The Dallas Hospitality Employment Lawyer Blog

Last week, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a plaintiff’s Title VII sexual orientation claim, but vacated the district court’s order dismissing the employee’s gender non-conformity claim, drawing both an interesting concurring opinion and a no-holds-barred, partial dissent.   See Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp., et al ., No. 15-15234 (11th Cir. March 10, 2017).   In Evans , the initially pro se plaintiff, a lesbian hospital security officer, claimed, among other things, that she was discriminated against for failing to conform to gender stereotypes and because of her sexual orientation.   A magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the claims because Title VII was not intended to cover discrimination against homosexuals, and further because the gender non-conformity claim was “just another way to claim discrimination based on sexual orientation.”   The district court conducted a de novo review of the record and adopted, without further c...

A Texas employer defeated multiple, disability-based claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an employee who injured herself on the job and complained when the employer did not reassign her to a different position.  In EEOC v. Methodist Hospital of Dallas , No. 3:15-CV-3104-G, the employee, a patient care technician (PCT), injured herself on the job and obtained various medical restrictions, some of which restricted work entirely, and some permitting light duty work.  The employer accommodated the light duty until the employee's doctor released her to return to work as a PCT.  Around the time of the release, the employee approached the employer and requested a reassignment to accommodate her injury.  She also requested and received leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as well as additional, personal leave.    The employer did not reassign the...

With the new administration’s flurry of activities related to the broader enforcement of immigration laws, one issue looms large for employment lawyers---will undocumented immigrants still be protected from unlawful employment practices under various federal laws?   The answer today is far from clear. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), protects “individuals” from unlawful employment practices, and does not distinguish between documented and undocumented workers.   In its Compliance Manual , Section 2, “ Threshold Issues ,” the EEOC opines that, “Individuals who are employed in the United States are protected by the EEO statutes regardless of their citizenship or immigration status.”   At least one court within the Fifth Circuit has expressed that “illegal aliens” would be entitled to protections under Title VII.   See EEOC v. Taqueria Rodeo de Jalisco , No. 4:11-cv-03444, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 179552, *7 n.1 (S.D. Tex. De...