News & Analysis as of

Gender Discrimination Supreme Court of the United States Discrimination

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Gender-Affirming Care Remains a Hot Topic in 2024

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

Our April 9 blog post highlighted several issues to watch during 2024, one of which was gender-affirming care considerations. Just over a month later, there have now been three key developments with respect to that issue:...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

FordHarrison

Second and Eleventh Circuits Rule They are Bound by Prior Precedent that Title VII Does Not Prohibit Sexual Orientation...

FordHarrison on

As these authors have previously reported, several cases analyzing whether sexual orientation is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been winding their way through the courts. ...more

Robinson+Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider

DOE and DOJ Withdrawl of “Dear Colleague” Letter Leaves FERPA’s Guidance Unresolved

On February 22, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) withdrew their May 13, 2016 “Dear Colleague” letter that provided guidance on steps to protect transgender students under Title IX of the...more

Franczek P.C.

Administration Withdraws Transgender Guidance While Considering Legal Issues

Franczek P.C. on

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) jointly issued a statement rescinding the guidance on transgender students’ rights under Title IX issued to school districts nationwide in May. The prior...more

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP

The Equality Act: Federal Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Law Introduced in Congress

Last month, in a historic case, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that same-sex couples—like their heterosexual counterparts— have the constitutional right to marry. On the heels of this decision, federal agencies and...more

Zelle  LLP

That is SO last week - July 2015 #3

Zelle LLP on

There’s just no rest for employment lawyers this summer. We had another exciting week. The biggest news was the EEOC’s ruling that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The agency found that...more

Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Resolve Whether the FHA Provides for Disparate Impact Liability.

A major change to federal law governing mortgage lending may be on the horizon. On October 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) not only imposes liability for...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

The ERISA Litigation Newsletter; November 2013

In This Issue: - Labor and Employment and ERISA Class Actions After Wal-Mart and Comcast — Practice Points for Defendants (Part I – Commonality)* - Agencies Release Guidance on HRAs, FSAs, and Employer Payment...more

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation

Court Strikes Down Proposed Class of Female Wal-Mart Employees – Again!

After suffering defeat in the United States Supreme Court, Plaintiffs in Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. returned to court in California in an attempt to certify a newly defined and smaller class of 150,000 current and...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Updates from the Second Circuit and Supreme Court About Arbitration Provisions and Potential Impact on Employers

Last week, the Second Circuit weighed in again on the enforceability of an arbitration provision in Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 11-5229-cv (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2013). The provision at issue required employees to pursue...more

Miller & Martin PLLC

Class Action Alert: Recent Developments Favorable for Employers

Miller & Martin PLLC on

Individualized Proof of Damages Can Block Class Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) - The United States Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend continued its trend of disfavoring class certification of cases involving...more

Proskauer - Whistleblower Defense

Supreme Court Asked To Decide If Retaliation Claims Require New Administrative Charge

On January 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court was petitioned to rule on whether employees must file a new or amended charge to pursue an employment retaliation claim arising from an initial Title VII discrimination charge....more

16 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide