Title VII Race or National Origin Discrimination in Employment–Supreme Court CasesIntroduction to annotation, § 1Jury trial, § 20Layoff injunction, § 21Mechanic, § 7[a]Methadone, drug use policy, § 13Multiple regression analyses, § 9National origin discrimination, §§23,24Nepotism, § ...
On Monday, June 15, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates that federal anti-discrimination statute. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court considered ...
TITLE VIIRicci v. DeStefanodiscriminationtransferred intentdisparate treatment theoryrace-basedrace-congnizantSupreme Courtanti-discriminationemploymentIn the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court officially opened the door to what this Article identifies as a theory of "transferred intent" ...
CLEARING THE AIR OR MUDDYING THE WATERS? THE EFFECT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN ON TITLE VII RETALIATION LITIGATION.CLEARING THE AIR OR MUDDYING THE WATERS? THE EFFECT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN ON TITLE VII RETALIATION LITIGATION.The article reports on a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with employees' ...
Supreme Court held on April 17, 2024, that an employee bringing a claim for discrimination under Title VII related to a job transfer need only show some employment disadvantage resulting from the transfer but need not show a "significant" disadvantage. In issuing its ruling, the Court resol...
Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender In a decision that came as a surprise to many, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton
v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dealt a partial victory for defendant employers by clarifying when a defendant is a "prevailing party" for purposes of the attorney's fee provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.1 On the other hand, the Supreme Court dodged a major ...
Supreme Court Adopts Narrow Definition of Supervisor under Title VIISudbury, Joshua
Seyfarth Synopsis: The EEOC published guidance to provide clarity on its interpretation of Title VII protections for LGBTQ+ employees in the wake of the landmark caseBostock v. Clayton County, GA. A recent decision by a federal district court in Texas rejected the EEOC’s interpretation and resu...
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 30, 2023, to “resolve a Circuit split over whether an employee challenging a transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of harm — be it dubbed significant, serious, or something similar.” Prior toMuldrow,...