Broward County Employment Law Blog

Fans of the now-defunct TV series "Seinfeld" may remember a much-loved episode where Jerry's dentist converts to Judaism. After only a few conversations with him, Jerry begins to suspect that the man converted "just for the jokes." That is, so he could make jokes about Jewish people without being called anti-Semitic or insensitive.

We all seem to apply a double standard when it comes to jokes about groups to which we belong. For instance, it is only considered socially acceptable to make ethnic, cultural or religious jokes about Jewish people if you are Jewish. But do you have to be Jewish to take offense to such jokes? How about in order to file an employment lawsuit alleging that these jokes constitute race discrimination and harassment?

We have previously written about the ways in which the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is working to decrease instances of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Recently, the EEOC has devoted considerable time and resources to the rising rates of pregnancy discrimination occurring within the American workforce.

In 2011 alone, just shy of 5,800 pregnancy discrimination complaints were filed with the EEOC on behalf of American women. This number represents an astonishing 23 percent increase from the number of complaints filed just six years prior.

We often write about employment discrimination cases which are somewhat disheartening. Unfortunately, even though the law largely protects workers against harassment and discrimination, loopholes exist that employers will always try to exploit.

However, today we are discussing a significant step which was recently taken in a positive direction for GLBT rights in the workplace. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a transgender worker may move forward with her work-related discrimination grievance against the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Due to both legislation and various Supreme Court rulings, it is either easier or more difficult for certain groups to obtain justice for discrimination in the workplace. Those seeking restitution for age discrimination were put in a more precarious position when a 2009 United States Supreme Court ruling altered the ways in which the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act is treated in judicial proceedings.

Specifically, the Court shifted the Act's burden of proof from employers to employees. This basically means that in order to win an age discrimination claim, workers must demonstrate that their age was indeed a critical factor in whatever adverse circumstance (such as demotion, termination or unequal pay) amounted to discrimination.