[Sidenote: Obviously employers should just fire *all* Yankees fans. Problem solved. ;-)]
Not official use. |
The 10th Circuit recently issued its opinion in Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC. The Court addressed "intersectional discrimination," and specifically whether Title VII permits a claim based on "sex-plus-age" discrimination. The female plaintiffs alleged that their employer discriminated against women over forty (i.e. not all women).
The 10th Circuit became the first circuit court to recognize a cause of action for "sex-plus-age" discrimination under Title VII:
We hold that sex-plus-age claims are cognizable under Title VII. There is no material distinction between a sex-plus-age claim and the other sex-plus claims we have previously recognized for which the “plus-” characteristic is not protected under Title VII. Like claims for which the “plus-” factor is marital status or having preschool-age children, a sex-plus-age claim alleges discrimination against an employee because of sex and some other characteristic. It is thus a sex discrimination claim, albeit one that alleges that the discrimination was based only in part on sex . . . . Like any other sex-plus plaintiff, a sex-plusage plaintiff must show unfavorable treatment relative to an employee of the opposite sex who also shares the “plus-” characteristic. For the female sex-plus-age plaintiffs in this case, the relevant comparator would be an older man.
Notably, the Court's ruling appears to be an extension of Bostock, so I expect other circuits to follow suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment