The Bernard Law Firm 2026-02-27T10:39:36Z https://www.bernardlaw.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1404884/2021/07/cropped-Bernard-site-icon-32x32.png by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47359 2021-11-30T16:23:56Z 2022-02-07T16:22:04Z

prima facie claim of religious discrimination under Title VII based on circumstantial ("indirect") evidence, the employee must demonstrate that: (1) the employee was a member of a protected class, (2) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) the employee was qualified for the position, and (4) the employee was replaced by a person outside of the protected class or was treated differently than similarly situated employees. An employee can also bring an action for failure to accommodate a religion. In order to pursue a failure to accommodate religion claim, the Sixth Circuit has held an employee needs to show that he or she: (1) holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) informed the employer about the conflict; and (3) he or she was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. If the employee shows a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s) for the adverse employment action. If the employer does so, then the employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the stated reasons were a pretext or cover up for discrimination. To determine if you have a claim for religious discrimination, call Dale Bernard at 440-546-7500.]]> by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47363 2021-11-30T16:21:11Z 2022-01-24T16:19:21Z

by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47357 2023-06-14T09:35:14Z 2022-01-10T16:16:20Z

Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731  (2020) that the long standing 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender employees, even though this federal law does not mention gay, lesbian or  transgender discrimination. How then did the U.S. Supreme Court arrive at this holding? The Supreme Court held that employers each violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when they fired a long-time employee shortly after the employee revealed that he or she was homosexual or transgender because it was impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Significantly, the Supreme Court added that, as enacted, Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination because of sex, however they may manifest themselves or whatever other labels might attach to them. The Court held it is not a defense for an employer to say it discriminates against both men and women because of sex. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works to protect individuals of both sexes from discrimination, and does so equally, the Court stated. So, the Court reasoned, an employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But, the Court emphasized, in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it, the Court concluded. A dissenting Justice argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” and that neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, the dissenting Justice reasoned, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well, but to date, none has passed both Houses. Thus, how could the Court rule as it did? The Court reasoned “[w]e agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.” Thus, the Court held that LGBTQ employment discrimination was really another form of sex or gender discrimination, which has been rendered unlawful in the workplace since 1964. To determine if you have a claim for LGBTQ discrimination, call Dale Bernard at 440-546-7500.]]> by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47342 2021-11-30T16:14:57Z 2021-12-27T16:13:43Z

prima facie stage is minimal; all the plaintiff must do is put forth some credible evidence that enables the court to deduce that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory action and the protected activity." Courts use the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to evaluate FMLA discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims, stated the Sixth Circuit. If a Plaintiff demonstrates the prima facie elements of an FMLA retaliation claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging plaintiff, the Sixth Circuit held. If the employer can set forth such reason(s), "the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered reason is a pretext for unlawful discrimination", the Sixth Circuit held. Pretext means that the employer’s reason was a cover up for discrimination or retaliation. The Sixth Circuit has held that unlike FMLA interference claims, the employer's motive is an important part of analyzing an FMLA claim under an FMLA retaliation theory. To determine if you have a claim for FMLA entitlement, FMLA interference,  FMLA discrimination or FMLA retaliation, call Dale Bernard at 440-546-7500.]]> by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47340 2021-11-30T16:12:08Z 2021-12-13T16:10:15Z

prima facie case, the question remains whether, under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas, the pregnant employee then can produce adequate evidence demonstrating that the employer’s proffered reason was a “pretext” for discrimination," the Sixth Circuit stated. The pregnant employee can then establish pretext by showing that the employer's proffered reasons (1) have no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the action; or (3) were insufficient to warrant the action.". To determine if you have a claim for pregnancy discrimination, call Dale Bernard at 440-546-7500.]]> by The Bernard Law Firm https://www.bernardlaw.com/?p=47335 2021-11-24T18:31:32Z 2021-11-24T18:30:41Z