Question 1: A Biologically Male Employee Of Delta Dismantl

Question 1leo A Biologically Male Employee Of Delta Dismantlers Inc

Leo, a biologically male employee of Delta Dismantlers, Inc., an auto salvage yard in California, planned to have a gender reassignment surgery but was terminated by his employer for wearing feminine attire after being told that the attire violated the company dress code. Leo wants to sue Delta Dismantlers for wrongfully discharging him. Are there federal discrimination laws that apply? Are there state discrimination laws that apply? Are there other laws that apply that might provide Leo with a cause of action?

Paper For Above instruction

In the case of Leo, a biologically male employee at Delta Dismantlers, Inc., who was terminated for wearing feminine attire, various legal protections come into play. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sex, which has been interpreted to include gender identity and gender expression (Moran, 2014). The landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) clarified that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and transgender status, making Title VII applicable in Leo's case.

California state laws further strengthen protections for transgender individuals. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression (California Civil Code, section 12940). These laws collectively provide Leo with a robust legal framework to challenge his termination on grounds of discrimination based on gender expression, especially considering California's progressive stance on LGBTQ+ rights.

Additional laws that might support Leo’s case include laws against religious discrimination if his attire is linked to religious expression, or occupational safety laws if his dress code was applied discriminatorily. However, the primary legal protections stem from federal and state anti-discrimination statutes that prohibit employment discrimination based on sex and gender identity.

Therefore, Leo has strong legal grounds under both federal and California state laws to claim wrongful termination based on gender expression. He could argue that his dismissal was discriminatory and seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, and damages.

References

  • Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • California Civil Code, section 12940.
  • Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Question #2 Bill and Tom are partners and live in Hawaii.

Bill works for Hawaii Food Service, Inc., which provides food to the major airlines flying into Hawaii. Bill is the first employee of Hawaii Food Service to approach his employer about covering his partner, Tom, under Bill’s health insurance plan that is offered by Hawaii Food Services to its employees and their dependents. Never being faced with the question of whether a same-sex partner is a “dependent," eligible for coverage under the company’s health insurance plan, Hawaii Food Service asks you, an employment expert, what they should do. Should they expand the health insurance policy coverage to include same-sex partners as dependents? Are there any laws that require them to expand the coverage or that prohibit them from expanding the coverage?

Paper For Above instruction

In Hawaii, employers like Hawaii Food Service, Inc., are faced with the decision of whether to extend health insurance benefits to same-sex partners. Legally, the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and under federal law, marriage benefits are generally extended to same-sex spouses. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not explicitly require employers to cover domestic partners, many employers choose to do so to promote inclusivity (Moran, 2014).

Hawaii state law is progressive in affirming LGBTQ+ rights, but there is no state mandate requiring employers to extend health coverage to domestic partners. However, the Hawaii Revised Statutes recognize domestic partnerships and afford some legal protections to same-sex couples (Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 572B). Despite the lack of a legal obligation, federal laws like the ACA and anti-discrimination statutes strongly encourage inclusive practices. Notably, the EEOC interprets sex discrimination laws to prohibit employers from denying partner benefits based on sexual orientation or gender (Moran, 2014).

Therefore, Hawaii Food Service, Inc., should consider extending coverage to same-sex partners to comply with federal anti-discrimination principles and to promote diversity and equality. While not legally mandated, providing such benefits aligns with current federal protections and societal expectations for inclusivity (HRC, 2022).

References

  • Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 572B.
  • Human Rights Campaign (HRC). (2022). Corporate Equality Index.

Question #3 Maria worked for Big Business, Inc. and qualified for FMLA leave.

Maria’s situation involves her caring for her husband George, who has serious medical conditions. Big Business traditionally approved brief FMLA leaves for Maria, but when she requested extended leave from June 15 to July 1 without specifying the reason, her request was denied after doctors confirmed George would not receive medical treatment during that period. When Maria and George left for a pilgrimage, Big Business terminated her, claiming her FMLA was not approved. The key legal issue is whether Maria was entitled to leave and whether her termination violated FMLA rights.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles eligible employees to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for qualifying reasons, including caring for a spouse with a serious health condition (Moran, 2014). To qualify, employees must provide sufficient notice, and employers may require certification from healthcare providers. In Maria’s case, her leave was related to caregiving, which fits within FMLA protections. Although she did not specify the reason initially, her longstanding pattern of leave for caregiving and the nature of her duties should qualify her for FMLA leave.

However, FMLA also requires that the leave request be for a valid medical reason, which in this case is her husband's health condition. Since George’s medical needs were ongoing, and Maria’s leave was consistent with prior practice, she was likely entitled to the leave. Moreover, her absence for a religious pilgrimage does not negate her right to leave for caregiving under the FMLA. The fact that her leave was denied after certification and her absence may constitute a violation of her FMLA rights (Moran, 2014).

Consequently, Big Business’s termination of Maria for her absence during the approved leave period likely violated FMLA protections, as the act prohibits retaliation or termination for exercising FMLA rights. Maria could pursue legal action claiming interference with her FMLA rights and wrongful termination.

References

  • Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.

Question #4 Liz was a securities analyst at a major New York City investment bank.

Liz, a seasoned securities analyst, applied for a promotion to chief securities analyst but was denied the position in favor of another female candidate who was not pregnant. When Liz inquired about the denial, the department head admitted that her pregnancy and perceived future availability influenced the decision. This raises concerns under employment discrimination laws, particularly regarding pregnancy discrimination and gender discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate based on sex, which includes pregnancy discrimination following the Supreme Court decision in Young v. United Parcel Service (2015). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (Moran, 2014).

The department head's explanation suggests that Liz's pregnancy was a factor in the decision, which constitutes discrimination prohibited under these statutes. Although the employer claimed the concern was about her ability to perform the job due to pregnancy, courts have held that such concerns must be handled without discrimination; assumptions about productivity or commitment based on pregnancy are unlawful (Moran, 2014).

The investment bank's actions, including consideration of pregnancy as a negative factor in promotion decisions, violate the PDA and Title VII. The bank should have treated Liz equally, assessing her qualifications solely based on merit and performance. The discriminatory consideration of pregnancy, coupled with adverse employment actions, violates federal law. Liz has grounds to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and seek damages.

References

  • Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015).
  • Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k).
  • EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (2015).

Related Assignments