News & Analysis as of

Protected Class Supreme Court of the United States

Maynard Nexsen

SCOTUS to Review the “Background Circumstances” Heightened Pleading Standard in Reverse Discrimination Cases

Maynard Nexsen on

On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari,[1] agreeing to hear arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a Sixth Circuit case that seeks to determine whether the...more

Butler Snow LLP

Trump and DEI: What Does a Second Term Mean for Employers?

Butler Snow LLP on

In the flurry of executive orders issued shortly after being sworn for a second term, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders and one presidential action dismantling all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

U.S. Supreme Court to Review Reverse Discrimination Standard

Akerman LLP - HR Defense on

Should an employee’s burden to plead and prove workplace discrimination differ depending upon whether they are considered in a “majority” or “minority” group? The U.S. Supreme Court is now set to decide whether an arguably...more

Stevens & Lee

Supreme Court to Review Reverse Discrimination Employment Case

Stevens & Lee on

Title VII claims alleging employment discrimination are analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework which requires that the employee first show that they are a member of a protected class (race, color, religion, sex,...more

Smith Anderson

Supreme Court Lowers The Bar For Title VII Claims

Smith Anderson on

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court resolved a split among the federal circuit courts over whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must meet a heightened threshold of...more

Benesch

Supreme Court Lowers Plaintiffs’ Burden for Title VII Discriminatory Transfer Claims

Benesch on

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously lowered the burden applicable to discriminatory transfer claims brought under Title VII. According to the Court, a showing of some harm—rather than significant or some...more

BakerHostetler

SCOTUS Holds that Job Transferees Need Only Show ‘Some Harm’ Under Title VII

BakerHostetler on

SCOTUS announces ‘some harm’ standard for Title VII claims based on a mandatory job transfer. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., 601 U.S. ____ (April 17, 2024), held that where an...more

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

Supreme Court Says Wedding Website Designer May Refuse Same-Sex Couples Under First Amendment

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled a wedding website designer who has religious objections to same-sex marriage may legally refuse to design websites for same-sex couples because the First...more

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

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Whether Wedding Website Creator Can Refuse Same-Sex Couples

On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case on whether a wedding website creator may legally refuse to make websites for same-sex couples based on First Amendment grounds....more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Federal Court Blocks HHS Rule on Sexual Orientation

Rivkin Radler LLP on

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has blocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing a new rule that limited sex discrimination in healthcare to discrimination based...more

Fisher Phillips

The Top 5 (Non-COVID-19) Developments In Dealership Employment Law

Fisher Phillips on

You have probably seen a lot of coronavirus news alerts lately, but as a car dealer, you already know that germs are not the only things that can cause headaches. Virus or no virus, the law is still going to change and...more

Rumberger | Kirk

The Circuit Court Showdown: Will SCOTUS Say Yay or Nay Under Title VII to LGBT Workplace Discrimination?

Rumberger | Kirk on

Employers have long known that gender stereotyping is not allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. However, there has been some confusion over whether this prohibition...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

Analysis: Supreme Court Decision on Trump’s Travel Ban

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), that President Trump’s September 2017 Proclamation announcing the travel ban was a lawful exercise of his executive...more

Fisher Phillips

Web Exclusive - April 2018: The Top 19 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 the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there were an unprecedented number of changes all through 2017. And if the first four months...more

Cozen O'Connor

II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018

Cozen O'Connor on

From federal agency changes to anticipated developments in sexual harassment, paid leave, overtime, and marijuana use, this episode of Employment Law Now provides ten issues that employers should resolve to understand in the...more

Cozen O'Connor

I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class

Cozen O'Connor on

This episode discusses kneeling in the NFL/workplace, indefinite leave entitlement, and sufficient consideration for non-competes, provides an update from DC on OT exemptions and class action waivers, and questions whether...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Sessions v. Morales-Santana

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191, in which it held that an exception to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., that provides a benefit to children of...more

Akerman LLP - HR Defense

What’s in a Pronoun? Liability for Employers

Political correctness in the workplace has become increasingly complex. Employers who have referred to transitioning employees with the wrong pronoun have found themselves in the crosshairs of the EEOC. But what about those...more

Carlton Fields

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Disparate-Impact Claims Under Fair Housing Act

Carlton Fields on

In a recent holding, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) may be premised on "disparate impact," meaning that a plaintiff may challenge a practice even if it was not...more

Pullman & Comley, LLC

Not-So-Sudden Impact: Insurers Face A New Breed Of Claim Under the Fair Housing Act (Part 1 of 3)

Pullman & Comley, LLC on

Late in June, in Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities, No. 13–1371 (U.S. June 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ended years of debate by embracing a “disparate impact” claim against a housing authority under the...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court Slams The Brakes On Challenge To Disparate Act

As of now, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits dealers from unintentional, or “disparate impact,” discrimination in setting dealer reserves in auto financing. This disparate impact can result from policies or...more

Miller & Martin PLLC

Is Sexual Orientation Now a Protected Class?

Miller & Martin PLLC on

In our June 26 alert regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, we said we would continue to keep you posted regarding new developments in this area of the law. Some of you may...more

Polsinelli

Disparate Impact Remains Fair Lending Risk To Banks

Polsinelli on

Lenders seeking judicial relief from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s heightened enforcement of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act were left disappointed by the settlement of Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in...more

23 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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