join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 61

Tips for Employers Facing a Charge of Discrimination

When an employer receives a charge of discrimination from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws, it is important that the charge be handled properly. That is because administrative charges are often followed by discrimination lawsuits.

Employee Cannot Bypass Title VII, ADA Regulatory Schemes to Hold Public Employers Personally Liable, Third Circuit Rules

Plaintiff-employees cannot pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) for rights created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia has held in a case of first impression for the Third Circuit. Williams v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, et al., No. 16-4383 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2017). The Court joins seven other circuits to have considered the issue and came to the same conclusion.

Avoiding Claims of Race, Religious, or National Origin Discrimination in the Current Political Climate

Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that the United States has had a new president for about six months: Mr. Donald J. Trump. Many suggest (and I do not take a position on this) that President Trump was catapulted to success by certain attitudes on race, religion, and immigration. An important disclaimer – this is not a blog post about politics (there are plenty of those already). Instead, it is a blog post about how you, an employer, can avoid claims of race, national origin or religious discrimination in this new Trump Era. Because, regardless of how President Trump was elected, the reality is that there are ongoing national conversations about certain attitudes on race, religion and immigration. These conversations may adversely impact your workplace.

Dodging Disparate Impact Claims

There has been significant buzz lately regarding the risk of discrimination in the sharing economy. Not only has the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its intent to prioritize protections in the on-demand economy in its recently published Strategic Enforcement Plan, but sharing economy businesses have faced additional scrutiny surrounding response times to customers of different races.

Mandatory Federal Poster Updates Take Effect Today

Employers must comply with two mandatory federal poster changes, effective today. The US Department of Labor (DOL) has updated its Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) poster and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) poster.

Are Outsourcing Arrangements a New Vehicle for Alleging Employment Discrimination?

Recent events have resulted in greater scrutiny of arrangements involving the outsourcing of certain business functions by U.S. employers, particularly where such arrangements involve foreign workers on visas in the United States. This alert examines a recent discrimination charge filed by the former U.S. employees of the Disney Corporation alleging that their outsourcing activity has resulted in national origin and other forms of discrimination, and a recent Technical Advisory Letter (“TAL”) issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”), the agency charged with enforcing the non-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act in the United States. As explained below, both employers who rely on outsourcing firms, and firms engaged in outsourcing, are increasingly at risk of discrimination claims.

Will Employers Have an Affirmative Defense in EEOC Litigation? A Look at the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Decision

In the coming months, the Supreme Court of the United States will determine the level of judicial review, if any, that will be applied to employers’ pre-litigation negotiations with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in discrimination cases. In Mach Mining, L.L.C. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court will consider language in Title VII requiring the EEOC to “endeavor to eliminate any . . . alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” Specifically, the question is whether—and to what extent—courts may review the EEOC’s efforts to conciliate discrimination claims before the agency files suit against an employer. Employers argue that the EEOC’s failure to conciliate provides them with an affirmative defense to the merits of a discrimination suit.

Upcoming Supreme Court Decision Could Change the EEOC Litigation Landscape for Employers

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether and to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit could significantly change the landscape of EEOC litigation for employers. The court will hear the case during its 2014–2015 term, and its decision has the potential to prevent federal courts from reviewing pre-suit conciliation efforts. This would, in effect, allow the EEOC to proceed unchecked with respect to conciliation. It could also result in less productive conciliation and increased litigation for employers. More importantly, such an outcome would deprive employers of any meaningful recourse in the event that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts are not made in good faith.

Court Dismisses EEOC’s Controversial Severance Agreement Lawsuit

As we reported in February 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued CVS Pharmacy in federal court in Chicago on a novel theory that the company’s standard separation agreement unlawfully deterred departing employees from later filing discrimination charges or participating in EEOC investigations. CVS’s severance agreement contained a common clause that required departing employees to agree they had not and would not sue the company. But the agreement also went on to state that it was not intended to prevent or interfere with an employee’s “right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws” and that the agreement will not “prohibit employees from cooperating with any such agency in its investigation.”

