Human Rights in D.C. Now Includes Reproductive Health Decisions

On March 16, 2023   /   Employment Law, Pregnancy Discrimination, Reproductive Health, Washington, DC, Employment Law   /   Leave a comment
Human Rights in D.C. Now Includes Reproductive Health Decisions

The District of Columbia recently updated it human rights laws to include a revised definition of sex discrimination in employment.  The updated law defines sex as “the state of being biologically male, female, or intersex, including associated medical conditions and reproductive health decisions.” The revision expands the prohibition on sex-based discrimination to include adverse actions based on reproductive health decisions. The revised law prohibits employers from engaging in retaliatory, coercive, or interfering behavior due to

Read More... →
Back to Top

EEOC Examines Potential Risks of AI in Employment Decisions

On February 14, 2023   /   Artificial Intelligence, Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law   /   Leave a comment
EEOC Examines Potential Risks of AI in Employment Decisions

At a recent hearing, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) examined the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated systems on employment decisions. The goal of the hearing was to identify potential concerns of employer use of artificial intelligence in all areas of employment decision making. The EEOC is concerned about the use of AI in employment decisions, as many companies use AI technologies for hiring, promotion, and other similar processes. Such tools include

Read More... →
Back to Top

Victory: $2.8 Million Award to Tech Sales Employee

On August 3, 2021   /   Uncategorized   /   Leave a comment

Natalie Koss, Esq., has won a $2.8 million arbitration award for her client, who was a high-performing technology salesperson in Federal sector sales. The award is for employment discrimination that the employee experienced when he tried to take parental leave at a publicly traded company in Maryland. According to the award, the employer is liable for interfering with the employee’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and then retaliating against him when he

Read More... →
Back to Top