Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska
Labor Day means different things to different people. For some, it is the unofficial end of summer, a day for barbecues, back to school sales, and one last trip to the lake. But the holiday has a history worth remembering, especially if you are someone who clocks in, punches out, and wonders whether the system is actually looking out for you.
Where Labor Day Came From
Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Cassidy Monska
Scroll through social media long enough and you will find someone telling a stranger to “sue” over almost anything. A canceled flight. A rude cashier. A manager who raised their voice. Everyone in the comment section is suddenly a lawyer.
Here is the problem with that: the “sue them” culture makes it harder to spot the situations that actually do matter. People who have been through real discrimination or retaliation start to wonder if their situation is “serious enough,” and they wait, and they lose time they cannot get back. Employment claims often move on short deadlines, so the cost of waiting can be the whole case.
Dallas Employment Trial Lawyer Riley Carter
The PUMP Act, short for Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, represents an important step forward in workplace protections for nursing employees. Signed into law in December 2022, the Act significantly expands and strengthens the rights of breastfeeding workers in the United States. Below, we’ll walk through the history of the law, the protections it provides, its limitations, and what employees should know about exercising their rights under it.
The History Behind the PUMP Act
Summary: This article discusses the holding and implications of the Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 17, 2024, decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a police officer’s lawsuit over being transferred to a worse position because of sex. This reinstated her case. In concert with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County, 79 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023), Muldrow hopefully represents a coming trend of courts finally rolling back decades of judge-made roadblocks to employees’ abilities to enforce their civil rights. Courts applying the law as written should give employees greater protections by removing opportunities for judges’ preconceptions or assumptions (often about people in very different circumstances from themselves) to get mixed into their rulings.
In Muldrow, the lower appellate court (the Eighth Circuit) decided that because Ms. Muldrow’s transfer did not change her rank or pay, she could not prove discrimination even if she really was transferred because of her sex. Although there was evidence the new position Ms. Muldrow was moved to was less prestigious within the department, had fewer responsibilities and perks, came with a worse schedule, and required her to give up her work vehicle, the Eighth Circuit reached that decision because it did not think those changes were “significant” enough to constitute discrimination.
In the pursuit of professional success and fulfillment, the workplace should be a fair and inclusive environment for everyone. However, the persistent issue of gender discrimination continues to cast a shadow over the career paths of many individuals. In this blog post, we will delve into the nuances of gender discrimination in the workplace, emphasizing the critical role that legal support plays in empowering victims to stand against injustice and fostering environments that champion equality.
The Silent Struggle: Gender Discrimination Unveiled
Gender discrimination takes various forms, often manifesting as unequal pay, limited opportunities for career advancement, biased hiring practices, and a hostile work environment. It’s a pervasive issue that affects individuals across industries, irrespective of their qualifications or skills. Recognizing the signs of gender discrimination is the first step toward addressing this systemic problem.
Like many, I feel an overwhelming sense of sadness and loss following the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Not only did she establish herself as a champion of equal rights for all, but she lived the fight herself. Smart, accomplished, and determined, she chose law school at a time when women were not welcome. During law school, she found herself often demeaned and unappreciated, being asked by the dean himself how she justified taking a seat that could have gone to a man. She would ultimately rise to the highest level of American law, the United States Supreme Court. Among its nine members, there are few who have served with so much distinction.
Discrimination at work is one of the hottest topics of employment law. There are a number of federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of specific protected characteristics. Almost all of these laws protect not only employees, but also applicants for employment and sometimes even former employees who are retaliated against after their employment ends.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that businesses and employers provide nursing mothers with certain accommodations in the workplace. The Act applies to all qualified Texas employees, and if their employers do not offer these benefits, the employer may be liable.
Section 7 of the FLSA (the “Act”) requires employers to provide employees with time and resources to breastfeed in the workplace. The Act mandates employers to provide their employees with a “reasonable break time” to express breast milk for their nursing child for up to one year after the child’s birth. Often, these breaks are referred to as “pumping breaks.”
The amount of time the employer is required to provide must be reasonable, but this will vary as to the frequency and number of times needed. Employers have several options on how to allow their employees this reasonable time. Some have periods of downtime, and they may ask their employees to use that time to express milk. In certain instances, employers allow employees to split shifts to enable employees to leave and express milk. If an employer has a formal policy for nursing mothers, they must adhere to these policies and procedures.
Under both state and federal law, Texas employees are protected from discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy-related illnesses; however, that was not always the case.
Originally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin was not interpreted by the courts to include protection for pregnancy and related medical conditions. During this time, employers were able to make decisions based on the fact an employee was pregnant. It was not until over a decade later, with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) that pregnancy was covered. Since the passage of the PDA, discrimination based “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” has been prohibited because it is considered to be discrimination based on a person’s sex.
Under the PDA, women who are pregnant or are suffering from pregnancy-related illnesses cannot be discriminated against. Common pregnancy-related illnesses include:
Texas isn’t exactly known as a progressive state, and the state’s discrimination laws are no exception. While some state legislatures have passed broad discrimination laws prohibiting the disparate treatment of employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, there is not yet a Texas discrimination law unequivocally protecting individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Earlier this week, however, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider a case that may significantly limit an employer’s ability to treat employees differently based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda involve the question of sexual orientation discrimination, while R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC concerns discrimination based upon gender identity and sex stereotyping.
The cases present the U.S. Supreme Court with the opportunity to provide LGBTQ employees the protection they have too long been denied. The Court will soon announce when the oral argument will be heard. After the argument, the Court will eventually issue a decision, which will likely be sometime before June of 2020.
Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog