Author: Anonymous

An employment decision based on a person having a so-called “black accent” violates Title VII if the accent or manner of speech does not materially interfere with the ability to perform job duties.

Being female can be a BFOQ for a flight attendant position if the airline markets itself as having pretty and flirtatious stewardesses.

Claims of national origin harassment are actionable only if the harassment frightened the employee.

Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when the harassment is unwanted by the victim, is based on the victim’s gender, creates for the victim a hostile or abusive work environment, unreasonably interferes with the victim’s ability to do his or her job, is sufficiently severe and/or pervasive, and affects a term or condition of the victim’s employment.

The “lion tamer” doctrine is that an employer’s decision is discriminatory, even if the decision maker was motivated by a legitimate concern, if the decision maker was relying upon negative information from another employee motivated by unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

There are two theories on which an action for sexual harassment may be brought: quid pro quo sexual harassment and offensive touching sexual harassment.

Race can be used as a bona fide occupational qualification when the employer can prove strong customer or co-worker preference.

A person whose birth certificate provides the name “Mary” identifies as transgender and prefers to be called Mario. Mary/Mario would like to follow the employer’s dress code for men, but the employer requires that Mary/Mario follow the female dress code. In Texas, the employer can so require. (Source: SG)

In hostile work environment sexual harassment situations, an employee is required to engage in sexual activity in exchange for workplace entitlements or benefits such as promotions, raises, or continued employment.

Word-of-mouth recruiting usually results in a diverse workplace.