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... 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.
Firing of Dental Assistant for Being “Irresistible” Ruled Legal by Iowa Supreme Court
Is Veganism a Religion? It May Well Be for Employers and Their Employees
River Point Farms Supervisor Reinforced Domestic Abuse, Federal Agency Charged - PENDLETON - A Hermiston, Ore., farm which calls itself America's largest onion grower will pay $150,000 to a female worker and provide...more
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A jury has rendered a verdict of more than $1.5 million in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against New Breed Logistics, a North ...more
Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which addresses the causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII. The Supreme Court has already held...more
Under Title VII, in “mixed motive” discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an employer may limit Plaintiff’s recovery where it can show that it would have...more
Florida Travel Agency Subjected Women to Verbal and Physical Abuse and Disrespect, Manager Fired for Complaining, Federal Agency Charged - TAMPA, Fla. - A federal jury has returned a unanimous verdict awarding a total...more
For the first time, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance this week in the form of a “Dear Colleague Letter” that specifically addresses retaliation. Like complaints filed with the...more
Federal Agency Charges Staffing Company Stopped Giving Work to Employee Because He Filed EEOC Charge - ATLANTA - Hire Dynamics, LLC, a major staffing and professional recruitment company headquartered in Duluth, Ga.,...more
On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g))...more
Court Found Holmes & Holmes' Work Environment Was Hostile to Blacks - SALT LAKE CITY - Utah construction company Holmes & Holmes Industrial, Inc. will pay three former employees $230,000 and improve its future...more
Company Fired Pregnant Worker & Her Husband for Reporting Discrimination - LAS VEGAS-Engineering Documentation Systems, Inc. (EDSI) agreed to pay $70,000 and to implement anti-discrimination measures to settle a ...more
Developmentally Disabled Walmart Employee in Akron Store Fired for Complaining About Sexual Touching, Federal Agency Charges - CLEVELAND - Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. violated federal law by allowing a male employee...more
Health Care Clothing Manufacturer Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy, Federal Agency Charged - OXFORD, Miss. Landau Uniforms, Inc., a Mississippi-based company that manufactures and distributes medical scrubs and other...more
In This Issue: - U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Causation Factor in Retaliation Claims - Student Sues University Over the Right to Keep a Guinea Pig in a College Dorm for Emotional Support - Delaware...more
Manager Fired for Disciplining Accused Harasser, Federal Agency Charges - BIRMINGHAM, Ala. Winfield Rubber Manufacturing Co., Inc. violated federal law when it retaliated against one of its managers for firing an...more
Federal Agency Charged Restaurant Fired Employee for Complaining About Customer Harassment - TAMPA, Fla. - East Coast Waffles, Inc., an Atlanta-based company which owns and operates more than 100 Waffle House...more
Company Refused to Hire Black Applicants, Federal Agency Charged - MIAMI - A Miami transportation company violated federal law by subjecting African-Americans to race discrimination, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, +2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (2013), the California Supreme Court considered a mixed motive discrimination case in which an employer had both lawful and unlawful reasons for terminating an employee....more
BASF has agreed to pay $500,000 to settle claims that workers were forced to sign illegal last chance agreements (LCAs). The multinational chemical corporation settled a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In a January 23, 2013 decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma continued a recent trend in Oklahoma cases enforcing arbitration clauses included in employment agreements or relationships....more
Federal Agency Says South Loop Club Allowed Harassment of Female Employees - CHICAGO - South Loop Club, a Chicago bar and grill located at 701 S. State St., will pay $100,000 under a consent decree entered today to ...more
Employees Were Forced to Sacrifice Their Civil Rights or Their Jobs, Agency Charged - URBANA, Ill. - BASF Corporation will pay $500,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity...more
The Second Circuit has recently reiterated its hesitancy to permit summary judgment in hostile work environment claims that present ambiguities as to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s case. In Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l...more
On January 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court was petitioned to rule on whether employees must file a new or amended charge to pursue an employment retaliation claim arising from an initial Title VII discrimination charge....more
“But-for” or “mixed motive” is a causation question not unknown to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), a plurality held that the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII only...more
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an intriguing case regarding whether an employer can be held liable even if it has a legitimate reason for making an adverse employment decision. The Court announced on January 18 that it...more
JD Supra gets your content noticed, increases your visibility and makes your marketing efforts hassle free...
Learn More or Schedule a demo