Now in autotune.
(Betcha didn't expect that).
Yesterday, we were rapping (without the benefit of
autotune) about immigration status and unlawful discrimination and
concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit
workplace discrimination on the basis of immigration status (although
national-original discrimination is unlawful). And we know from a super-hot
"Fact or Fiction" post last year that Title VII covers Americans who are employed abroad. It was
Now, get ready for the hat trick, Gretzky.
Late last month, a federal court in Michigan recognized
that foreign employees of a foreign employer should not be counted
as employees for purposes of Title VII. Who cares, right? Well, you should.
As you know from this post, you need 15 employees to be covered under Title
VII. If ABC Company has 14 employees working at a US facility and 1 more
employee, a Canadian resident, who works exclusively for ABC in Canada, ABC is
not covered under Title VII.
This could also become an issue, as it did in the
Michigan case, where an employer is right up against a statutory damages cap.
Caps are placed on compensatory damages according to the size of the employer.
The limits on damages are as follows:
15 to 100 employees: $50,000
101 to 200 employees: $100,000
201 to 500 employees: $200,000
501 employees or more: $300,000
Notwithstanding the foregoing -- or something legalese
like that -- state laws covering workplace discrimination and damages caps may
vary. So, mind your p's and q's. Or maybe you just shouldn't discriminate at
This article was originally published on Eric B. Meyer's blog, The Employer
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.