A Deep Dive into HUD's New Guidance on AI-Driven Targeted Advertising — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Fair Lending 101 for Debt Collectors - The Consumer Finance Podcast
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
#WorkforceWednesday: COVID-19 Vaccination Policies, Worker Organizing Task Force, Whistleblowing Increases - Employment Law This Week®
Illegal or ill-mannered? Title VII meets Ms. Manners
Pregnancy In the Workplace...Hot Off the Press
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally prohibits covered employers from taking adverse actions against employees on the basis of race, sex, and other protected categories. Employee discipline is often the subject...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that courts cannot apply a heightened evidentiary standard to majority-group plaintiffs when deciding discrimination claims. The...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But does that protection apply equally to white, male, or...more
Employment discrimination in the workplace is alive and well. Indeed, according to Monster’s recent Workplace Discrimination Poll, only 9% of workers claim to have NOT faced some form of workplace discrimination. There have...more
Plaintiffs need not allege discrimination with respect to an “ultimate employment decision” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to survive a motion to dismiss, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held,...more
As a result of a recent Fifth Circuit decision, some employers in Texas will now face a tougher hurdle when defending against Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims in federal court. The United States Court of...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently announced that Title VII plaintiffs are no longer required to plead an “ultimate employment decision" to properly allege a disparate treatment claim. Applying a strict...more
On July 21, 2020, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal circuit court that covers Oklahoma, was the first circuit court to rule that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits “sex-plus-age” claims. The...more
The Second Circuit has held that employees who allege they were underpaid on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are not required to first establish an Equal Pay Act claim but rather...more
WHAT HAPPENED: Earlier this month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit released an important decision that articulates the substantive burden an employer faces to defend against an allegation of disparate treatment...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Court of Appeal has held that an employer’s refusal to honor an employee’s rescission of a voluntary resignation is not an adverse employment action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act....more
The law recognizes two forms of unlawful discrimination. The most familiar is disparate treatment, in which an employee’s protected class status is a motivating factor in an adverse employment action. A less familiar, and...more
Question: One of our male supervisors wants to fire a female employee who complained that he was sexually harassing her. The harassment allegations appear to have some substance: he asked her for pictures of herself in a...more
In a new order issued on November 13, 2015 in Brand, et al. v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 11-CV-8471 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2015), a matter we have previously blogged on here, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court...more
In EEOC v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 14-CV-5579 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2015), Judge Amy St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and against the...more
The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle...more
In a decision to be officially released on May 19, 2015, the Connecticut Appellate Court has addressed two interesting issues in the state law of employment discrimination, one of which is of considerable importance (and...more