Employment and Labor Rights 411

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  It has been an open question, however, whether "sex" includes sexual orientation.  In 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont), ruled in the case of Simonton v. Runyon  that sexual orientation is not protected by Title VII, thus allowing employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation.  On February 26, 2008, the Second Circuit changed its mind.  Sitting en banc  in the case of  Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. , the entire Second Circuit overruled Simonton  and found that discrimination based on sexual orientation is, in fact, discrimination based on sex, and thus is prohibited by Title VII. This is a big win for the LGBTQ community.  While states such as Connecticut have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, most states do not.  By

The Attorneys General of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 5 U.S. territories have sent a letter to Congress demanding that it take action to end forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims.  They note that arbitration takes away victims' ability to have their case heard by a judge and jury, and that confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements prevent serial sexual harassers from being exposed. This would be a good start, but the proposal doesn't go far enough.  Forced arbitration should be banned in the employment context for all claims.  Arbitration is supposed to be a matter of contract.  Most employees who are subject to such "agreements," however, have absolutely no bargaining power.  They are simply presented with the "agreement" as part of the on-boarding process, and have no ability to negotiate. Further, forced arbitration heavily favors employers.  Research has shown that employees win arbitration cases in only 21.4% of cas