News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Disparate Treatment › Corporate Counsel

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII... more +
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII has been subsequently extended to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sexual stereotypes and to prohibit sexual harassment. Title VII applies to all employers with fifteen or more employees including private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions.  less -
Poyner Spruill LLP

Why Comparator Analysis Matters: A Key Fourth Circuit Ruling

Poyner Spruill LLP on

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

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Seventh Circuit Ruling Reminds Courts Not to Draw ‘Narrow’ Comparisons in Title VII Cases

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

On October 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed employers another reminder of the potential benefits of consistent management. In Dunlevy v. Langfelder, the Seventh Circuit upheld the appeal...more

Littler

NY Federal Court Significantly Limits Scope of Equal Pay Case

Littler on

For years, employment lawyers on both sides have disagreed on what is required to obtain class treatment in a Title VII discrimination case. ...more

Fisher Phillips

Appeals Court Rejects Retaliation Claim Based On Religious Accommodation Request

Fisher Phillips on

In a case of first impression, a federal appeals court just found that an applicant’s request for a religious accommodation did not constitute protected activity under Title VII for the purpose of establishing a retaliation...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Dismissal Denied In EEOC Race Discrimination Action Against Security Company

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

A federal district court in Maryland recently denied in part an employer’s motion to dismiss a race discrimination action brought on behalf of African-born security guards by the EEOC, and instead granted the EEOC’s motion to...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Refusal to Rescind Employee’s Resignation Not an Adverse Employment Action

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

School of Hard (Dread) Locks: EEOC Loses Appeal Over Hairstyle Ban

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Last week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a case the EEOC filed over a job applicant’s short dreadlocks. In 2010, Chastity Jones, an African American, applied for a position with...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Court Certifies Title VII Discrimination Case Based On Discretionary Decision-Making

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In Rollins v. Traylor Brothers, Case No. 14-CV-1414 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 21, 2016), Judge John Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the claims of a class of workers alleging...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Federal Court Decision Highlights Complexities of Laws Applicable to Pregnant Employees

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

As the laws governing the treatment of pregnant employees and new mothers continues to evolve, one recent decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District Alabama highlights the complexities that arise...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

District Court Cuts The Cord To Cable Employees’ Discipline And Promotions Class Claims

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Court Allows EEOC’s Discrimination Suit Over Religious Garb To Proceed To Jury

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In an order recently issued in EEOC v Jetstream Ground Services, Inc., Case No. 13-CV-02340 (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2015), Judge Christine Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that the EEOC had...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Court Rejects The EEOC’s Novel Attempt To Impose Disparate Treatment Liability Without Any Injury

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

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

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Supreme Court Abercrombie & Fitch Ruling: It’s the Motive that Matters

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

As most lawyers and HR professionals know, on June 1, 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concise opinion, overturning the Tenth Circuit and holding that Abercrombie & Fitch had intentionally discriminated against...more

Baker Donelson

Religious Protection or Religious Preference? – Supreme Court Rules in Abercrombie Headscarf Case

Baker Donelson on

On Monday, June 1, the Supreme Court decided a religious discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch and the EEOC. The Court held that "[a]n employee may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or...more

14 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide