Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Security Firm Forced Out Guard for Complaining About Racial Insults, Federal Agency Charges - BALTIMORE - MVM Inc., an Ashburn, Va.-based diversified security services firm, violated federal law when it stopped...more
Employee Not Permitted to Wear Skirt Instead of Pants, Federal Agency Charges - DETROIT - Sleneem Enterprises, LLC, a franchise operator of Tim Horton's Café and Bake Shop in Romulus, Mich., violated federal law by...more
Michael Schmidt, Vice Chair of Cozen O’Connor’s Labor & Employment Department, discusses current employment law news, trends, developments and guest analysis. This episode presents the first of two parts of a timely and...more
On March 14, 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued a significant ruling clarifying when an employer may prohibit employees from wearing visible signs of their religious beliefs in the workplace. The...more
Last minute decider – incapacity dismissal without considering new evidence was disability discrimination - The Court of Appeal in O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy has reinstated a Tribunal decision that the...more
Religious discrimination claims by a delivery driver for a catering company who was terminated the day after being sent home for wearing a religious head covering survived summary judgment due to the temporal proximity...more
Our friends at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have issued a Fact Sheet for young workers on religious discrimination in the workplace, which brought me back to the EEOC’s older Q&A and Best Practices on religious...more
Restaurant Fired Muslim Employee Because of Her Required Religious Garb, Federal Agency Charges - PHILADELPHIA - Rotten Ralph's, a popular Philadelphia restaurant, violated federal law when it refused to allow a server...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just issued its much-awaited religious discrimination decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015) (No. 14-86). Samantha Elauf applied for a job with A&F and was denied the job...more
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
Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation - Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to...more
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores in which it held that a job applicant can experience religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
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
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
On Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which had granted Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”) summary judgment in a religious...more
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
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled in favor of a 17-year-old practicing Muslim, Samantha Elauf, who applied for a job at retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, but was denied employment because the...more
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
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
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
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
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
Monday, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court held that making employment decisions based on assumptions related to religion (or any other protected class for that matter) can trigger liability under...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that to prevail in a Title VII disparate-treatment (i.e., intentional discrimination) claim, a job applicant need only show that his need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor...more
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