Overview

Federal, state and local anti-discrimination laws prohibit workplace discrimination based on an employee’s race, sex, religion, national origin, pregnancy, age, or disability. Employees working in the District of Columbia and other localities are also protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, family responsibilities, personal appearance, matriculation, or political affiliation. These laws protect employees from discrimination with respect to all terms and conditions of their employment, including hiring, compensation, promotion, treatment on the job, and termination. These laws also bar employers from making employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or likely performance of individuals because of their sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or disability.

Adverse employment actions based on employees’ membership in one or more protected class are unlawful. Such actions may include: refusing to hire, refusing to provide training, denying advancements and promotions, denying equal compensation and benefits, disciplining, harassing, and firing. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an employee for complaining about what the employee believes to be discrimination. Retaliation may also take several forms, including any of the actions listed above.

Generally speaking, the law prohibits two types of discrimination:

  • “Disparate Treatment” discrimination, in which an individual is deliberately treated less favorably than a person from a different group because of that person’s sex, race, religion, national origin, age, disability, or other protected status; and
  • “Disparate Impact” discrimination, in which an apparently objective rule, standard, or test has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a protected group compared to people outside that group, and the employer cannot show that the rule, standard, or test is job-related and justified by business necessity. Examples of discriminatory impact include mandating a required test on which a particular class tends to score badly or adopting hiring criteria that tend to screen out women or minority groups. Such a policy or test is legal only if it can be deemed a “bona fide occupational qualification” and a necessary component of the job.

The attorneys at Katz, Marshall and Banks, LLP are nationally recognized for their expertise in discrimination matters of every type, and have achieved important successes on behalf of their clients.

If you are experiencing – or have already experienced – discrimination that you are thinking about reporting, or if you have already reported discrimination and are facing retaliation, contact the experienced lawyers at Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP for an evaluation of your case with no further obligation.