“It’s been interesting, to say the least,” said Katherine. She joined the Firm remotely in June during the pandemic. “It’s a different beast being 100% remote, because you can’t just pop into somebody’s office and sit down while they edit a draft or something,” she said.

Katherine said all her tasks can be completed from anywhere, but she said it’s easier to focus in an office environment — partly because home comes with a familiar chorus of “Mommy!”

She added, “Human interaction has always been very important, especially for litigators…Because the whole remote and electronic way of speaking, it’s weird. There’s a different energy.”

To read the full article, click here.

The post Katherine Chin Shares with the Daily Business Review Her Experience Being Remote During the Pandemic appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

Citizen Advisory Initiatives, such as investigatory boards, enable local governments to provide residents a means with which to independently participate in and make recommendations regarding law enforcement practice and procedure.  Panels are often responsible for making recommendations regarding complaints about police conduct, though the community boards do not have authority to impose discipline.  Municipalities also may grant such panels authority to review and provide non-binding input regarding policies and procedures.  The boards afford municipalities an additional forum for community involvement and buy-in.

There are numerous legal issues regarding the formation and implementation of these board and the scope of their authority.  Municipalities that are interested in exploring the creation of a board must carefully assess these issues, including the limitations imposed by the Florida Police Officers’ Bill of Rights contained in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.  For example, in D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court held that the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights did not preempt the City from creating its Citizen Investigation Panel because that panel was carefully formed to avoid impinging responsibilities delegated exclusively to law enforcement agencies.

If your agency is interested in exploring the creation of a Community Oversight Board or you have any questions related thereto, please feel free to reach out to us to discuss.

The post Understanding Law Enforcement Citizen Review Panels appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.

It is well-established that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an employee based in part on sex, even if factors other than the employee’s sex contributed to the decision. As the Court observed, employers can easily identify some other non-protected trait and insist that it was the most important consideration in an adverse employment decision. However, the Court determined that, in Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. Even where “sex” refers only to biological distinctions between male and female, an employer who fires an employee for failing to live up to traditional gender stereotypes violates Title VII.

An employer who fires an individual based on their sexual orientation or gender identity fires that employee for traits or actions it would not have questioned in a member of a different sex. The Court contemplated that in firing a male employee for being attracted to another male, it necessarily discriminates against that employee for behavior it would tolerate if that employee were a woman. Similarly, if an employer discriminates a person for being transgender, the employer is quintessentially penalizing that employee for identifying as a different sex today than the employee did at birth; employees who identify as the same sex that they did at birth would not be similarly penalized. In both situations, the employer must have contemplated some aspect of the individual’s sex. Therefore, when making decisions regarding homosexual and transgender employees, an employer necessarily applies sex-based rules and, therefore, intentionally discriminates.

Moreover, in interpreting the protections of Title VII, the Court made clear that it is not limited to whether its application of Title VII was anticipated by Congress in enacting the legislation. Indeed, whether or not Congress contemplated this specific application is not relevant in answering the question of whether sex discrimination occurred. Indeed, same-sex sexual harassment and refusing to hire women with young children were likely not contemplated at the time Title VII was enacted, but such practices nonetheless have been found to be discrimination on the basis of sex. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75 (1998); Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 (1971). The Court recognized that its responsibility was to the statute’s text and to apply the broad rule where the statute provides no exceptions. Here, Congress chose not to include homosexuality or transgender as an exception, and therefore, the broad rule is applied. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is discrimination on the basis of sex that is prohibited by Title VII.

This is a historic decision and will have a wide-ranging impact on the workplace.  Should you have questions regarding the case or its impact on the workplace, please do not hesitate to contact any of our Labor & Employment Division attorneys.

The post Expanding Equality In The Workplace: Additional Protections from Sex Discrimination appeared first on Weiss Serota Helfman Cole + Bierman.