Businesses across the United States have closed their doors to comply with state-wide closures and mandates.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 05/07/2020 -- The Illinois Governor issued a "stay-at-home" order back in March, and it is unclear when it will be lifted. However, some parts of the country are starting to lift restrictive orders, at least for certain businesses.

Businesses have had to respond by laying off workers, cutting back hours significantly, and even shutting down altogether. However, as companies restart operations, some workers may not be comfortable going back to work. Certain federal laws may protect workers who are not comfortable working in their positions if they are not sufficiently safeguarded from the potential spread of COVID-19.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

Many workers are generally familiar with OSHA, which is a federal agency that is designed to help promote the health and safety of the United States workforce. What they may not realize is that OSHA provides rights to workers if they feel that their workplace is unsafe, even before an injury occurs.

In general, employers are required to ensure that their team's workplace is free from hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. The potential physical harm component has traditionally included viruses and other infectious diseases or risks.

In the context of COVID-19, that typically means that employers should:
Follow CDC recommendations regarding social distancing wherever possible
Implement the use of masks and other protective gear

Permit additional protections and precautions for those in higher-risk categories, such as those with chronic respiratory illnesses, diabetes, or heart disease, and older workers

Follow appropriate disinfecting and cleanliness protocols

OSHA regulations state that if an employee "refuses in good faith to expose himself to the dangerous condition, he [will] be protected against subsequent discrimination." In some situations, that regulation can give you the option to refuse to work in an unsafe environment without fear of termination, provided that the fear is reasonable.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 
Employees with prior medical conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID or more likely to experience more serious effects from the virus may also be protected under the ADA.  Those who were diagnosed with cancer, have asthma, heart conditions, or other long term conditions that may compromise their immune system may request accommodations that eliminate their exposure to COVID 19.  These accommodations may include working remotely, working in isolation, or being provided with appropriate protective apparel such as masks, face shields, and other protective clothing.  A refusal to grant these accommodations may violate the ADA

Application of These Federal Laws 
The unique circumstances that COVID-19 has created make many people unsure of what an unsafe working environment looks like. It is unclear how or even whether these protections will protect workers in many situations, but it seems like this is the very situation in which these laws should apply.

If you have serious concerns about the safety of your working environment, you may have legal options. The employment lawyers at Goldman & Ehrlich can help. Call today for more information, or Contact Us to set up a consultation: 312-332-6733.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Employers and employees in Chicago have questions about their rights and obligations during the coronavirus pandemic.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 04/13/2020 -- A recent Chicago Tribune article explains how some laws predating the pandemic will pertain to employers and employees. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also will be applicable to many employers and workers in Illinois.

In terms of new laws, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act will take effect on April 1, 2020.

At that point, employers in Chicago will need to give employers two weeks of paid sick leave. The paid sick leave requirement applies to employers who cannot work due to COVID-19 symptoms. It also applies to employees who cannot work due to stay-home and quarantine orders. Accordingly, an employee who is considered non-essential can be eligible for two weeks of paid sick leave. However, the amount of paid sick leave has a daily cap. Employees will not receive more than $510 per day under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Employers will be compensated for paid sick time on a dollar-per-dollar basis through tax credits. Employers will need to provide paid sick time to furloughed workers, but not to terminated workers.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act only applies to businesses with fewer than 500 employees.

Yet many Cook County businesses must allow employees to use any paid sick time already accrued, and employees in larger businesses in the City of Chicago may be able to use the sick hours they accrued pursuant to City and County of Cook laws.

Employers and employees should understand that a clear distinction exists between being furloughed and being terminated.

Furloughed employees remain employed but are not working due to lack of work. Although those employees will not work during the furlough period and will not be paid, they keep their job-related benefits. To be clear, furloughed employees still have health insurance provided by the employer. However, terminated workers do not keep their benefits. Accordingly, terminated workers will not have healthcare benefits through their employers. Some similarities exist between furloughed and terminated employees. In many cases, both furloughed and terminated employees can seek unemployment insurance benefits. If an employee is furloughed or terminated due to business closures because of the coronavirus, unemployment insurance is an option. However, if a Chicago employee is fired for misconduct, unemployment insurance benefits will not be possible.

