In a decision issued on June 1 [pdf], the U.S. Supreme Court held that a job applicant alleging disparate treatment by a hiring employer only must show “that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision,” and not that the employer had actual knowledge of the applicant’s need for a … Continue Reading
Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the case of a Muslim teenager, Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job a retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co. because she wore a headscarf. Abercrombie has faced a number of lawsuits in recent years stemming from the clash between the retailer’s “Look Policy” and the religious practices … Continue Reading
A prevailing employee in an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may recover damages for unlawful discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of, among other things, sex or gender. In 2011, an Arizona federal jury found that an employee had been subjected to “reprehensible” sexual harassment on … Continue Reading
On June 24, the Supreme Court issued two significant, employer-friendly decisions which effectively raised the bar for employees pursing retaliation and harassment claims under Title VII. University of Texas Southern Medical Center v. Nassar In a sharply divided 5-4 ruling, the Court held in University of Texas Southern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 that … Continue Reading
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been concerned for quite a while about the disparate impact that the criminal background checks many employers run on applicants and employees may have a disparate impact on the basis of race and national origin. Specifically, the EEOC has been convinced since at least the 1980s that the … Continue Reading
Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on their protected class which includes religion. As such, employers are required to accommodate an employee’s religious observances as long as such accommodation does not cause an undue hardship for the employer. In determining undue hardship, the United States Supreme Court has found [pdf] that accommodations requiring more than … Continue Reading
Late in January 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case, Brush v. Sears Holding Corporation, involving an employee who alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for criticizing her employer’s treatment of another employee’s sexual harassment claim. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision [pdf] stands. The Court of Appeals found that complaining … Continue Reading
In recent years, courts and administrative agencies have broadened the Title VII protections against discrimination based on sex using the Price Waterhouse theory of gender non-conformity. For example, as previously reported here, the EEOC used this rationale to recognize a cause of action for transgender discrimination under a theory of sex stereotyping and gender non-conformity. … Continue Reading
A panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently required the City of Memphis (“City”) to immediately promote twenty-eight African American police officers to the rank of lieutenant. Thirty-five African-American patrol officers filed suit alleging, in relevant part, that a sergeant’s exam had a disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act … Continue Reading
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. In a case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed that a volunteer may constitute an “employee” under Title VII. Expressly rejecting the Second Circuit’s two-step … Continue Reading
