News & Analysis as of

Employer Liability Issues Discrimination Supreme Court of the United States

Amundsen Davis LLC

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees to Prove “Reverse Discrimination”

Amundsen Davis LLC on

Hune 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in the case of Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, that “the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a...more

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more

Rumberger | Kirk

From Hamilton To Muldrow: Preparing HR For Title VII Claims Beyond The Firing Table

Rumberger | Kirk on

“The Hamilton decision highlights the need for employers to stay up to date on legal developments. In this one decision, the Fifth Circuit opened the door for claims that just one day earlier were not actionable. Reviewing...more

Butler Snow LLP

Trump and DEI: What Does a Second Term Mean for Employers?

Butler Snow LLP on

In the flurry of executive orders issued shortly after being sworn for a second term, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders and one presidential action dismantling all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Gender-Affirming Care Remains a Hot Topic in 2024

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

Our April 9 blog post highlighted several issues to watch during 2024, one of which was gender-affirming care considerations. Just over a month later, there have now been three key developments with respect to that issue:...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Navigating the Rock & the Hard Place: Conflicting Federal and State Mandates for LGBTQ Employees

Foley & Lardner LLP on

“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Get with the Pronoun: Eleventh Circuit Rules Pervasive Misgendering Is Harassment

If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Supreme Court Holds That Employees Need Not Show “Significant” Harm to Support a Title VII Discrimination Claim Based on a Job...

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

SCOTUS Lowered the Threshold of Harm Required for Title VII Discrimination Claims

Ballard Spahr LLP on

Last week, on April 17, 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)...more

Perkins Coie

Muldrow Sets a New Standard for Workplace Discrimination

Perkins Coie on

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer may violate Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer did...more

Butler Snow LLP

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: The Supreme Court Opens the Door for Discriminatory Job Transfer Claims

Butler Snow LLP on

On Wednesday, April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court provided an opening for workers to allege employment discrimination claims regarding job transfers based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. In Muldrow v....more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

SCOTUS Relaxes Standards for Title VII Plaintiffs in Workplace Discrimination Claims

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, No. 22-193, 2024 WL 1642826 (U.S. Apr. 17, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employee alleging that an involuntary lateral job transfer constituted workplace discrimination in...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies When Job Transfers Can Serve as a Basis for Title VII Claims

Foley Hoag LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis that rejected a heightened injury standard for Title VII claims based on job transfers and held that employees alleging discrimination...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Supreme Court Rules Discriminatory Job Transfers Need Not Produce “Significant” Harm to be Actionable Under Title VII

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the standard under which a plaintiff can proceed with a claim for a discriminatory job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Groff v. DeJoy and Its Impact on Religious Accommodation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Different Type of Transfer Portal? Supreme Court Looking at Employment Transfer Discrimination Case

If you transfer employees with no loss of pay or status, can they sue you under Title VII? Right now, it depends on where you live and what your local federal circuit has ruled. That could change....more

DarrowEverett LLP

Q2 Employment Law Updates: Non-Competes, Religious Accommodation and More

DarrowEverett LLP on

So far, 2023 has been a wild ride for employers, a theme that looks to be continuing into the third quarter of the year. While certain predictions we made during Q1 came true in Q2 (we are looking at you, NLRB), others such...more

Morgan Lewis

Biden Administration Issues Order on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Morgan Lewis on

As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Says Section 1981 Claims Require ‘But For' Causation

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Supreme Court: Federal Employees Can Sue Over Any Age Discrimination In Employment Decision

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal government employees can sue for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) when age bias taints the decision-making process, not merely when...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - July 2018

Supreme Court Bars Mandatory Union Dues For Public Employees - Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___, 2018 WL 3129785 (2018) - In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of...more

FordHarrison

Second and Eleventh Circuits Rule They are Bound by Prior Precedent that Title VII Does Not Prohibit Sexual Orientation...

FordHarrison on

As these authors have previously reported, several cases analyzing whether sexual orientation is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been winding their way through the courts. ...more

50 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide