The Supreme Court just adopted The Simple Injury Standard to identify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment when it ruled unanimously that an employer's act of transferring an employee "from one job to another because she is a woman" (or another protracted trait) is actionable discrimination under Title VII.

The case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, states that discrimination is actionable so long as the employee can identify "some harm" regardless if that harm is "significant" because to “discriminate against” refers to “differences in treatment that injure” employees. Specifically, in Muldrow, the plaintiff sued because her "terms [or] conditions" of employment were changed, even though her "rank and pay remained the same," because her new position changed her "responsibilities, perks, and schedule," based on who she was. SCOTUS explained that this "meet[s] that test with room to spare" in overturning the lower court's dismissal based on the now extinct "materially significant disadvantage" standard.  

In Muldrow, the simple injuries experienced that support a discrimination claim were:

1. "She was moved from a plainclothes job in a prestigious specialized division giving her substantial responsibility over priority investigations and frequent opportunity to work with police commanders." 
2. "She was moved to a uniformed job supervising one district’s patrol officers, in which she was less involved in high-visibility matters and primarily performed administrative work." 
3. Her schedule became less regular, often requiring her to work weekends; and she lost her take-home car."

Specifically, SCOTUS held that "[a]lthough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test." That is the new test, resolving a split in the Circuit Courts, as to the definition of an adverse employment action for an employment discrimination claim. 

NYS' Senate passed a bill, S345, on February 28, 2024, that would change the look-back period (a/k/a, statute of limitations) for employment discrimination in the State from 3 years to 6 years. 

Under Title VII, federally, employees only have 300 days to bring claims so moving the deadline for state claims from 3 years to 6 years would be huge.

How long is the right period that employees should be able to sue for employment discrimination? 

Do you think the Assembly should pass this bill or let it die like they did last time around?

Breaking the Silence on Race Discrimination

Check out this powerful story about our client, Julio Germain, who faced shocking racism and discrimination at the Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

Julio Germain, a 38-year-old DPW employee, endured years of racist and discriminatory behavior from his co-workers and supervisors.

Julio bravely reported the misconduct, but management ignored his complaints and even retaliated by denying him promotions.

With the help of our team, Julio filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, and they have confirmed that there's probable cause to believe Suffolk County DPW engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.

As the law firm representing Julio, we firmly stand against any form of discrimination, and we won't rest until justice is served.

Please share this story and let's create awareness to put an end to racism and discrimination in the workplace. Together, we can make a difference!

Welcome to the age of artificial intelligence (AI) and employment discrimination. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just published a new recourse on AI and Title VII, which is a reminder that employment decisions are happening more and more through the utilization of AI and employers are responsible if the AI "has an adverse impact on individuals of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 

In fact, the EEOC makes clear that employers may be responsible even if "the tools are designed or administered by another entity, such as a software vendor." 

So, all employers, regardless of location, should pay attention to NYC's NYC Local law 144, which became effective on January 1, 2023, and attempt to comply, as it's a way to mitigate your exposure. The Local Law regulates the use of "automated employment decision tools" when it comes to employment discrimination in hiring and promotions by requiring annual audits, a summary of audit results on the employer's website, and other notice requirements to those subjected to screening by the tool. 

By following NYC's lead with audits, employers can avoid major discrimination lawsuits through the fault of AI rather than human actors. That said, the audits should go beyond NYC's requirements and hit each of the 5 areas the EEOC suggests will result in discrimination claims, including: 

1. Resume scanners that prioritize applications using certain keywords; 
2. Employee monitoring software that rates employees on the basis of their keystrokes or other factors; 
3. “Virtual assistants” or “chatbots” that ask job candidates about their qualifications and reject those who do not meet pre-defined requirements; 
4. Video interviewing software that evaluates candidates based on their facial expressions and speech patterns; and
5. Testing software that provides “job fit” scores for applicants or employees regarding their personalities, aptitudes, cognitive skills, or perceived “cultural fit” based on their performance on a game or on a more traditional test.