News & Analysis as of

Hiring & Firing › Discrimination › Supreme Court of the United States

Hiring & Firing refers to the process of recruiting, interviewing and offering employment and the process of evaluating performance and dismissing employees. Hiring & Firing is a highly regulated area and... more +
Hiring & Firing refers to the process of recruiting, interviewing and offering employment and the process of evaluating performance and dismissing employees. Hiring & Firing is a highly regulated area and can create tremendous liability for employers who fail to properly adhere to acceptable employment practices. Some of the potential pitfalls in this area stem from discriminatory hiring practices, improper performance evaluations, and retaliatory firings.  less -
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Employment Claims

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employees alleging employment discrimination to show they suffered an adverse employment action as a result of their membership in a protected class....more

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

Employers Beware: Title VII Now Allows Employees to More Easily Challenge Your Decision to Transfer or Reassign Them

Conn Maciel Carey LLP on

On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, a case involving a St. Louis Police Department officer’s claim that she was subject to a discriminatory job...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No More Adjectives… Just Some Harm: Supreme Rules on Title VII Job Transfer Threshold

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If you transfer an employee to a job with no loss in pay or title but the employee thinks it is less desirable, can that employee sue you for discrimination under Title VII? While it depends on the facts, in Muldrow v. St....more

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

Groff v. DeJoy and Its Impact on Religious Accommodation

Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees and applicants on the basis of religion (as well as race, color, sex, and national origin), and it...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Seventh Circuit Takes On Religious Discrimination

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer in a religious discrimination case involving a teacher who refused to call transgender students by their chosen names....more

Morgan Lewis

Biden Administration Issues Order on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Morgan Lewis on

As one of his first actions in office, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order ensuring that last year’s US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is applied immediately and efficiently by all federal...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - July 2018

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

Supreme Court Bars Mandatory Union Dues For Public Employees - Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___, 2018 WL 3129785 (2018) - In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of...more

Fisher Phillips

June 2017: The Top 15 Labor And Employment Law Stories

Fisher Phillips on

It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While it always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, the last few months have seen an unprecedented number of changes. June 2017 was no different, with...more

FordHarrison

Second and Eleventh Circuits Rule They are Bound by Prior Precedent that Title VII Does Not Prohibit Sexual Orientation...

FordHarrison on

As these authors have previously reported, several cases analyzing whether sexual orientation is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been winding their way through the courts. ...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - April, 2017

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in two cases today: McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248: Damiana Ochoa filed a discrimination charge against petitioner McLane Co. when she was terminated after...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

More Mach Mining: Court Denies The EEOC’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Discovery Order

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: In the remand of the high profile Mach Mining litigation that was before the Supreme Court in 2015, a district court denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration of a discovery order pertaining to the scope...more

Baker Donelson

SCOTUS to Decide Filing Period for Constructive Discharge Claims

Baker Donelson on

In its October 2015 term, the Supreme Court of the United States will settle a circuit split on the filing period for a constructive discharge claim. On April 27, 2015, the Supreme Court granted a petition for review of Green...more

Fisher Phillips

What Should Employers Expect During The New Supreme Court Term?

Fisher Phillips on

The first Monday in October is the traditional first day of a new U.S. Supreme Court term.  As always, the 2015-16 term will have several cases that are of particular interest to the nation’s employers.  Here is a review of...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Blacklisting for Past Labor Violations -- Executive Order 13673

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Officially known as “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces,” Executive Order 13673 now consists of proposed guidance from the Department of Labor (DOL) and proposed regulations from the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR). It...more

Zelle LLP

That is SO last week - August 2015

Zelle LLP on

Last week, the world mourned Cecil the Lion, and all eyes were on the Minnesota dentist who killed him. The scrutiny of the dentist unearthed, among other things, a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him by a former...more

Zelle LLP

That is SO last week - June 2015 #3

Zelle LLP on

Last week's historic U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage dominated the news across the country. Among its many effects, this ruling means that human resources departments will be busy revising Family and...more

Mintz - Employment, Labor & Benefits...

Supreme Court Holds That Employers Do Not Need Actual Knowledge of an Applicant’s Need for a Religious Accommodation Before They...

Mintz - Employment, Labor & Benefits... on

The Supreme Court recently held that job applicants may hold their potential employer liable for intentional discrimination under Title VII if the applicant can show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

BEWARE OF DOG(MA): Did The Supreme Court Just Require Employers to Accommodate Whenever A Request *Might* Be Due to Religion?

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its long awaited decision in the "Looks Policy" case, and it's not terribly unexpected, but is a little scary considering the potential far reaching effects going forward. ...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Decides Employers Must Make Religious Accommodations Regardless of Knowledge of Need for Accommodation

Foley Hoag LLP on

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., that an employer violates federal anti-discrimination law where an applicant’s need for a religious...more

Cozen O'Connor

Supreme Court Clarifies Religious Accommodation Requirements in Hijab Case, but May Create New Problems for Unwary Employers

Cozen O'Connor on

In a decision that came as no major surprise to Supreme Court watchers, on June 1, 2015, the Court ruled 8-1 in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch that Abercrombie & Fitch violated the civil rights of a Muslim job applicant when it...more

Miller & Martin PLLC

U.S. Supreme Court Case EEOC v. Abercrombie Ruling: Employees Must Prove "Motive" Not Mere "Knowledge" in Order to Demonstrate...

Miller & Martin PLLC on

In a closely-watched case arising from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that an applicant or employee need not prove that an employer had...more

JD Supra Perspectives

Less Alarming Than It Sounds: Implications of the Religious Accommodation Decision in 'EEOC v. Abercrombie'

JD Supra Perspectives on

First Glance perspective by attorney Robin Shea of the Supreme Court's recent Religious Accommodation decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie. Spoiler alert: more alarming than it sounds....more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court to Decide When Limitations Period Begins Running for Constructive Discharge Discrimination Claims

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Green v. Donahoe involves a Postal Service worker who alleges that he was forced to choose between retirement and a demotion and transfer to another position. The plaintiff quit several months after being given this choice,...more

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

The Employment Law Authority - March/April 2015

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

In this Issue: - Immigration - State Round-Up - Best Practices - Retaliation - Employment Discrimination - Excerpt from Immigration; Spouses of H-1B visa holders will be eligible for work...more

Pullman & Comley - Labor, Employment and...

A Question To Be Answered By The Supreme Court: Should You Discuss The Obvious At Job Interviews?

Pullman & Comley - Labor, Employment and... on

Sometime next year the United States Supreme Court will decide whether a job interviewer had an obligation to inform an applicant that the interviewer has noticed that the applicant is wearing a headscarf. Put another way, on...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide