News & Analysis as of

Job Applicants Disparate Treatment

Mitratech Holdings, Inc

[Webinar] How to Spot Hidden Discrimination in Recruiting - May 4th, 9:00 am PT

Most employers strive for a recruitment process that is free of discrimination, both for legal purposes and because it’s the right thing to do. But confirming your process provides equal employment opportunity isn’t always...more

DCI Consulting

[Webinar] Expert Summit for Employment Attorneys: Utilizing Regression Analyses in Pay and Hiring Matters - February 7th, 2:00 pm...

DCI Consulting on

Regression is a statistical technique that can be utilized in the analysis of employment outcomes. In particular, regression has become a widely applied tool to examine pay equity and can be used to evaluate race and gender...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

New Bill Prohibits Age Discrimination Against Job Applicants — Wait, Isn’t that Already Unlawful?

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

If you noticed headlines last week that the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation prohibiting employer from discriminating against job applicants because of their age, you might have wondered: does that mean it’s...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Federal Appeals Court Rules Plaintiffs Must Use More Than National Criminal Statistics to Prove Racial Discrimination

According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, Black men in the U.S. are more likely to be arrested and have criminal convictions on their records than their white counterparts. Last week, a split Second Circuit Court of...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

Age Discrimination Claims Limited for Job Applicants

A second federal appellate circuit has ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the ADEA) does not apply to job applicants’ claims that a policy or practice has a disparate impact on older individuals. ...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Deep Impact – 7th Circuit Holds that Disparate Impact Claims for Job Applicants Not Covered by ADEA

You might have seen all the buzz about the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation holding that job applicants were not covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Does that mean...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Seventh Circuit Says ADEA Does Not Apply to Applicants' Disparate Impact Claims

Plaintiffs can bring employment discrimination claims under federal civil rights laws using one of two theories. Disparate treatment claims require the plaintiff to produce evidence of intent to discriminate due to a...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

Job Applicants Have Disparate Impact Claim Based On Age, Court Says

An important victory for age plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled last week that an outside job applicant can assert a "disparate impact" claim under the federal Age Discrimination in...more

Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.

Will South Carolina Ban the Box?

In prior posts, we have noted that HR professionals should acknowledge the tension between making hiring decisions based on an applicant’s criminal history and avoiding Title VII liability, if refusing to hire certain...more

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

Eleventh Circuit Overturns Decades of Precedent in Holding that Job Applicants Cannot Claim Disparate Impact Under the ADEA

Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling that affects whether job applicants may bring disparate impact claims in discrimination lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Can A Job Applicant File A Disparate Impact ADEA Claim? No—According to the Eleventh Circuit

Is there such a thing as a disparate impact age claim? The Eleventh circuit last week says not for people applying for a job. On October 5, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion shutting down claims...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Eleventh Circuit Declines EEOC’s Invitation To Expand Race To Include Personal Expression Or Cultural Characteristics

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: After a black woman’s employment offer was rescinded because she refused to cut off her dreadlocks in violation of a company grooming policy, the EEOC sued under Title VII for discrimination on the basis...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

School of Hard (Dread) Locks: EEOC Loses Appeal Over Hairstyle Ban

Last week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a case the EEOC filed over a job applicant’s short dreadlocks. In 2010, Chastity Jones, an African American, applied for a position with...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Employer’s Motive, Not Confirmed Knowledge Of Accommodation Need, Is Basis Of Religious Accommodation Violation

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

Poyner Spruill LLP

Supreme Court Agrees With EEOC In Regard To Religious Accommodation

Poyner Spruill LLP on

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

McGuireWoods LLP

Supreme Court Holds Employers Must Make Religious Accommodations Even Without Actual Knowledge of Need for Accommodation

McGuireWoods LLP on

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

Stoel Rives LLP

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: It’s All About the Motive

Stoel Rives LLP on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Supreme Court Sides with EEOC in Abercrombie & Fitch Hijab Case

On Monday, June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit which had granted Abercrombie & Fitch (“Abercrombie”) summary judgment in a religious...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Employment Law Reporter – June 2015

Abercrombie & Fitch’s “Look Policy” Needs A Makeover After The Supreme Court Looked At It - The Abercrombie & Fitch clothing company is famous for their scantily clad models with six-packs and very little actual clothing...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court: Motive Matters in Hiring Decisions

Last week, in EEOC. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The background of the case dates to 2008. A young woman...more

BakerHostetler

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: When Religion and Fashion Collide

BakerHostetler on

On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled in favor of a 17-year-old practicing Muslim, Samantha Elauf, who applied for a job at retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, but was denied employment because the...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Supreme Court Abercrombie & Fitch Ruling: It’s the Motive that Matters

As most lawyers and HR professionals know, on June 1, 2015, Justice Antonin Scalia authored a concise opinion, overturning the Tenth Circuit and holding that Abercrombie & Fitch had intentionally discriminated against...more

FordHarrison

Supreme Court Finds Employer's Lack of "Actual Knowledge" of Need for Accommodation No Defense to Religious Discrimination Claim

FordHarrison on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an employer cannot escape liability for religious discrimination under Title VII by arguing that it did not have actual knowledge of an individual's need for a religious...more

Baker Donelson

Religious Protection or Religious Preference? – Supreme Court Rules in Abercrombie Headscarf Case

Baker Donelson on

On Monday, June 1, the Supreme Court decided a religious discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch and the EEOC. The Court held that "[a]n employee may not make an applicant's religious practice, confirmed or...more

Littler

What Matters is Motive: Religious Accommodation Need as a "Motivating Factor" in Employment Decisions

Littler on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. resulted in an expected outcome but provided an unexpectedly small amount of practical guidance for employers. ...more

30 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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