News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Reversal

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 -
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fourth Circuit Holds That Intervening Events Do Not Erase Retaliation Claims

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

On July 25, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Finley v. Kraft Heinz Inc. upending the grant of summary judgment to an employer in a retaliation case. ...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

The Ninth Circuit Reminds Employers of Obligations When Addressing Social Media Posts Affecting Workplace

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

A recent Ninth Circuit decision clarifies employers’ obligations to address hostile work environment complaints arising out of employees' off-premises social media activity. In Okonowsky v. Garland (No. 23-55404; Jul. 25,...more

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

Fifth Circuit Upends ‘Ultimate Employment Decision’ Requirement for Title VII Discrimination Claims

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

On August 18, 2023, in Hamilton v. Dallas County, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upended a longstanding precedent, significantly broadening the types of adverse employment actions that could give rise to an...more

Littler

Fifth Circuit Reverses Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Vaccine Mandate Case

Littler on

While the issue of whether private employers can legally enforce vaccine mandates among their workforce continues to be challenged across the country, a split panel in the Fifth Circuit is the first appellate court to signal...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Religious Institutions Update: February 2022

Holland & Knight LLP on

Religious Exemption to States' Mandatory Vaccination Statute Not Necessary In Does 1-6 v. Mills, No. 1:21-cv-00242, 2021 WL 4783626 (D. Me. Oct. 13, 2021), the court denied injunctive relief to plaintiff healthcare workers...more

Miller Canfield

6th Circuit Clarifies Opposition Clause of Title VII - Performance of Regular Job Duties as Protected Activity

Miller Canfield on

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against employees because they either oppose discriminatory actions (the "Opposition Clause") or because of their participation in an investigation, proceeding, or...more

Bowditch & Dewey

To the Jury? A Professor’s Pay Equity Battle Soldiers On

Bowditch & Dewey on

In 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed a lawsuit brought by Jennifer Freyd, professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, against the University and two University officials. In...more

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

Seventh Circuit Decision May Portend Increase in Equal Pay Act Claims for Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Employers

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

On January 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Kellogg v. Ball State University that expanded the scope of potential evidence plaintiffs may rely on to support their Equal Pay Act...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

SCOTUS Decision Impacts Discrimination Claims Against Religious Employers

Husch Blackwell LLP on

Key Points •The ministerial exception protects religious employers from government interference in internal employment disputes involving the selection, supervision, and removal of individuals who play an important role...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: June 2020

Payne & Fears on

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) - Summary:  Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity....more

Payne & Fears

United States Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of the Ministerial Exception

Payne & Fears on

In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___, 2020 WL 3808420 (2020) (“Morrissey-Berru”), the United States Supreme Court provided further guidance on the application of the “ministerial exception,” which...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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Lower Pay for Equal Work is Not Sole Path for Pay Discrimination Claim

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Consider this hypothetical: An employer operates a national business, and has two vice president of sales (VP) positions. The VPs have essentially the same tenure with the company and the same duties, except one oversees the...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Employers Cannot Shorten Time Period for Filing Suit Under Title VII

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides specific time limitations for filing EEOC charges and subsequent lawsuits. What happens, however, if the employer and employee agree to shorten the period of time under which...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: June 2019

Payne & Fears on

This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Title VII Reversal: Fifth Circuit Holds No Transgender Protections Under Civil Rights Statute

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of their sexual...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Invalidating Long-Standing Fourth Circuit Precedent, U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Title VII’s Charge Filing Requirement is...

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more

Jones Day

SCOTUS: Filing Requirement is Not Jurisdictional

Jones Day on

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more

103 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5
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