As Chicago employment law attorney Arthur R. Ehrlich underscored, "employees should understand their rights and obligations during this unprecedented time." As Chicago employment law attorney Jonathan Goldman explained, "both federal and state laws may exist to aid employees with paid sick time and other benefits."

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

An Illinois employee recently filed a discrimination lawsuit against the city and former officials for discrimination on the basis of race and age.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/31/2020 -- An Illinois employee recently filed a lawsuit against the City of Danville, according to a WCIA newsreport . The employment discrimination claim also names former city leaders. The employee, a former administrative assistant, alleges discrimination on the basis of race and sex. The city fired the 51-year-old Danville employee, Lisa Robinson, in 2018. Robinson started working for the city in 1994. By the time of her termination, she had worked for the city for more than 20 years. A union arbitrator ordered the city to give her back her job. However, Robinson will still move forward with her discrimination complaint. She recently filed the complaint in federal court.

Robinson's complaint alleges that the employer denied her access to files on the basis of race and age. She alleges that she faced discrimination in the workplace and that her termination amounted to retaliation. After being subject to workplace discrimination, Robinson reported it to human resources. After making a report, Robinson alleges that her employer retaliated against her before terminating her.

The Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, age, and many other classifications. The IHRA also prohibits retaliation when an employee exercises his or her IHRA rights. In addition to protections under state law, many federal laws prohibit different forms of employment discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and other categories. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. It provides specific protections for employees and job applications aged 40 and older. Both federal laws also prohibit retaliation.

According to Chicago employment discrimination lawyer Arthur R. Ehrlich, "the IHRA provides protections beyond those provided by federal law." As Ehrlich explained, "whether an employee files a state or federal discrimination claim depends on many factors, including coverage." For example, the IHRA expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, while federal law may not apply.  The US Supreme Court is now considering that issue. For discrimination because of race or age, an employee is eligible to file a state or federal law claim. Robinson filed a federal claim, specifically citing the ADEA.

In addition to damages and attorney's fees, Robinson wants the city to institute new policies. Specifically, she wants new policies to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and age. Robinson also wants the city to appoint an independent monitor to implement and oversee those policies.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act requires employers to reconsider non-disclosure agreements and other clauses that could limit employment discrimination complaints.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 03/24/2020 -- The Workplace Transparency Act (WTA) took effect in Illinois just two months ago across the state. Employers and employees alike should understand their rights and obligations under the new law. The Illinois General Assembly passed the law last June in connection with other laws related to sexual harassment. The law is similar to other laws passed in New York and California in response to the #MeToo movement. Legislators want to prevent workplace situations in which employees were not allowed to discuss their harassment allegations once their case was settled. Given that the WTA is now in effect, employment law changes will need to occur for new hires and for exiting employees.

Under the new law, employers who are making new hires need to understand the limits of non-disclosure agreements. Employers cannot create employment agreements that include clauses or covenants designed to prevent an employee from disclosing harassment at work. More significantly, employers cannot include clauses or covenants that have the effect of preventing an employee from making disclosures. To be clear, employers do not have to intend to prevent an employee from reporting discrimination with a non-disclosure agreement. However, if an agreement or clause has that effect, it is unlawful under the WTC. Accordingly, the WTC aims to support current or former employees who want to come forward with discrimination or harassment claims. The enactment of the WTC coincides with greater employee protections under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA).

The WTC takes additional steps beyond prohibiting certain types of agreements, clauses, and covenants in employment contracts. Indeed, it also prohibits employers from compelling arbitration for discrimination issues and other particular disputes. To be sure, the WTC says that mandatory arbitration may not be compelled in Illinois. In addition, the WTC provides protections for employees presented with settlement agreements. To ensure that employees can properly consider a settlement offer, the WTC requires specific time windows for acceptance and revocation. All employees must have 21 days to consider a settlement agreement. In addition, all employees must have 7 days to revoke a settlement agreement after signing it.

