Gregory Lyons, of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing S.C., has been selected to the 2015 list as a member of the Nation’s Top One Percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel. NADC is an organization dedicated to promoting the highest standards of legal excellence. Its mission is to objectively recognize the attorneys who elevate the standards of the Bar and provide a benchmark for other lawyers to emulate.

Members are thoroughly vetted by a research team, selected by a blue ribbon panel of attorneys with podium status from independently neutral organizations, and approved by a judicial review board as exhibiting virtue in the practice of law. Due to the incredible selectivity of the appointment process, only the top 1% of attorneys in the United States are awarded membership in NADC. This elite class of advocates consists of the finest leaders of the legal profession from across the nation.

Eleven attorneys from O’Neil Cannon have been named “Leading Lawyers” in Milwaukee by M Magazine (July 2015), Milwaukee’s Lifestyle Magazine. Those attorneys are the following:

• Melissa Blair (Banking)
• Jim DeJong (Business)
• Pete Faust (Securities Offerings)
• Grant Killoran (Litigation)
• Dean Laing (Litigation)
• Greg Lyons (Litigation)
• Greg Mager (Family)
• Patrick McBride (Litigation)
• Randy Nash (Litigation)
• Steve Slawinski (Construction/Development)

The “Leading Lawyers” were selected by Avvo, a Seattle-based company that rates attorneys. Avvo’s proprietary algorithm rates all attorneys on a 10-point scale, factoring in peer endorsements as well as experience, education, training, speaking, publishing, and awards. In order to make the list of “Leading Lawyers” as published by M Magazine, an attorney must be ranked in the top 5–10% of his or her area of specialty.

People describe an estate plan in a number of ways. Some people use very technical jargon, focusing on the specific tools: wills, trusts, powers. Others describe what the plan does—who gets what property and when. But in my opinion, planners need to help clients understand the “why”; that is, why they should invest in an estate plan. The answer to “why?” is that an estate plan is a strategy to take care of the people we care about when we, for whatever reason, cannot.

In that context, perhaps the most important issue that an estate plan must address is who should raise minor children if something happens to the parents. It’s an interesting, but little-known fact outside of the legal world, that the decision of who will raise the children falls solely in the hands of a probate court judge. Unfortunately, that judge has no idea who the right person is; that is, the person who shares the parents’ values, beliefs, and convictions. The judge will look to the parents for guidance on who that person is, and the place the judge will look is in the parents’ wills. But if the parents are like 70% of Americans and do not have wills, the judge will be lost without guidance from the people most qualified to provide it.

Stated simply, there is no planning issue more important for parents of minor children to address than the nomination of a guardian. Parents who abdicate that responsibility are truly committing a sin.

Grant Killoran, the Chair of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing’s Litigation Practice Group, recently presented an article and speech entitled “Ebola Panic—When Public Health Concerns Confront the Constitution” at the 9th Annual State Bar of Texas “Bill of Rights Course: Cutting-Edge Controversies in Constitutional Law” in Austin, Texas.

Attorney Killoran authored the article with Attorney Christa Wittenberg of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing and presented at the seminar an analysis of state and federal constitutional law governing public health emergencies, focusing on the recent Ebola virus outbreak in the U.S., along with presentations by law professors and attorneys from around the country on other constitutional issues.

A few weeks ago, we posted a blog about the protection of transgender employees under Title VII. Since then, Caitlyn Jenner has graced the cover of Vanity Fair, the EEOC has further solidified its position on the matter, and OSHA has weighed in on the issue.

One matter that has come up in many of the transgender discrimination lawsuits that have been filed to date is the use of bathrooms. This is the situation in the most recent lawsuit by the EEOC. It alleges that a Minnesota company discriminated against a transgender employee by not letting her use the women’s restroom and subjecting her to a hostile work environment.

Likely in response to these issues, the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued “A Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers.” OSHA requires, among other things, that employees are provided with sanitary and available restrooms. It is estimated that 700,000 adults in the United States are transgender, and OSHA stated that restricting employees to restrooms that do not conform with their gender identities or by requiring them to use a segregated gender-neutral or other specific restrooms singles transgender employees out and potentially makes them fear for their safety. Therefore, OSHA recommends that all employees should be permitted to use the facilities that correspond to their gender identity, and each employee should determine the most appropriate and safe option for him or herself. OSHA proposed two other optional solutions: 1) single occupancy, gender-neutral facilities for all employees; or 2) use of multiple-occupant, gender neutral restrooms with lockable single occupant stalls for all employees. Further, OSHA’s best practices recommend that employees should not be asked to provide any medical or legal documentation of their gender identity in order to have access to appropriate facilities.

