Filter By Service Area
Filter By Title
Filter By Office

Resources

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.  

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.  

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.  

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.  

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.  

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling Significantly Expands Reach of Title VII

On August 18, the full Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and which has historically been one of the more conservative courts of appeal, ruled in Hamilton v. Dallas County that employees are not limited to bringing Title VII claims only when they are subjected to “ultimate employment decisions.” Rather, the court expanded the scope of actionable conduct to include all sorts of lesser actions.

The Fifth Circuit reasoned that Title VII does not limit unlawful discrimination to “ultimate employment decisions.” Holding that in addition to ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, firing, and refusing to promote, it also prohibits an employer from otherwise discriminating against an employee in “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The 5th Circuit ruled that all terms, conditions, or privileges of employment should be protected under Title VII, and provided several examples of actions that fell short of ultimate employment decisions yet which could still serve as the basis of a Title VII discrimination claim: denying seniority privileges to females while allowing males to exercise theirs; requiring females to work weekends but not males; assigning night and day shifts based on race; and requiring black team members to work outside, while allowing white team members to work inside. A key change is that the action does not need to result in financial damage in order for it to be the basis of a discrimination claim.

The court said that there is a floor for determining the type of actions that can serve as the basis of a Title VII claim, and that the law doesn’t cover “trivial” actions.  However, the court declined to define the exact measure of materiality that will apply in order to have actionable harm, instead leaving that question “for another day.”

Action Items:

Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure they comply with the new standard. More importantly, Human Resources and Supervisors must be aware that employees are going to be able to successfully assert discrimination claims for what we used to consider relatively minor employment-related actions. Being able to objectively justify these decisions will be absolutely key. Think about these decisions and if the “feel funny” get someone else involved.