According to Chicago employment discrimination attorney Jonathan C. Goldman, "employers and employees need to be clear about new rights and obligations under the WTA." As underscored, "certain types of non-disclosure agreements are not appropriate, and settlement agreements must have particular time windows." Non-disclosure agreements, non-disparagement provisions, and settlement agreements must be analyzed carefully under the WTC. Indeed, many common employment agreement provisions may not be lawful if they could limit or prevent discrimination allegations.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Goldman & Ehrlich is pleased to announce that our associate, Sam Sedaei, recently had an article published in the American Bar Association Journal.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 10/17/2019 -- Tethered Rights: Liability of American Corporations for Their Foreign Subsidiaries' Violations of Title VII

Corporations in the free marketplace constantly look for ways to secure advantages over their competitors. As the global economy becomes more integrated, free market competition has led corporations to expand beyond their borders.

1 As part of this trend, an increasing number of American companies are establishing an international presence through mergers and acquisitions.

2 Whether the goal is to benefit from cheap labor?

3 Gain access to talent.

4 Gain access to new markets.

5 Isolate risk.

6 Companies have to navigate international laws in a variety of areas.

7 An area of the law that is becoming growingly relevant to globalizing companies is employment law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is generally seen among most American employment law practitioners as the most fundamental transformation of employees' rights in the United States in the twentieth century.

8 Title VII prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

9 Since its inception over fifty years ago; Title VII has been amended by the United States Congress a number of times; and interpreted by the courts hundreds of times, in ways that have changed its reach and applicability.

As global commerce continues to intersect with employment law; American courts growingly find themselves in the position of having to decide the global reach of Title VII; and its capacity to protect employees' rights beyond American borders.

As this article will explain; an American parent corporation may be held liable for the actions of its foreign subsidiary under Title VII if the plaintiff is a U.S. citizen and the American parent controls the foreign subsidiary. The article begins with a discussion of the extraterritoriality of Title VII prior to 1991 through an analysis of the text of the statute and judicial interpretations. It will then analyze the changes made to the statute in 1991; to expand its applicability beyond U.S. borders and the courts' application of the revised statute to scenarios involving international plaintiffs. The article will conclude by offering a few practice pointers for plaintiffs seeking to enforce their rights outside of the United States; U.S. corporations and their subsidiaries that wish to limit their liability under Title VII; and courts that have to grapple with threshold jurisdictional issues in international Title VII cases.

Here is full access to: Tethered Rights: Liability of American Corporations for Their Foreign Subsidiaries' Violations of Title VII by Sam Sedaei

About Goldman & Ehrlich
Goldman & Ehrlich is a Chicago employment law firm which concentrates on employment litigation and employment discrimination. We represent private employees. As well as, Federal, State, County and Municipal employees. Along with small businesses in Chicago, the surrounding counties and southwestern Michigan. This includes all actions alleging violations of federal and state laws. What sets our Chicago employment lawyers apart is our vast experience and continued practice on both the plaintiff and defendant sides of employment law cases. We have the insight to anticipate the claims. And importantly, we can analyze the tactics from your opponent building your case to withstand arguments against you.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Arthur R. Ehrlich will be speaking at the 37th Annual Federal Sector Labor Relations & Labor Law Conference on September 19, 2019, being held at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 09/19/2019 -- Join top government officials and policymakers, world-class management-side attorneys and union representatives, and leading academics for a focused day of learning about the future of the federal workplace and workforce. Register Now.

Mr. Ehrlich will be speaking on the Practical Aspects of Discovery in an Administrative Forum, along with two government attorneys and an Administrative Judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr. Ehrlichs' Practical Aspects of Discovery in an Administrative Forum will highlight:

Legal Limits
Comparative Employees
Areas of Discovery
Factors To Consider For Comparatives
Other Complaints Against The Same A.D.O.
Input And Bias By Recommending Official
Good Faith or Sham Investigation
Depositions

Arthur R Ehrlich, partner with the Chicago law firm of Goldman & Ehrlich, has been representing federal employees for over 30 years in employment law cases, including discrimination and termination hearings. All CLE Training offered by Mr. Ehrlich provides the nationally-recognized guidance required to put complex concepts into practice.

