L&E Evolution Part II: Discrimination

Source: Lorene D. Park, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 69 no. 4, Winter 2018
(subscription required)

This is part two of a multi-part series on the evolution of labor and employment law in the United States.

When President Lyndon B. Johnson urged Congress, in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), he spoke of the need to eliminate “every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or color.” Here we are, more than 50 years later, and antidiscrimination laws are still a work in progress, moving in directions that earlier generations of lawmakers would likely find surprising: for example, cases involving religious accommodation of atheists, debates over whether adverse actions due to spousal jealousy are “because of ” sex, and discrimination based on perceived disabilities, to mention a few.

New laws have been enacted, including GINA and the OWBPA, and existing laws have expanded, including the ADA and its definition of disability. Court precedent has also evolved in significant ways. For example, some courts now hold that discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination “because of … sex” under Title VII, while other courts hold otherwise. Our political climate too has fostered rapid changes in how agencies enforce labor and employment laws, and employers are having a hard time keeping up.

All of this has been influenced, of course, by wave after wave of social movements large and small, usually with a catchphrase and now often prefaced with a hashtag (e.g., #Black Lives Matter, #MeToo). Given the ever-changing legal landscape of antidiscrimination laws, the purpose of this article is to assess what the state of the law is and to consider the directions we are going…..

L&E Evolution: Redefining Employment Relationships
Source: Lorene D. Park, Labor Law Journal, Vol. 69 No. 1, Spring 2018
(subscription required)

Rapidly advancing technology, cultural changes, and a sharply divided political landscape have so changed the workplace that lawmakers are struggling to catch up and tailor labor and employment laws to reflect these changes, to establish cross-jurisdictional consistency, and to enable employers and practitioners to make decisions based on solid ground. Nowhere is this more obvious than in battles over the most basic of definitions: “employer” and “employee.” This is no simple matter of black letter law, at least not anymore. For example, the proliferation of smart phones and other technology has led to online platforms for gig workers, and a simple “click” of the mouse can create a contract on which companies may rely to require arbitration or to disclaim a traditional employment relationship…..