News & Analysis as of

Title VII Retaliation Appeals

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 -
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Get with the Pronoun: Eleventh Circuit Rules Pervasive Misgendering Is Harassment

If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

Broadway Ruling Puts Discrimination Claims In The Limelight

Proskauer Rose LLP on

Does the First Amendment right to free speech permit an employer to hire or fire an employee based on race? On its face, the proposition may seem absurd, especially as we approach the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act...more

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

Eleventh Circuit Finds That Postal Worker’s Failure to Amend EEOC Charge Spells End to Discrimination Suit

​​​​​​​On October 3, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Ellison v. Postmaster General, United States Postal Service that a plaintiff bringing a claim for retaliation failed to exhaust...more

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

Fifth Circuit Relied on ‘Next to No Evidence’ of Animus in Discrimination Suit

On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, finding that a fired employee had failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext. In Owens...more

Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers,...

Multiple Avenues Exist for Proving Same-Sex Harassment Claims

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over federal district courts in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, recently joined several other circuit courts in determining that plaintiffs who allege same-sex...more

Miller Canfield

6th Circuit Clarifies Opposition Clause of Title VII - Performance of Regular Job Duties as Protected Activity

Miller Canfield on

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against employees because they either oppose discriminatory actions (the "Opposition Clause") or because of their participation in an investigation, proceeding, or...more

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

Texas Fifth District Court of Appeals: Texas Law Prohibits Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Tarrant County College District v. Sims, No. 05-20-00351 (March 10, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas held that “claim[s] of discrimination based on sexual orientation may be brought under the...more

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

Texas Discrimination Laws Protect Intention to Become Pregnant, State Court Rules

The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex. The state law defines “sex discrimination” to include “discrimination because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth,...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fourth Circuit Says Law Firm Equity Partner Is Not an Employee for Title VII Purposes

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on a range of protected classifications. However, Title VII only applies to employment relationships and cannot be used by contractors,...more

ArentFox Schiff

Investigations Newsletter: First Circuit Upholds Whistleblower Retaliation Verdict (hold for Monet)

ArentFox Schiff on

False Claims Act Legal Developments - First Circuit Upholds Whistleblower Retaliation Verdict - On December 9, 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held as a matter of first impression that “the...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fifth Circuit Says Third Party Cannot Sue for Retaliation Under Title VII

In its 2011 North American Stainless decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that an engaged man could sue for retaliation under Title VII after he was fired around the time his fiancée filed a discrimination claim against...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Retaliation Claim Because HR Manager's Conduct was "Unreasonable" and Not Protected Under Title VII

In Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., the Eleventh Circuit examined Title VII's opposition clause and the extent to which "oppositional conduct" can be considered so unreasonable that it loses Title VII protection. In this...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

5th Circuit Says No, Employer Not Liable for Religious Discrimination, Retaliation, or First Amendment Violations in Employee...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court...more

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

Eleventh Circuit Holds Alleged ‘Unsavory and Unpleasant’ Behavior Not Legally ‘Pervasive’ for Purposes of Title VII Harassment...

In Allen v. Ambu-Stat, LLC, No. 18-10640 (January 16, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a Georgia district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s sexual harassment claim and delivered a...more

ArentFox Schiff

Second Circuit Holds Evidence of Equal Work for Unequal Pay Not Required for Title VII Compensation Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

The Second Circuit has held that employees who allege they were underpaid on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are not required to first establish an Equal Pay Act claim but rather...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Employment Flash - December 2019

This edition of Employment Flash looks at recent NLRB activity, including its issuance of a decision suggesting two members would be willing to reconsider a precedent regarding surveillance of employees’ union activity. We...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: June 2019

Payne & Fears on

This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more

Pullman & Comley - Labor, Employment and...

Employers: Don't Overlook Your Title VII Defenses!

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Invalidating Long-Standing Fourth Circuit Precedent, U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Title VII’s Charge Filing Requirement is...

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court: Title VII’s Requirements Not Jurisdictional

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more

Jones Day

SCOTUS: Filing Requirement is Not Jurisdictional

Jones Day on

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation

Use It or Lose It: SCOTUS holds that EEOC Charge-Filing Requirement Is Forfeited If Not Timely Asserted

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more

Bracewell LLP

Timely Use It, or Lose It: Recent Supreme Court Case Provides Reminders for Employers, but Employees Still Need to File a Charge...

Bracewell LLP on

In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Waiver Warning: SCOTUS Determines Title VII Failure to Exhaust Defense Can be Waived

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States - Fort Bend County v. Davis - has sparked conversations about whether a current or former employee must file a complaint with the EEOC before suing an employer for...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Says Plaintiff Can Sue For Discrimination Without Filing EEOC Charge

On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more

101 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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