JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Easily Make Simple Words Complicated
Bill on Bankruptcy: ResCap Report, a Bargain at $83 Million
As Expected, Noel Canning v. NLRB Headed to the Supreme Court
Bill on Bankruptcy: How Purchasers of AMR Stock Made a Killing
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) both act to prevent discrimination. While Title VII governs employment relationships; Title IX applies in...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a closely watched employment discrimination case. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed the Eighth...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the...more
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” With its decision, however, the Supreme Court...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019-20 term is receiving substantial attention for cases involving signature initiatives of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the Court also maintains an extensive docket directly relevant...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three employment cases that collectively ask: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of…sex,” encompass discrimination based...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a trio of cases asking whether federal law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination. Currently, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for...more
On October 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument on one core question: does the prohibition on discrimination “because of...sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include...more
On August 15, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) added a question and answer to its list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing, among other things, a growing concern for many employers: how to...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the requirement set forth in Title VII to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit is...more
Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required...more