News & Analysis as of

Reversal Race Discrimination

Payne & Fears

July 2024 Case Summaries

Payne & Fears on

Summary: Courts must consider allegations of a racially hostile workplace “from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the racial or ethnic group of the plaintiff.” Under this framework, “a single racial epithet...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Alleged Attempt to Change Business' Demographics Deemed Direct Evidence of Discrimination

​​​​​​​Under the “stray remarks” doctrine, courts can conclude that an employer’s expressions of frustration, or comments by a manager not involved in an adverse employment decision, are not persuasive evidence of...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Fifth Circuit Finds Specific Allegation of One-Time Use of Racial Slur Sufficient to Preclude Dismissal Under Rule 12(b)(6)

On March 24, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim on a pro se plaintiff’s hostile work environment...more

DirectEmployers Association

DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session

In this episode of DE Under 3, resident expert John Fox shares first-hand experience with the recent appellate court’s reversal of the 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car discrimination trial decision, and Candee shares updates on...more

DirectEmployers Association

Unanimous Appellate Court Struck Down ALJ Decision Finding Baltimore Enterprise Rent-a-Car Guilty of Unlawful Race Discrimination:...

In an unforgiving decision, a unanimous Administrative Review Board of the USDOL reversed and remanded the entirety of the 2019 Recommended Decision and Order of USDOL Administrative Law Judge Morris Davis. In doing so, the...more

DirectEmployers Association

OFCCP Week In Review: May 2022 #5

The DE OFCCP Week in Review (WIR) is a simple, fast and direct summary of relevant happenings in the OFCCP regulatory environment, authored by experts John C. Fox, Candee Chambers and Jennifer Polcer. In today’s edition, they...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Louisiana Court Rules Jones Act Claim for Mental Injury Can Proceed in Light of Noose in Maritime Workplace

Recently, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, in Thompson v. Cenac Towing Co., L.L.C., analyzed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a company’s favor after a noose-like rope was found hanging in a maritime...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Clarifies Race Discrimination Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Must Meet More Stringent “But-For” Causation Standard

Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

National Employment Perspective | Focus on Discrimination

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Requires But-For Causation for Section 1981 Claims

On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Sets High Bar For Those Bringing Race Discrimination Cases

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more

McAfee & Taft

U.S. Supreme Court confirms ‘but for’ causation in Section 1981 cases

McAfee & Taft on

Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Section 1981 Racial Discrimination Claims Require But-For Causation

In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Supreme Court Confirms Strict “But for” Causation Test Applies to Section 1981 Claims

On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Holds that Claims for Intentional Discrimination Under Section 1981 Must Meet “But For” Causation Test

Franczek P.C. on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: September 2019

Payne & Fears on

ZB, N.A. v. Super Ct. of San Diego Cty., 8 Cal. 5th 175, 252 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228 (2019) - Summary:  Employee may not recover unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 through PAGA. Facts:  Plaintiff Lawson worked for...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: July 2019

Payne & Fears on

This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 21, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions this morning:   North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, No. 18-457: North Carolina law imposes a tax on any trust income...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Flowers v. Mississippi

On June 21, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572, holding that the state court committed clear error in concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a black prospective juror...more

Fisher Phillips

Federal Appeals Court Expands Joint Employer Liability Theory For Agricultural Employers

Fisher Phillips on

A federal appeals court just announced a sweeping change for agricultural employers that will make it easier for workers to bring discrimination claims against them under a joint employment theory. In last week’s EEOC v....more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Take Two: Alabama’s City Versus State Minimum Wage Dispute to Get Full Appellate Review

Minimum wage laws invite controversy, and Alabama’s latest tug-of-war between the state and its largest city is going to get another wider review. You may recall that back in 2015, Birmingham, Alabama, passed a local minimum...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Religious Institutions Update: June 2018 - Lex Est Sanctio Sancta

Holland & Knight LLP on

Since 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly construed a neutral law of general applicability as consistent with the free exercise clause. Deeming Colorado's public accommodations law just such a law, the Colorado Court...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fourth Circuit Says Manager's Alleged Fear of 'Voodoo Curses' Constituted Race Discrimination

The legal line between race and national origin discrimination claims continues to fade as federal courts take an increasingly expansive definition of the term “race.” Last month in an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

“Don’t Tase Me, Boss!” Eleventh Circuit Reinstates Claims of Police Officer Who Refused Taser Training

If an employee gets a doctor’s note saying she can’t participate in training because of a physical limitation, does that make her disabled? It might if you treat her like she is—at least that is what the Eleventh Circuit...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Does Denial of a Lateral Transfer Violate Title VII? In Some Cases, Yes, Says D.C. Circuit.

The federal courts in D.C. have long held that denial of a lateral transfer does not violate Title VII for the reason that, unlike where a promotion is denied, there is no adverse employment action when an employee is denied...more

36 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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