News & Analysis as of

Title VII McDonnell Douglas Formula

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII... more +
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a United States federal law enacted in 1964 and aimed at preventing discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII has been subsequently extended to discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sexual stereotypes and to prohibit sexual harassment. Title VII applies to all employers with fifteen or more employees including private employers, state and local governments, and educational institutions.  less -
FordHarrison

It’s about Tyne to Try Something New: The Burden of the Standard of Proof

FordHarrison on

Executive Summary - In January, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that likely will impact employers’ litigation strategies in discrimination cases. In Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the court...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

New Year, Same Analysis – The Eleventh Circuit Reiterates Proper Standard for Evaluating Employment Discrimination Claims

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used to evaluate employment discrimination claims may not be permanently cast aside, but a recent decision reminds us that it is not the only means through which employees can...more

Littler

Eleventh Circuit: McDonnell Douglas Is Not Be-All and End-All for Title VII Discrimination Claims

Littler on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more

Burr & Forman

11th Circuit Clarifies “Similarly Situated” Standard for Discrimination Claims

Burr & Forman on

On March 21, 2019, a 9-3 en banc majority announced that a plaintiff proceeding under the McDonnell Douglas framework must demonstrate as a part of her prima facie case that she and her comparators are “similarly situated in...more

FordHarrison

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Standard for Identifying Comparators in Title VII and ADA Discrimination Cases

FordHarrison on

On March 21, 2019, in Lewis v. Union City, No. 15-11362, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1) clarified the proper standard for the comparator analysis in intentional discrimination cases under the McDonnell...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Predictions And Practical Tips From EEOC Leadership

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Some of our attorneys attended an update meeting with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Miami leadership on June 16, 2017. Mike Farrell is the EEOC Miami District Director, and Bob Weisberg is the EEOC...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Un-Mixing The Mixed-Motive Standard

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis. The Eleventh Circuit clarifies the framework in mixed-motive cases. Although damages are limited, a plaintiff can establish a mixed-motive claim by showing a protected characteristic was a motivating factor...more

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

Second Circuit Refines Title VII Pleading Standard

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently remanded a former employee’s racial discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Littlejohn v. City of New York, No. 14-1395 (August 3, 2015),...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

Second Circuit Clarifies Pleading Standard for Title VII Claims

A Second Circuit panel recently revived a former employee’s racial discrimination suit against New York City, reversing in part the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of her case. In Littlejohn v. City of New York,...more

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

Retaliation in the Fourth Circuit: Recent Decision Creates New Challenges for Employers

In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued an opinion with negative consequences for employers...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

The Fourth Circuit Asks What For, Answers with But For: The Determination that a Landmark United States Supreme Court Decision...

In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that plaintiffs claiming retaliation under Title VII must prove that “but for” the retaliation they would not have been discharged. University of Texas Southwestern Medical...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Fourth Circuit Affirms Continued Validity of McDonnell-Douglas Test Following Supreme Court Decision

In Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, the Fourth Circuit recently made clear that the McDonnell-Douglas test is alive and well, rejecting a District Court’s decision which had attempted to back away from the...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

SuperVision Today - May 2015

In This Issue: - Notes from the Chair and Executive Editor - The Fourth Circuit Asks What For, Answers with But For: The Determination that a Landmark United States Supreme Court Decision Does Not Change Employment...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fourth Circuit Adopts Lower Burden for Plaintiffs to Survive Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claims

In its 2013 Nassar decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs who allege workplace retaliation under Title VII and related statutes must demonstrate that the retaliatory animus is a “but for” cause of the...more

14 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