A group of YouTube video-makers is suing it and parent company Google, claiming both discriminate against LGBT-themed videos and their creators.
The group claims YouTube restricts advertising on LGBT videos and limits their reach and discoverability.
But YouTube said sexual orientation and gender identity played no role in deciding whether videos could earn ad revenue or appear in search results.
A group is hoping a jury will hear its case in California.
Discrimination in employment practices can land your business in legal hot water, even if it’s not intentional. What matters is the result of certain actions. In broad terms, discrimination is defined as changes in an employment practice — such as recruitment, hiring, job assignment or promotions — that have the “purpose or effect of denying employment or promotional opportunities to a class of individuals,” stated the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). It’s important to note that by this definition, the employer’s intention may be irrelevant if the “effect” is discrimination.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Attorney General has authority to bring suit against an employer “where there is reason to believe that a pattern or practice of discrimination exists.” Authority to prosecute employers also resides in anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Here’s a recent example to illustrate this concept. In June, the DOJ settled an “immigration-related discrimination claim” against a major national retailer. According to a DOJ announcement, the retailer had “required a non-U.S. citizen, but not similarly-situated U.S. citizens, to produce specific documentary proof of her immigration status for the purpose of verifying her employment eligibility.” In other words, additional documentation was required of this applicant compared to others.
It took more than 30 years, but the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC finally clarified its rules against pregnancy discrimination, stating that any discrimination based on past or future pregnancies is illegal, and that employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. Now, any harassment or discrimination against pregnant workers is an illegal form of sex discrimination. Under the new guidelines, lactation is also considered a medical condition.
The clarification was necessary because employers routinely interpreted the anti-discrimination law narrowly, refusing to accommodate pregnancy the same way they would a physical disability. Pregnant workers who needed simple accommodations—say, not doing heavy lifting or sitting during breaks instead of standing—faced a series of bad options.
To settle a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against African-Americans, The Wet Seal Inc. agreed to pay $7.5 million, including $5.58 million in relief and damages, to its African-American staff that was fired in its King of Prussia, Penn., store in 2009.
Dispatches From The Front 