This article was originally published February 20, 2018 as part of Law360.com's Expert Analysis Opinion Long overdue, the #MeToo movement has emerged to challenge workplace cultures that foster pervasive sexual harassment
In order to assist NELA members and to provide answers to questions that have arisen following the landmark ruling by the National Labor Relations Board on January 3, 2012 in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda (Case No. 12-CA-25764 http://www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-25764 ), NELA and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy released "Ten Frequently Asked Questions About D.R
D.R. Horton FAQ_revised_with sample ULP_01 31 12.pdf
In the course of rising in the ranks while working at the defendant firm, the Plaintiff was subjected to a false and repugnant rumor that her professional advancement was due to her having a sexual relationship with a male manager. The rumor’s spreading resulted in Ms. Parker facing harassment and discrimination, and when she tried to stop the rumor and complained about the harassment she was facing, the company retaliated against her and ultimately terminated her employment. The district court relied on a number of inappropriate grounds in dismissing her claims, including erroneously holding that the type of rumor to which she was subjected could not support a claim for gender discrimination because it could be made about either a male or female employee. The amicus brief marshals a wide array of legal and social science evidence in demonstrating that such rumors are deployed against women specifically to undermine their professional advancement, and tend to harm female employees in ways they do not harm men, thereby making them a quintessential form of gender-based harassment and discrimination
Parker v. Reema Consulting_NWLC NELA Amici Brief_053018.pdf
addressing not only the pervasive workplace discrimination LGBTQ workers face, but more importantly the lack of clarity that exists in applying workplace protection laws to those who are discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The amicus brief, written by Impact Fund’s Lindsay Nako and David Nahmias, working in close collaboration with NELA members, focuses on the circuit split in the treatment of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is further confused by the existing consensus among the circuits regarding discrimination based on transgender status
Bostock, Zarda, Harris - Amicus Brief of Impact Fund NELA Brief and Appendix.pdf
Amici agree with the district court’s holding that pattern-or-practice claims are distinct from individual disparate treatment claims and that arbitration agreements therefore are unenforceable if they preclude plaintiffs from vindicating pattern-or-practice claims. Our brief also contends that vindication of pattern-or-practice claims is vital to achievement of Title VII’s purpose and is largely infeasible on an individual basis due to limitations on the scope of discovery in bilateral adjudications, the substantial costs of proving a pattern-or-practice claim, and limitations on the scope of injunctive relief. Our brief serves to highlight the centrality of pattern-or-practice claims under Title VII in eradicating the complex and pervasive problem of employment discrimination and in providing for meaningful systemic reform, as well as to emphasize the substantive distinctions between pattern-or-practice claims and individual disparate treatment claims. It further argues that enforcement of forced arbitration agreements that ban employees from pursuing pattern-or-practice discrimination claims would allow employers to immunize themselves from private pattern-or-practice actions, diminish workers’ substantive rights under Title VII, and severely undermine the purpose and efficacy of Title VII
Parisi v Goldman Sachs_NELAAmiciCuriaeBrief_Final_070212.pdf
Supreme Court, urging the Court to rule that Title VII's administrative-exhaustion requirement is a waivable claim-processing rule and not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit
NELA Amicus Brief Fort Bend County TX v Davis.pdf
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is the federal agency which is mandated by Congress to enforce many of the country’s anti-discrimination laws in the workplace
Workers' Rights In Jeopardy.pdf
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Goldman Sachs maintained a pattern or practice of discrimination with respect to compensation and promotion on the basis of gender. The district court denied Goldman Sachs’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that plaintiffs could not pursue their Title VII pattern-or-practice claims in individual arbitration and that the arbitration agreement was therefore unenforceable as it precluded effective vindication of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights. Amici support the district court’s holding that pattern-or-practice claims are distinct from individual disparate treatment claims and that arbitration agreements thus are unenforceable if they preclude plaintiffs from vindicating pattern-or-practice claims. Our brief also contends that vindication of pattern-or-practice claims is vital to achievement of Title VII’s purpose and is largely infeasible on an individual basis due to limitations on the scope of discovery in bilateral adjudications, the substantial costs of proving a pattern-or-practice claim, and limitations on the scope of injunctive relief
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in support of plaintiff DeMasters who was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for using established internal complaint mechanisms to notify Carilion Clinic about the sexual harassment of a co-worker by a supervisor. The court in the Western District of Virginia granted Carilion’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, holding that DeMasters failed to state a plausible claim of retaliation under Title VII because he did not produce sufficient facts to establish that he engaged in a protected activity
DeMasters v. Carilion Clinic_NELA Amicus Brief.pdf
In so doing, Judge Wood held that the definition of supervisor is limited to those who possess the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee
#11-556_Vance v Ball St_NELA Amicus_Final.pdf
After being moved from court into arbitration, the plaintiffs in this case argued successfully to the arbitrator that they are entitled to proceed as a class
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers_NWLC NELA Amicus Brief_031418.pdf
Motions, conferences, delays, and a general reluctance by some courts to go to trial make it increasingly unlikely that our cases will be resolved by juries. Because of this, it is hard to attain and retain the skills we all need to be successful trial advocates