Goldman & Ehrlich is a Chicago employment law firm which concentrates on employment litigation and employment discrimination. They represent private employees, Federal, State, County and Municipal employees and small businesses in Chicago, the surrounding counties and southwestern Michigan in actions alleging violations of federal and state laws regarding:

Affirmative action
Employment contracts

Covenants not to compete
Family Medical Leave
Labor law
Long-Term Disability

Overtime and wage claims
Severance
Sexual harassment
Retaliation and whistleblower protection

Wrongful discharge
Wrongful discharge based on:
Age
Disability
Gender

Marital status
Race
Religion
Nation of origin

Pregnancy
Sexual orientation

For more than 30 years, our partner attorneys have effectively represented and counseled employees and small businesses in actions for wrongful discharge and claims alleging violations of Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, Sarbanes Oxley, USERRA and the Illinois Human Rights Act, as well as various common law actions.

Register for the event here.

Learn more about Arthur R. Ehrlich here.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, which operates an outlet in Northwest Washington, agreed to pay $100,000 and provide other relief to settle allegations it discriminated against two deaf employee who applied for jobs.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 09/11/2019 -- According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Walmart refused to provide accommodations, such as closed-captioned training videos and sign language interpreters, to two hearing-impaired applicants. In addition to the money, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. agreed to revise its employee manual and submit to court supervision. These are standard provisions in EEOC settlements. "This settlement should encourage all employers to provide reasonable accommodations that allow equal access for deaf and hard-of-hearing employees and applicants to engage fully in the workplace," said Acting Washington Field Office District Director Mindy Weinstein.

"This settlement got our attention not necessarily because of its size, but because it is part of a trend," observed Chicago employment discrimination lawyer Jonathan C. Goldman.

Earlier this year, Safeway and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas each paid $75,000 to settle similar allegations. In each instance, the employer failed to provide accommodations not for current employees, but for job applicants.  These three cases clearly indicate that the EEOC is aggressively pursuing these matters. So, if you are an employer, now is a very good time to review the accommodations you provide job applicants. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply just to hearing impaired people. Other protected classes include:

Gender,
Age,
National origin,
Disability,
Sexual orientation, a category which probably includes gender identity,
Race, and
Religion.

Finally, an employers application process, such as filling out forms and taking tests, could be seen as discriminatory for employees with disabilities if they are not offered accommodations that give them an equal opportunity to apply for a position. 

Excluding certain applicants because of their national origin or race is another example of disparate treatment. Refusing to provide a translator may be discriminatory. These cases raise another issue as well, such as what is considered to be a reasonable accommodation? The law requires that the employer provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances.  This may require an interactive process where the employer and employee discuss what accommodations are needed and what would be reasonable under the facts. If a disabled person's request is reasonable,  the employer is generally required to provide that request, absent compelling reasons. If the employer must establish that the request is too expensive in proportion to its profits, or would cause undue hardship to its operations

Finally, the Civil Rights Act does not just apply to current employees.

It applies to potential employees as well, in addition to former employees who were terminated when they were not provided with a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled them to perform their job. All these people are entitled to the same accommodations under the law.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

For the first time since 2016, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Victoria Lipnic addressed the annual Industry Liaison Group meeting, which was held in Wisconsin this year.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 08/07/2019 -- For the first time since 2016, Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Victoria Lipnic addressed the annual Industry Industry Liaison Group meeting, which was held in Wisconsin this year.

Lipnic addressed two pressing employment law issues: pay equity and age discrimination. Specifically, Lipnic noted the looming September 30 deadline to comply with the EEO-1. Compliance requires most companies to submit payroll data dating back to 2017. Lipnic noted that such collection "is not in any way easy," but that is "what a federal judge has ordered." Lipnic also observed that most Millenials were just a few years away from Age Discrimination Act coverage.

On a final note, during the subsequent Q&A session, Lipnic told federal contractors they should "lead the way in recruiting for populations you traditionally have not gone to before."

"Both pay discrimination and age discrimination are usually good examples of disparate impact discrimination," explained Chicago employment discrimination lawyers Arthur R Ehrlich and Jonathan C. Goldman. "Company policies in these areas may appear to be neutral, but if they disproportionately affect a protected classification of workers, they are illegal."

