News & Analysis as of

Title VII › Certiorari

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 -
Fisher Phillips

4 Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Be Tracking as New Term Kicks Off

Fisher Phillips on

The Supreme Court just began a new term, and we’re watching several cases that will likely have a big impact on the workplace. Specifically, the Court will weigh in on whether someone can “test” violations of federal...more

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

Employers Within the Fifth Circuit Are Now Open to More Claims Under Title VII with the Abandonment of the Previous Title VII...

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC on

The Fifth Circuit no longer limits Title VII claims to “ultimate employment decisions” per the en banc decision in Hamilton v. Dallas County. In Hamilton, a group of female officers alleged that the Dallas County...more

Jenner & Block

Client Alert: The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: How the Case Could Bolster Attacks Against...

Jenner & Block on

On June 30, 2023, just one day after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases striking down race-conscious college admissions programs, the Court agreed to hear a case next Term that...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Whether Lateral Transfer Is Basis for Discrimination Claim

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

In addition to releasing several major decisions, the end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s annual term included the justices agreeing to hear the appeal of a case with important implications for employers. The case involves the...more

Perkins Coie

The Supreme Court Decision Heightens Undue Hardship Standard Applicable to Workplace Religious Accommodations

Perkins Coie on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Groff v. DeJoy (opinion here) on June 29, 2023, holding that Title VII requires an employer denying a religious accommodation to show that granting the...more

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

SCOTUS to Take Another Look at Religious Accommodations

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C. on

Employment litigators and Constitutional Law attorneys alike should pay close attention to the United States Supreme Court’s calendar, as the Court recently agreed to take up a case that has the potential to change the way...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court to Reconsider Test for Workplace Religious Accommodations

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review of a case that may have significant repercussions for employers faced with religious accommodation requests. The case was brought by Gerald Groff, who sued the U.S. Postal...more

BakerHostetler

2020 Supreme Court Update

BakerHostetler on

The U.S. Supreme Court’s October term started earlier this month, and promises to be an unprecedented session. How is the Court responding to the pandemic and adapting to a virtual environment? Which cases should you be...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

The Not So Curious Case Of The Published Denial Of Rehearing

Fox Rothschild LLP on

A few years ago I wrote about The Curious Cases(s) of the Published Denial of Rehearing. In that post, which focused on two published denials of rehearing from the Fourth Circuit in the span of a week, from the I noted a...more

Porter Hedges LLP

Employment Alert: "U.S. Supreme Court Ruling In Favor Of LGBTQ+ Workers Has Direct Implications For Workplace Guidelines And...

Porter Hedges LLP on

On Monday, June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision for Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that an employer who fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender violates...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 15, 2020

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following opinions: Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623; R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal...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

McAfee & Taft

Because of . . . sex

McAfee & Taft on

On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether existing federal law prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or transgender status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more

Snell & Wilmer

Fort Bend County v. Davis: SCOTUS Bends Employers' Defense to Title VII Claims, But Doesn't Break It

Snell & Wilmer on

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") unanimously held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that federal courts may be able to hear claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title...more

Williams Mullen

Failure to File EEOC Charge Does Not Automatically Bar Title VII Claims, Supreme Court Says

Williams Mullen on

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

SCOTUS rules exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional – Does it matter?

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more

Bricker Graydon LLP

U.S. Supreme Court limits employer defense to federal discrimination claims

Bricker Graydon LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Timely Raise Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Title VII Claims or Risk Forfeiting...

Ballard Spahr LLP on

On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more

Littler

Supreme Court Holds EEOC Charge-Filing Requirement is Not Jurisdictional

Littler on

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a...more

Benesch

Scotus Makes Defending Job Bias Claims More Difficult for Employers

Benesch on

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that employers in discrimination claims can waive their right to assert that the Plaintiff failed to...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

What the United States Supreme Court Holding on EEOC Charges Really Means

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, written by Justice Ginsberg, that filing an EEOC Charge is not “jurisdictional.”  Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (June 3, 2019)....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 3, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions this morning: Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17-1484: Congress has passed a law specific to Medicare, requiring that the government provide the public with...more

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

Supreme Court Rules Title VII’s Requirement to File a Charge With the EEOC Is Not Jurisdictional

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

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the precondition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring employees to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)...more

Burr & Forman

U.S. Supreme Court Weakens Employer’s Procedural Defense Against Bias Suits

Burr & Forman on

On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts can hear Title VII discrimination claims even if employees fail to first file with an administrative agency, such as the Equal Employment...more

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace

SCOTUS to Decide Whether Title VII Protects Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Proskauer - Law and the Workplace on

On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases that raise the question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In two of the cases,...more

40 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