Based on the EEOC’s current litigation trend and OSHA’s best practices recommendation, employers should permit all employees to use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity. For now, the stance of the federal government is that employees should have unrestricted access and use of restrooms according to their full-time gender identity. Employers will need to deal with these situations on a case-by-case basis to find solutions that are safe, convenient, and respectful.

Grant Killoran, the Chair of the O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing’s Litigation Practice Group, recently was re-appointed to serve on the Meritas U.S./Canadian Litigation Group Steering Committee.

O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing is a member of Meritas, a global alliance of over 7,000 lawyers from 170 full-service law firms across more than 70 countries. For more information about Meritas, please visit the Meritas website at www.meritas.org or contact us at 414.276.5000.

On June 8, 2015, Joe Maier, a shareholder in the Estate Planning Group, and Randy Nash, a shareholder in the Litigation Group, collaborated to present to the Appleton office of the Principal Financial Network a series of real life estate planning facts situations that have led to inheritance litigation.

The Principal Financial Group–Wisconsin Business Center is a client-focused financial services organization working with employers and individuals to help them establish priorities and develop strategies to achieve financial success.

On June 4, 2015, Gregory S. Mager spoke during the Family Law 101 portion of the Wisconsin Supreme’s Family Law Seminar, a continuing education program for Judges and Court Commissioners throughout the state of Wisconsin.

If you have any family law related questions, please contact Attorney Gregory Mager at O’Neil Cannon at 414-276-5000.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch. Justice Scalia penned the majority opinion while Justice Alito wrote a concurrence and Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part. The case, which centered around whether employers can be held liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice only after the applicant or employee has informed the employer of the need for an accommodation, was covered by our blog in January. The facts that brought the case to the Supreme Court are that a Muslim job applicant wore a head scarf to her job interview, but because the retailer’s Look Policy stated that employees could not wear “caps,” she was not hired. The retailer argued, and the Tenth Circuit agreed, that it was the applicant’s duty to inform the employer that she was wearing the headscarf for a religious reason and would, therefore, need an accommodation from their policy, which she did not do. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that an applicant would only need to show that the need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the employment decision to prevail.

The Supreme Court drew a distinction between an employer having “actual knowledge” of a need for a religious accommodation and having that need be a “motivating factor” in the employment decision. An employer cannot refuse to hire an applicant based on a desire to avoid providing an accommodation, even if they’re only guessing that an accommodation would be necessary. The Supreme Court based this on Title VII’s “because of” language, which means a motivating factor, not actual knowledge. Title VII, unlike other antidiscrimination statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act, does not impose a knowledge requirement. The Court found this important in deciding that it is the employer’s motive that is the essential factor in proving discrimination under Title VII. Although the Court stated that adding a knowledge requirement would be adding words to the law, which is the duty of Congress, not the courts, it did acknowledge that the employer’s knowledge may make it easier to infer motive as it would be difficult to prove that motive unless an employee can prove that the employer at least suspects that the practice is a religious practice.

The rule that the Supreme Court came out with, and employers should take care to follow is “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” Additionally, the Court stated that Title VII requires employers to give accommodations from otherwise neutral policies to employees for religious reasons. Therefore, employers cannot take religious beliefs that they either know or suspect exist into account when making employment decisions, and they must accommodate religious beliefs unless such an accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

In April 2015, the EEOC also settled one of the first cases in which it attempted to litigate that transgender discrimination is protected under Title VII. The EEOC filed an amicus brief in a previous case claiming that sex discrimination includes discrimination against those who do not conform to gender stereotypes and, therefore, would include transgender individuals who are either physically male and gender-identify as female or are physically female and gender-identify as male. In March, the U.S. Department of Justice also sued Southeastern Oklahoma State University and the Regional University System of Oklahoma for denying tenure to and eventually terminating an employee because of her gender identity. Although none of these cases have received decisions on the merits of the case, the EEOC has made its position clear, and employers need to take stock of their policies or prepare for litigation.

These and other cases that have been filed raise interesting and challenging questions for employers. Gender expression is not specifically covered under Title VII, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that transgender employees can’t be covered by the statute. The two Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue, the Sixth and the Eleventh, have held that a transgender plaintiff can state a claim for sex bias if the defendant took an adverse action against them because the worker-plaintiff didn’t conform to a sex stereotype or norm. However, this does not mean that the law is settled, and district courts across the country may be faced with interpreting the law in these cases sooner rather than later. Employers should also make sure to take state law into account.

With the backing of the EEOC, discrimination suits by transgender employees could be a rising trend that employers should be aware of. Employers should review their policies and practices as they relate to discrimination and harassment and take complaints of harassment and discrimination of any kind seriously and investigate them thoroughly.