Companies may not intentionally set out to pay women less than men, but more often than not, there is a significant pay gap. Even if there is no "smoking gun" evidence of discrimination, a legal remedy may be available.

Some companies over-rely on salary history information. They believe there is nothing wrong with using a candidate's past salary history to set a current salary level. But many women were underpaid due to their gender, whether intentionally or not, in their prior jobs. As a result, their salaries will continue to lag behind their male counterparts, and the disparity increases over time. This is why many states are now making it illegal for an employer to ask an employee about an their prior salary history.

Other companies use job history to set salary, and this calculation could adversely affect women as well. For example, blue-collar workers, like miners, generally earn more than white-collar nonprofessional workers, like clerks, secretaries, or administrative assistants. Blue-collar workers are often male, while many white-collar nonprofessionals are female.

Pay discrimination victims are generally entitled to back pay, reimbursement of legal fees, lost benefits, and other damages, including perhaps damages for emotional distress if they prevail at trial.

Age discrimination cases are sometimes harder to win today than they were in the 1990s. The Supreme Court has ruled that age must be the sole factor, as opposed to only a motivating factor, in the action taken against the employee. For example, the corporation's decision to terminate or demote an older employee may have been based partly due to age but also based on a performance issue, even if the performance issue was not significant. Under these facts, assuming there was a real, as opposed to a fabricated performance issue, the older worker's dismissal may not have violated the Age Discrimination Act.

For this reason, the EEOC may not pursue age discrimination claims as often as other actions. But an assertive attorney may still be willing to pursue these claims on the employee's behalf.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Northern Star (Pogo) LLC, an Alaska-based gold mining company, agreed to pay $690,000 and provide other relief to resolve a discrimination and retaliation action. 

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 06/26/2019 -- According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the company refused to promote a woman and instead promoted other, less-qualified male candidates. When Hanna Hurst applied for the promotion and then complained, Northern Star created additional qualifications for her to complete. But the company exempted male employees from these tests. In addition to paying money, Northern Star must adhere to a long-term consent agreement that will insure equal opportunities for promotion for females.

"Gender bias continues to be a problem in today's workplace, certainly no less in those industries traditionally dominated by men," said EEOC Seattle Field Director Nancy Sienko. "We commend Northern Star as the new successor company for demonstrating its commitment to see such discrimination doesn't continue under its leadership."

"Sexual harassment and retaliation are some of the most common employment discrimination claims in Illinois," observed Chicago employment discrimination lawyers Arthur R Ehrlich and Jonathan C. Goldman. "These problems are extremely widespread, and they are also relatively easy to prove in court.

"Substantive sexual harassment cases can sometimes be complex, they cautioned. There are two types of sexual harassment claims in Illinois:

Quid Pro Quo: It is illegal to condition any employment-related decision on any sexual favor. This happens more often than many people believe but is often done in a subtle manner. A female employee should be careful when her boss asks if they can discuss some matter at lunch or dinner when no other employees are present."

Hostile Environment: This occurs when there is a severe and pervasive pattern of unwelcome sexual or gender comments or acts.  A single joke or off-color remark does not constitutes sexual harassment. The conduct must be frequent enough to adversely affect a reasonable person or make it difficult for the employee to perform her normal job duties.

A  single -episode of a sexual assault or an extremely aggressive attempt at a sexual overture may be sufficient. 

Repeated touching to the point where it is clearly not accidental may also be enough, especially when inappropriate jokes are common.

The employer's failure to investigate a complaint or take action to stop harassment by co-workers will strengthen a sexual harassment case.  A failure to conduct an adequate and diligent investigations happens all too frequently, especially in mining, construction, and other male-dominated industries. Post-complaint investigations must be done immediately, and should be comprehensive, and transparent. 

Statistically, the EEOC usually handles more retaliation claims than anything else. This includes retaliation for making a complaint for sexual harassment.

Retaliation occurs when an employer punishes an employee who participated in a protected activity. Protected activities include the following:
Filing a complaint or serving as a witness in an employment discrimination claim,
Lodging an informal discrimination complaint,
Resisting sexual advances or other discriminatory conduct,Intervening to help others in these situations, and
Refusing to follow discriminatory orders.

