News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Summary Judgment › 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

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

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

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

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

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Italian Job: Fifth Circuit Confirms Pleading Standard for National Origin Discrimination Claim

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Employment law is full of burden-shifting, prima facie standards and evidentiary hurdles. Sometimes, even the courts apply the wrong standard at the wrong stage of a case. That appears to be what happened in the case of...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Gardner v. CLC of Pascagoula, LLC –What Constitutes “Severe and Pervasive” Conduct With Respect to “Third-Party Harassment”?

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

Employers may be liable to their employees for harassment by non-employees under Title VII. Courts have found liability for this so-called “third-party harassment” in some of the following fact-specific contexts: waitresses...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Tender Me This: Sixth Circuit Holds Employees Don’t Have to Give Severance Money Back before Filing Title VII or EPA Lawsuit

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In a decision that could have employers rethinking how they offer employees a severance agreement, in McClellan v. Midwest Machining, Inc. the Sixth Circuit held that former employees seeking to void severance agreements do...more

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

Fifth Circuit Rules Employers Are Not Always Protected From Liability Resulting From Harassment by Nonemployees With Diminished...

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

Courts have ruled that employees who work with clients with diminished capacity present different challenges when establishing whether the nonemployee’s alleged harassment affected the terms and conditions of the employee’s...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Religious Institutions Update: June 2018 - Lex Est Sanctio Sancta

Holland & Knight LLP on

Since 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly construed a neutral law of general applicability as consistent with the free exercise clause. Deeming Colorado's public accommodations law just such a law, the Colorado Court...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Sixth Circuit Holds Discrimination Based on Transgender Status is Prohibited Under Title VII

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

In a unanimous decision in EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel has held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is “necessarily” discrimination on the basis of sex...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Sixth Circuit to Employers: No ‘Magic Words’ Make a Sex Discrimination Complaint Title VII Protected Activity

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Employers beware: An employee does not have to use “magic words” to complain about discrimination for it to lay the basis for a retaliation claim. The Sixth Circuit made this point in a unanimous opinion in the case of Mumm...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Pay the Man! (Or Woman)—But Differently? 11th Circuit Reinstates Sex Discrimination Pay Claim

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

When you promote someone into a position, do you have to pay him what you paid his predecessor? As with so many things – it depends. Can you pay less if the promotee has less experience and a lower prior salary than the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

“Don’t Tase Me, Boss!” Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Claims of Police Officer Who Refused Taser Training

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If an employee gets a doctor’s note saying she can’t participate in training because of a physical limitation, does that make her disabled? It might if you treat her like she is—at least that is what the Eleventh Circuit...more

Littler

Missouri Appellate Court’s Holding That Sex Discrimination May Be Based on Sex Stereotyping Offers Some Protections for LGBT...

Littler on

In Lampley, et al. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that sex stereotyping can form the basis of a sex discrimination claim when the complaining party is gay, but should not be...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - March 2017

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Victoria Zetwick, a county correctional officer, alleged that the county sheriff created a sexually hostile environment in violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by, among other things,...more

McAfee & Taft

‘More’ does not equal ‘different’ when job duties are comparable under the Equal Pay Act

McAfee & Taft on

It has long been thought that the Equal Pay Act (EPA) does not apply if the male and female employees being compared for purposes of establishing pay disparities spend significant amounts of time on different job duties, even...more

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

Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Franchisor Not Named in Charge of Discrimination

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

Names play an important role for an employee who, in filing a charge of discrimination, must satisfy Title VII’s naming requirement. This is because an employee who fails to properly name defendants in a charge of...more

20 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