Title VII Sexual Harassment

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 -
News & Analysis as of

No More Mad Men: The OFCCP Leaves its Bell Bottoms Behind and Moves into the 21st Century

Not since the 1970s has the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) amended its Sex Discrimination Guidelines for federal contractors. With the newly issued final rule effective...more

OFCCP Issues Final Regulations on Sex Discrimination for Government Contractors

On June 15, 2016, the U.S. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) published a final rule detailing the obligations of federal contractors to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex, and to take...more

The EEOC Special Task Force Issues Its Report on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace and Finds that “We Have Come Far But...

The EEOC Special Task Force (“Task Force”) has spent the last 18 months examining the myriad and complex issues associated with harassment in the workplace. Thirty years after the U.S. Supreme Court held in the landmark case...more

OFCCP Issues Revised Sex Discrimination Rules

On Tuesday, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) finalized revisions to its sex discrimination rules, bringing them in line with current Title VII jurisprudence. The current rules...more

Courts Consider New Definition Of “Sex” Discrimination – What It Means For Pennsylvania Employers

Can employees in Western Pennsylvania sue their employer for sexual orientation discrimination under federal law? Right now, the answer is no – but that may be changing soon. In a landmark case called EEOC v. Scott...more

OFCCP Issues New Sex Discrimination Rule

On June 14, 2016, the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published its final rule establishing requirements that federal contractors and subcontractors must meet under...more

OFCCP Updates Sex Discrimination Guidelines for Federal Contractors

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a final rule yesterday, enforcing Executive Order 11246 and updating its sex discrimination guidelines for federal contractors. Prior to yesterday’s issuance, the...more

New Sex Discrimination Regs Published

Today the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs published its final rule to update its Sex Discrimination Guidelines, expressing its intent to bring the outdated 1970 guidance in line with...more

Sexual Harassment Training Revisited

In 1980, the EEOC first recognized sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court agreed in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. Courts and anti-discrimination...more

Supreme Court Allows Employer to Collect Fees From the EEOC Without Verdict on Merits of Claim

Title VII allows federal courts to award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in discrimination suits. While plaintiffs typically receive their fees if they win a discrimination or retaliation claim, defendants can also...more

The EEOC Calls for Federal Judge to Continue with Sexual Orientation Discrimination Case

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asked U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Bissoon in the Western District of Pennsylvania to reject a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit alleging a worker was discriminated against...more

Supreme Court Tells EEOC It May Be on the Hook for Fees if It Does Not Fulfill Its Statutory Pre-Suit Duties

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to a party who prevails in a discrimination or retaliation claim brought under that statute. Although this fee shifting provision...more

Supreme Court Update: Green V. Brennan (14-613), Wittman V. Personhuballah (14-1504) And Foster V. Chapman (14-8349)

Three more decisions this morning—Green v. Brennan (14-613), holding that the 45-day limitations period for a constructive-discharge action under Title VII begins to run after the employee gives notice of his resignation;...more

SCOTUS Dodges EEOC Fee-Shifting

This morning, the Supreme Court dodged the final resolution of an issue we have all been dying to have resolved, but threw a nice bone to employers in the process. CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC The case started when the...more

The Supreme Court - May 2016 #3

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases on May 19, 2016: CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a suit in its own name...more

Supreme Court Leaves Massive Attorney's Fee Award Against EEOC Unresolved

But Decision Could Still Be Helpful For Employers - Today, in a unanimous 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a definitive ruling on whether an employer is entitled to recover nearly $5 million dollars...more

Supreme Court Holds a Party May be Entitled to Attorneys' Fees Absent a Favorable Ruling on the Merits

On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in CRST, Inc. v. EEOC, which addressed the definition of a “prevailing party” who may be awarded attorneys’ fees in Title VII cases. Although the Court ultimately...more

An Open Love Letter to Justice Clarence Thomas

I admit it. I have a crush on Justice Thomas. Today’s unanimous Supreme Court opinion in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC – holding that a merit-based dismissal is not necessary for a defendant to qualify as the “prevailing...more

Supreme Court Decides RST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC

On May 19, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided RST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375, holding that a defendant may be a prevailing party—and therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under...more

Achiote Restaurant To Pay $27,500 To Settle EEOC Male-On-Male Sexual Harassment / Retaliation Suit

Several Young Mexican-American Males Secretly Videotaped in Men's Room, Federal Agency Charged - SAN DIEGO - A San Ysidro, Calif., restaurant will pay $27,500 and furnish remedial relief to settle a male-on-male class...more

Are Your HR Investigation Notes Protected Against Disclosure? Maybe, Maybe Not.

Just last month, two federal district courts reached different conclusions, further contributing to the confusion as to whether notes taken during a Human Resources department investigation of a discrimination or harassment...more

Fifth Circuit Rejects EEOC's Position on Reasonable Belief Standard for Reactive Retaliation Claims

In 2009’s Crawford decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who participates in an employer’s harassment or discrimination investigation as a third-party witness, falls within federal anti-retaliation...more

Truckin’ To The Top Court: CRST Files Final Reply Brief Before Supreme Court Argument Against EEOC

In high-stakes litigation brought by the EEOC against trucking company CRST Van Expedited, Inc., (“CRST”), CRST recently submitted its final reply brief before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in the case later this...more

ABC Phones of North Carolina Sued by EEOC for Same-Sex Harassment

Female Sales Consultant Was Subjected to Unwelcome Sexual Comments and Groping by Female Co-Worker, Federal Agency Charges - WILMINGTON, N.C. - ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. dba A Wireless, a Greenville, N.C.,...more

Repeated Touching Enough to Justify Same-Sex Harassment Verdict

Plaintiffs seeking compensation for sexual harassment must demonstrate that they were subjected to a hostile and offensive working environment. Plaintiffs in same-sex harassment claims have the additional burden of proving...more

158 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×