Discrimination Title VII Religious Discrimination

Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's... more +
Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's race, religion, gender, age, to name a few.  less -
News & Analysis as of

Onionhead: Do Firings Over a Non-Religious Practice Violate Title VII?

A Syosset, New York company is being charged with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after employees claimed they were fired for not participating in the belief system of the employer. It appears to be a clear...more

EEOC Posts Technical Assistance On Religious Dress And Grooming In The Workplace

Religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC have increased over the years, rising to 3,721 private sector discrimination charges in fiscal year 2013. An EEOC religious discrimination charge resulted in the United...more

Kentucky Fried Chicken Franchise Pays $40,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Laurinburg Companies Unlawfully Fired Pentecostal Employee for Refusing to Wear Pants, Federal Agency Charged - LAURINBURG, N.C. - Scottish Food Systems, Inc. and Laurinburg KFC Take Home, Inc. will pay $40,000 and...more

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Federal Agency Charged Muslim Trainer Was Constructively Discharged for Not Shaving Beard - FRESNO, Calif. - McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious...more

Employees Must Provide Employer With Notice of Need for Religious Accommodation

If a female applicant for a position appears at the interview wearing a headscarf, must the employer assume that it is worn for religious purposes? If the scarf would otherwise be prohibited under the employer's dress code,...more

Supreme Court Update: University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

The United States Supreme Court recently raised the bar for plaintiffs attempting to bring Title VII retaliation claims. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), the Court...more

EEOC Sues Consol Energy and Consolidation Coal Company for Religious Discrimination

Mining Companies Forced Evangelical Christian to Retire Over Hand Scanning, Federal Agency Charges - PITTSBURGH - Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy and Consolidation Coal Company violated federal law when they forced...more

Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit, Court Says

Judge Finds Firing Muslim Employee for Wearing Hijab Was Illegal - SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge has found clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired Muslim employee...more

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more

Employees Must Prove Retaliation Was “But-For” Cause of Employment Action

Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....more

Employment Law -- Jul 03, 2013

Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more

Supreme Court Limits Employer Liability in Title VII Cases

The United States Supreme Court (“Court”) issued two decisions on June 24, 2013, significantly limiting employer liability in discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects the Mixed-Motive Analysis in Retaliation Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday that a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that retaliation was the “but-for” reason for an adverse employment...more

Employers Prevail In Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more

Legal Alert: Supreme Court Sets Heightened Standard For Proving Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heightened the burden of proof for employees bringing retaliation claims under Title VII by holding that employees have to prove that the employer's desire to retaliate was...more

Too Little, Too Late: The Supreme Court Adopts But-For Causation for Title VII Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court broke its long string of pronouncing expansive standards in the context of Title VII retaliation...more

Supreme Court Issues Two Important Title VII Opinions

Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more

Supreme Court Adopts "But For" Causation Standard for Title VII Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case must prove that the retaliation was the "but for" cause of the employer's adverse action. University of Texas S.W. Med. Ctr. v....more

Supreme Court Rules on Higher Causation Standard in Employer Retaliation Claims Under Title VII

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 ruling that will have significant implications for employee plaintiffs and employers where a claim of employer retaliation under Title VII is at issue. In University...more

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Holds “But For” Standard of Proof Applies; Big Implications for Retaliation Cases

In another big win for employers today, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII retaliation cases must be proved by a “but for” standard of proof, not a lower standard that had been used in various courts before....more

Ozarks Electric Cooperative to Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

Company Fired Jehovah's Witness Because of Her Religion, Federal Agency Charged - FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Ozarks Electric, an electric cooperative located in Fayetteville and Springdale, Ark., will pay $95,000 to a...more

The Side Effects of Mandatory Flu Vaccine Policies

Given the severity of the influenza outbreak this season, employers are dealing with worse than normal staffing and leave issues. One solution, aimed at cutting down on employee absences during flu season, is to require all...more

Leading Senior Assisted Living Company Settles Religious Discrimination Suit with EEOC

Employee Fired After Refusing to Violate Religious Beliefs, Federal Agency Charged - ABILENE, Texas - Senior Living Properties, LLC, which owns 35 senior assisted living facilities in Texas, will pay $42,500 and...more

Vegan Employee May Proceed with Religious Discrimination Claim

A federal district court in Ohio has refused to dismiss a complaint for religious discrimination made by a hospital employee after the employee was fired for refusing to be vaccinated for the flu. The basis of the refusal to...more

Recent Ruling Demonstrates That You Might Find Religion Where You Least Expect It

A ruling from an Ohio federal court warns that a religious discrimination claim can arise from of a set of beliefs that an employer might not ordinarily equate with religion. In Chenzira v. Cincinnati Childrens’ Hospital...more

35 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2