News & Analysis as of

Job Applicants › Title VII › Disparate Treatment

Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Will South Carolina Ban the Box?

Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. on

In prior posts, we have noted that HR professionals should acknowledge the tension between making hiring decisions based on an applicant’s criminal history and avoiding Title VII liability, if refusing to hire certain...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Eleventh Circuit Declines EEOC’s Invitation To Expand Race To Include Personal Expression Or Cultural Characteristics

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: After a black woman’s employment offer was rescinded because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks in violation of a company grooming policy, the EEOC sued under Title VII for discrimination on the basis...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

School of Hard (Dread) Locks: EEOC Loses Appeal Over Hairstyle Ban

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Last week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a case the EEOC filed over a job applicant’s short dreadlocks. In 2010, Chastity Jones, an African American, applied for a position with...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation

Fenwick & West LLP on

Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to avoid accommodating a suspected, but unconfirmed religious practice, according to a recent United States Supreme Court...more

McGuireWoods LLP

Supreme Court Holds Employers Must Make Religious Accommodations Even Without Actual Knowledge of Need for Accommodation

McGuireWoods LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employers from, among other things, refusing to hire an applicant because of his or her religion or religious practice. As a general rule, employers must...more

Stoel Rives LLP

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: It’s All About the Motive

Stoel Rives LLP on

In a case Justice Antonin Scalia described as “really easy,” the Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice even if the employer lacks actual knowledge of a need for an...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Employment Law Reporter – June 2015

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on

Abercrombie & Fitch’s “Look Policy” Needs A Makeover After The Supreme Court Looked At It - The Abercrombie & Fitch clothing company is famous for their scantily clad models with six-packs and very little actual clothing...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court: Motive Matters in Hiring Decisions

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC on

Last week, in EEOC. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The background of the case dates to 2008. A young woman...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Supreme Court Abercrombie & Fitch Ruling: It’s the Motive that Matters

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

As most lawyers and HR professionals know, on June 1, 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concise opinion, overturning the Tenth Circuit and holding that Abercrombie & Fitch had intentionally discriminated against...more

FordHarrison

Supreme Court Finds Employer's Lack of "Actual Knowledge" of Need for Accommodation No Defense to Religious Discrimination Claim

FordHarrison on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employer cannot escape liability for religious discrimination under Title VII by arguing that it did not have actual knowledge of an individual's need for a religious...more

Baker Donelson

Religious Protection or Religious Preference? – Supreme Court Rules in Abercrombie Headscarf Case

Baker Donelson on

On Monday, June 1, the Supreme Court decided a religious discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch and the EEOC. The Court held that "[a]n employee may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or...more

Littler

What Matters is Motive: Religious Accommodation Need as a "Motivating Factor" in Employment Decisions

Littler on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. resulted in an expected outcome but provided an unexpectedly small amount of practical guidance for employers. ...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Supreme Court Sides with Applicant in Abercrombie Headscarf Dispute

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Yesterday, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015), the Supreme Court of the United States held that an applicant does not need to inform an employer of her need for a religious accommodation in order...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof for Religious Accommodation and Disparate-Treatment Claims

Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the EEOC today and clarified the standard for religious accommodation and disparate-treatment claims under Title VII. The Court ruled that an applicant can advance a disparate-treatment claim...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86, holding that to prevail in a disparate-treatment claim based on religion under...more

15 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