Even if the underlying complaint of discrimination does not prove that the law was violated, an employee is still protected from retaliation as long as the complaint was made in good faith.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear three cases this fall concerning LGBT employment discrimination, according to a CBS Chicago report.

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 05/09/2019 -- Each of the three cases arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law. Ultimately, the Court's ruling may affect LGBT employees' rights. The outcome will determine whether LGBT workers can file a federal claim for sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in federal court. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit heard a related case. In an 8-3 decision. the 7th Circuit ruled that Title VII protects LGBT employees. Chief Judge Diane Wood emphasized that sexual orientation discrimination cannot occur without unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling could reverse that decision.
Chicago LGBT employees currently have protections against employment discrimination under the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Currently, the Illinois Human Rights Act applies to employers with at least 15 employees. LGBT rights advocates sought recently to repeal that requirement so that the law would apply to all Illinois employers. The Illinois Legislature even passed a bill to do so. Yet Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed it. While many LGBT employees in Chicago have rights under state law, and under City laws, their protections under federal law will depend on the Supreme Court ruling.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. However, that federal law does not explicitly prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. Courts like the 7th Circuit have ruled that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. Similarly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that Title VII guarantees protections against LGBT discrimination at work.

Yet other courts have disagreed.

Indeed, an example appears in one of the cases that will come before the Supreme Court this fall. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit ruled that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against LGBT employees. The other two cases that will come before the Court found in favor of the LGBT employee who alleged discrimination. Those cases arose out of the 2nd Circuit in New York and the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.

According to Chicago employment discrimination lawyers Arthur R Ehrlich and Jonathan C Goldman, the Supreme Court's ruling will have profound effects.

Goldman remarked, "the Court could determine that Title VII does not apply to sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination." Such a decision could mean that LGBT employees have no protections against discrimination under federal law. In such a situation, LGBT employees in Chicago would only have protections against employment discrimination under state law, Cook County law, and City law.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm

Employees and employers alike in the Chicago area should know about a recent class action lawsuit filed against the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC).

Chicago, IL -- (ReleaseWire) -- 02/21/2019 -- The case, Brown v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, alleges employment discrimination on the basis of race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, a state law. The plaintiffs in the case specifically allege that racial discrimination and harassment are part of the University of Illinois's "standard operating procedure. The case is likely to highlight the harms of racial discrimination in employment and to underscore the steps that employers must take in drafting and enforcing a non-discrimination policy.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs cite overt and pervasive incidents of racial discrimination and harassment on the basis of race. For example, the complaint describes threats of racial violence, including the appearance of nooses, KKK paraphernalia, confederate flags, racist graffiti, and swastikas. Other overt acts of racism, according to the complaint, include racial slurs that the plaintiffs allege other employees used against them. Moreover, the complaint also alleges that racial discrimination persisted in more subtle forms, as black employees were subject to disrespect from supervisors and coworkers in addition to being subject to excessive monitoring and scrutinizing from supervisors.

The University has a written non-discrimination policy. However, as the recent lawsuit alleges, the policy only prohibits racial harassment if it is "sufficiently severe or pervasive," "objectively offensive," and "unreasonably interferes with, denies, or limits a person's ability to participate or benefit from employment opportunities, assessment or status at the University." Accordingly, the plaintiffs argue that the non-discrimination policy permits a hostile work environment that violates both federal and state law.

According to Arthur Ehrlich and Jonathan C. Goldman, Chicago employment discrimination lawyers, "harassment can be a form of employment discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 when it creates a hostile work environment. An employee has a right to file a claim when facing discrimination on the basis of race."

It is important to note that this lawsuit comes at a point in which Illinois legislators recently amended the Equal Pay Act of 2003 to prohibit employers from discrimination against African American employees by paying African American employees lower wages for substantially similar work. This recent change to the law, along with the recent lawsuit against UIUC, should make clear that employment discrimination on the basis of race is taken very seriously in Illinois.

For more information on this press release visit: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/release-3.htm