Not My Tradition
By Kalandra N. Wheeler on
“I was told that my braids were unprofessional.”
“I was told to cut off my locs.”
“I was told that my hair doesn’t fit the ‘company culture.’”
Ladies and gentlemen, race-based hair discrimination is still alive and well in 2021, and Black employees are being told…
Section 1981 Blog Follow up: Supreme Court Edition!
On December 18, 2020, I published a blog all about 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“§ 1981” or “Section 1981”) claims. I’m sure you remember it. It was pretty great, if I do say so myself.
But just in case, very briefly, § 1981 prohibits race discrimination…
Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination and retaliation in contracts, including race-based interference in contracts.
Posted in Employee Rights, Race Discrimination
Let’s say you have been discriminated against based on your race, but either work for a company with less than 15 employees or are an independent contractor. You know that neither Title VII nor the Texas Labor Code applies to you. Is there any other protection? YES! The answer is 42 U.S.C. §1981.
Let’s say you are an employee of a company with 15 or more people, but that you didn’t hire a lawyer until well after the 300-day statute of limitations for Title VII to assert your race discrimination claim. Do you have any hope? YES! The answer is 42 U.S.C. §1981.
So, what is 42 U.S.C. § 1981?
42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits race discrimination and retaliation in the making and enforcing of contracts. It is meant to provide “broad and sweeping” protection against all race discrimination. Faraca v. Clements, 506 F.2d 956, 959 (5th Cir. 1975). According to the Supreme Court, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, from which § 1981 is derived, “was designed to prohibit all racial discrimination . . . with respect to the rights enumerated therein.” Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 422-36 (1968).…
Continue Reading Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination and retaliation in contracts, including race-based interference in contracts.
Alleging the underlying facts and the key players at issue is enough to sufficiently state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to race-based termination and sexual harassment.
By Eric P. Dama on
Posted in Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
“In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that (a) they are members of a protected class; (b) they were subjected to intentional discriminatory treatment during their employment with SLU; (c) similarly situated white employees were treated differently; (d) they were terminated due to their race; (e) Gandolfo was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment that was willfully…
An employer’s selective application of a facially neutral policy is evidence of pretext.
“A reasonable jury could conclude from [plaintiff’s supervisor’s] explanation, together with the summary judgment evidence that Plaintiff’s’ co-worker, Clark, also did not strictly follow TDCJ’s timesheet policy as written, that [employer’s] timesheet policy recognized a de facto exception for [public information officers]. If the de facto exception was selectively ignored in [plaintiff’s] case, a reasonable…
Showing that white employee was denied raise, even though fully funded by federal grant, by new black sheriff who recently hired two new blacks employees is enough create fact issue regarding intentional discrimination.
“Kelvin Williams, a black male, was elected sheriff. James Moore, a black male, became warden. Shortly thereafter, Williams promoted another black female, with no college degree or counseling certification, to be the director of the male alcohol and drug program at the facility at a salary of $40,000 per year. He appointed Jean Fair, a…
Negative comments are still racially based if white coworkers are not subjected to the same type of comments.
“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], the Court finds that he has presented sufficient evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact from which a jury could conclude that the harassment complained of was based on race. Such a conclusion is underscored by the deposition testimony of Bell’s white co-worker,…