When nonprofit leaders speak with or exchange emails with that nonprofit’s lawyers, are such conversations subject to attorney-client privilege? How do both the nonprofit leader and the attorney know? More broadly, how do third parties understand who is and who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the nonprofit?
On June 15, 2020—the 5th anniversary of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision recognizing a constitutionally-protected right of same-sex marriage — the U.S. Supreme Court expanded sex-based discrimination to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity for purposes of employment discrimination protection. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court determined that when an employer fires an employee because of gender identity or sexual orientation, the employer is effectively firing the person for traits and qualities that would not have been an issue if they were members of the opposite sex. Thus, the Court held in a 6-3 ruling, discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation is discrimination “because of sex” and therefore presents a valid employment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This article summarizes the Court's majority and dissenting opinions, provides several observations, and then discusses Bostock's application such as to religious employers and other nonprofit organizations.
Are your employees coming back to in-person work yet? As states shift forward into new phases that allow nonprofit and other employees to come back to worksites, employers face a plethora of warranted policy changes. High on the list should be to develop and implement a Workplace Health and Cleanliness Operations Policy. In addition, employers may address continued remote work options, such as through a new or updated Remote Work Policy. These important changes should be reflected in modified employee handbooks, at least in summary versions, which should also include policies covering new COVID-19-related Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Expanded Family and Medical Leave.