News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Employment Contract

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 -
Carlton Fields

Seventh Circuit Affirms Order Compelling Arbitration, Holds Arbitration Agreement Applies to Title VII Claim

Carlton Fields on

In Retzios v. Epic Systems Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal brought by the plaintiff, a former employee of Epic, who was fired after she refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Another Arbitration Agreement Bites the Dust!

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

The California Court of Appeal dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here. This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and...more

Jaburg Wilk

Can I Be Forced to Arbitrate My Sexual Assault/Harassment Claims?

Jaburg Wilk on

On March 3, 2022, Congress enacted the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) which precludes employers from requiring employees to arbitrate disputes related to sexual assault or...more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

[Webinar] The Latest in Employment Discrimination Laws - December 12th, 1:00 pm EST

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

The termination wasn't perfect, but this employer nailed the retaliation case.

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

Here are the four things the employer did right. I hope everyone had a fun Halloween last night. And before Halloween gets too far into the distant past, check out this scary HR story: A full-time adjunct instructor at the...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

SuperVision - Labor & Employment Insights, Issue 4, December 2023

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Attacks on Non-Disclosure, Confidentiality, and Non-Compete Agreements in 2023 - On several fronts in 2023, we saw federal agencies and entities attacking the scope and enforceability of certain employment agreements,...more

Genova Burns LLC

Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment, Not Discrimination

Genova Burns LLC on

Arbitration agreements are a powerful tool used by many employers to compel the utilization of arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration allows the parties of a claim to resolve the dispute...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

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

ABCs of Employment Law: Employment at will

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

So misunderstood! NOTE FROM ROBIN: Earlier this year, I began a series of very basic explanations of the federal laws that govern the workplace. The first installment covered discrimination in general, and the second...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

The Employment Law Reporter - January 2022

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Employment Law Reporter: •The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision dismissing employment discrimination claims brought by a...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Religious Institutions Update: October 2021

Holland & Knight LLP on

Morals Clause Ruled Not Within Title VII Religious Exemptions Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any...more

Rivkin Radler LLP

The Employment Law Reporter - October 2021

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Here is what we cover in this issue of The Employment Law Reporter: •A federal court in New York has dismissed a complaint filed by a former employee of the New York City Department of Education alleging employment...more

Fisher Phillips

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Contractual Time Limits On Bringing Age And Disability Discrimination Claims

Fisher Phillips on

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that employers cannot contractually shorten the statute of limitations for filing suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Lexology Employment Guide: Mississippi

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Bradley attorneys have partnered with Lexology to draft the Getting the Deal Through Employment chapter for Mississippi. This guide covers a state snapshot, the employment relationship, hiring, wage and hour,...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Clarifies Race Discrimination Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Must Meet More Stringent “But-For” Causation Standard

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints on

Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

National Employment Perspective | Focus on Discrimination

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more

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

Supreme Court Requires But-For Causation for Section 1981 Claims

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

On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Sets High Bar For Those Bringing Race Discrimination Cases

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more

McAfee & Taft

U.S. Supreme Court confirms ‘but for’ causation in Section 1981 cases

McAfee & Taft on

Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Section 1981 Racial Discrimination Claims Require But-For Causation

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law... on

In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Supreme Court Confirms Strict “But for” Causation Test Applies to Section 1981 Claims

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer on

On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Holds that Claims for Intentional Discrimination Under Section 1981 Must Meet “But For” Causation Test

Franczek P.C. on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Church Affiliate Is Exempt From FEHA Liability, But Liable for $1.9 Million On Other Theories

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Mathews v. Happy Valley Conference Ctr., 2019 WL 6769659 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) - Jeremiah Mathews worked as a maintenance supervisor and cook for Happy Valley Conference Center, which is a subordinate affiliate of...more

Flaster Greenberg PC

2019 Law At Work - Year In Review

Flaster Greenberg PC on

They say the only thing in life that is constant is change, and we certainly saw that in 2019. This was a big year for change in employment law as legislators, courts, and regulators, shaped the workplace to reflect societal...more

Perkins Coie

California Employment Law Legislative Update 2020

Perkins Coie on

With the California legislative year now closed, we know which proposals became reality and offer insight into their likely impact on California employers in the coming year. The following update provides a brief overview of...more

57 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"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