Simon Property Group is at it again. Two years ago, Simon took the shopping center world by storm when it obtained an injunction preventing Starbucks Corporation from shuttering 77 of its Teavana stores in Simon malls across...more
“Off the clock” work may prove costly, as retailers face a flood of putative class actions based on claims that employees were not compensated for required work duties. Recently, the parties in Samantha Jones v....more
We all know now that the federal corporate tax rate for many retailers is dropping this year from an industry effective average rate of 32.9% to 21%, as a result of changes implemented by the so-called “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”...more
The CFPB made waves yesterday by adopting a rule that would prohibit financial firms from forcing customers to arbitrate their disputes over bank and credit card accounts (and by allowing class actions on those same issues)....more
You’ll remember Snap’s highly anticipated March IPO as a splashy affair, with a valuation in the $30+ billion range and a relatively consistent stock price. Well, reality hit hard yesterday, as Snap announced a $2.2 billion...more
The effects of the California Supreme Court’s latest interpretation to provide seating to workers are beginning to show, as the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently approved a $700,000...more
Until now, job application and interview questions that reveal applicants’ protected characteristics have been strongly discouraged. In an economy where dozens of people apply for a vacant job posting, knowing too much about...more
On September 11, 2015, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (Abercrombie) and Hollister Co. (Hollister) agreed to settle a class action complaint alleging that the two clothing retailers violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act...more
Earlier this year in its Abercrombie decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an employee suing for religious discrimination did not have to demonstrate actual knowledge of an employee’s religious practices to trigger...more
Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch committed religious discrimination by refusing to hire an applicant (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, read Alert here). The company believed...more
Most employers know that Title VII prohibits discrimination against applicants or employees based on religion. They also know that Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable, religion-based accommodations to employees...more
Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf when she interviewed for a job with Abercrombie & Fitch. Although the headscarf was not discussed during the interview, the store allegedly decided not to offer Elauf a...more
The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle...more
Your author joined the ranks of the bearded in January after six years of daily shaving for the Air Force, skillfully concealing his newfound hirsuteness (look it up) amid the current popularity in facial hair (see: Special...more
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court today dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch's appeal of EEOC's religious discrimination case against the company, the federal agency announced today. This represents the final resolution of EEOC...more
The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the EEOC’s lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., alleging that Abercrombie violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire a Muslim applicant, who wore a...more
During the United States Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term, the Court departed from the pro-business reputation it had developed in labor and employment cases. This term, employees prevailed more often than not, including in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court just issued its much-awaited religious discrimination decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 575 U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015) (No. 14-86). Samantha Elauf applied for a job with A&F and was denied the job...more
Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to avoid accommodating a suspected, but unconfirmed religious practice, according to a recent United States Supreme Court...more
Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation - Federal anti-discrimination laws (“Title VII”) prohibit an employer from refusing to hire a candidate to...more
It’s hot outside, and that got us thinking about dress codes. Over the past two weeks, the media has been fascinated with employer dress codes – from Walmart allowing denim to Mayo nixing pantyhose to Abercrombie’s “look...more
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores in which it held that a job applicant can experience religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employers from, among other things, refusing to hire an applicant because of his or her religion or religious practice. As a general rule, employers must...more
In a case Justice Antonin Scalia described as “really easy,” the Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice even if the employer lacks actual knowledge of a need for an...more
Religious institutions commonly make payments to or receive payments directly or indirectly from governmental agencies for services rendered; e.g., day cares that benefit from public scholarships, hospitals that participate...more