Appearance Discrimination Issues, the CROWN Act, and Unconscious Bias [Webinar Recording]

On Wednesday, July 20th, Aaron R. Gelb and Ashley D. Mitchell presented a webinar regarding Appearance Discrimination Issues, the CROWN Act, and Unconscious Bias.

Appearance-based discrimination occurs when someone is treated differently based on how they look. Although there is no federal law that prohibits “appearance discrimination” in employment, claims involving such issues are typically brought in the context of prohibited race, sex, or disability discrimination allegations. While there was a case several years ago that garnered a good deal of media attention involving a female bank employee who claimed she was told she was “too sexy” for her position, it is more common to encounter claims by women (and men) that they were treated less favorably than a coworker whom the boss found attractive. Obese workers have alleged that they were perceived as disabled because of their weight and employees who wear certain garments and/or jewelry as part of their religion have also filed claims of discrimination. Meanwhile, hairstyles and types are now on the cutting edge of fair employment law compliance.

For years, savvy employers recognized that there may be a need to accommodate certain religious beliefs pertaining to hairstyles, but a growing number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering laws that prohibit race-based hair discrimination such as the CROWN Act (“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”) which is focused on ending the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including braids, locs, twists or bantu knots.

Participants in this webinar learned: Continue reading

[Webinar] Appearance Discrimination Issues, the CROWN Act, and Unconscious Bias

On Wednesday, July 20th at 1 p.m. EST, join Aaron R. Gelb and Ashley D. Mitchell for a webinar regarding Appearance Discrimination Issues, the CROWN Act, and Unconscious Bias.

Appearance-based discrimination occurs when someone is treated differently based on how they look. Although there is no federal law that prohibits “appearance discrimination” in employment, claims involving such issues are typically brought in the context of prohibited race, sex, or disability discrimination allegations. While there was a case several years ago that garnered a good deal of media attention involving a female bank employee who claimed she was told she was “too sexy” for her position, it is more common to encounter claims by women (and men) that they were treated less favorably than a coworker whom the boss found attractive. Obese workers have alleged that they were perceived as disabled because of their weight and employees who wear certain garments and/or jewelry as part of their religion have also filed claims of discrimination. Meanwhile, hairstyles and types are now on the cutting edge of fair employment law compliance.

For years, savvy employers recognized that there may be a need to accommodate certain religious beliefs pertaining to hairstyles, but a growing number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering laws that prohibit race-based hair discrimination such as the CROWN Act (“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”) which is focused on ending the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture or protective hairstyles including braids, locs, twists or bantu knots.

Participants in this webinar will learn: Continue reading

[Webinar] NYC’s Private Employer Vaccine Mandate – Everything You Need to Know

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 2 p.m. ET, join Kara M. Maciel and Dan C. Deacon for a webinar regarding NYC’s Private Employer Vaccine Mandate – Everything You Need to Know.

On December 19, 2021, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a private employer vaccine mandate which requires workers in New York City who perform in-person work or interact with the public for work to provide proof of vaccination before entering the workplace. The mandate did not provide much of a runway for employers to come into compliance, as employers had to make sure employees received their first vaccine dose by December 27th – just eleven days from the announcement.

It is also important to remember that all New York employers remain subject to the NY HERO Act, which requires employers to implement a written airborne infectious disease plan and certain exposure controls whenever the Health Commissioner declares a public health emergency involving an airborne infectious disease.

During this webinar, we will provide a detailed analysis of this latest development and answer key questions including: Continue reading