Implicit Bias: A Brave New World

Implicit bias as a concept has been bubbling around the world of employment discrimination for a few years now. Although the fact that Google is seriously studying the issue as it applies to its own workforce may not mean that the concept is now main stream, I do think it means it is an issue that we will be hearing more about.

Title VII at 50: What's New?

This summer marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legislation first introduced by President John F. Kennedy in response to the growing civil rights movement. For employers, the most important component of the act is Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. A number of landmark decisions, legislation, and executive orders have broadened the scope of Title VII and resulted in greater protection for women and minorities in the workplace.

Employee’s failure to apply for position dooms discriminatory hiring claim.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of certain protected characteristics, including gender. In order to support a claim under Title VII, an individual must point to an “adverse employment action” that was taken again him or her because of the protected characteristic.

Separation Agreements Continue to Generate Litigation

It is common for employers to assume that frequently used agreements contain legal boilerplate that needs no review or revision. They are wrong. In yet another case challenging the legality of a separation agreement, the EEOC recently filed suit in federal court in Chicago against national retailer CVS Caremark, alleging that CVS violated Title VII by including in its separation agreement terms that many employers take for granted. The EEOC alleges that the release, cooperation, confidential information and non-disparagement provisions in the company's widely used separation agreement unlawfully interfere with an individual's rights under Title VII. The EEOC has brought the case as a systemic action, seeking to reopen hundreds of agreements that have been?signed.

How to Protect Your Summary Judgment Win: Employer’s Victory Reversed in Age Bias Case

Motions for summary judgment are among the most important—and efficient—devices for defeating a discrimination suit brought by an employee against an employer. If successful, these motions serve to narrow issues to be litigated, avoid costly trials, and encourage opposing parties to consider settlement.

50 Years Ago, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Passes the House of Representatives

The statute that among many other things marked the beginning of employment law as a discipline, passed a major hurdle 50 years ago today when it passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 290 to 130.

Seventh Circuit Says Employers Cannot Defend Themselves by Claiming EEOC Failed to Conciliate a Charge

In EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, No. 13-2455 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013), the Seventh Circuit held that employers may not defend against an EEOC-filed lawsuit by claiming that the EEOC failed to comply with its statutory obligation to conciliate in good faith.

"Failure to Conciliate" Not a Defense to EEOC Lawsuits, Seventh Circuit Holds

Breaking ranks with every other federal appellate court to address the issue, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that an employer cannot defend a lawsuit brought by the EEOC by contending that the EEOC failed to engage in reasonable conciliation prior to filing suit. See EEOC v. Mach Mining, Inc. In so holding, the court created a split with six other circuits that have recognized such a defense. The Seventh Circuit covers Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana.

Variety Is The Spice Of The Court: A Preview of the 2013-14 Supreme Court Term

The upcoming Supreme Court term promises a series of significant decisions for employers. No less than seven cases (and potentially two more pending petitions) will have at least some impact on all employers this year. The outcomes of these cases could affect employers’ negotiations with unions, change defense strategies in litigation, or follow recent trends in favor of arbitration. This article is a brief introduction to the issues presented by each case and what each case may mean for you.

“Alleged Clothes,” “Things of Value,” and “Recess Appointments”: What’s In “Store” In The New Supreme Court Term

Last week started the 2013-2014 Term at the Supreme Court of the United States. While the hot issues last year were DOMA, Title VII (Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar), and class actions (for two years running with last term’s decisions including Genesis HealthCare Corp. et al. v. Symczyk, American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter), the most high-profile cases of this term are in the wage and hour and traditional labor arenas. As you follow the Court’s activity this term, here is some information on the six cases that will have the most effect on how you run your company.

Governmental Liability, Civil Rights, and Labor and Employment Newsletter (Fall 2013)

Goldberg Segalla LLP’s Governmental Liability, Civil Rights, and Labor and Employment Newsletterprovides a summary of the latest court decisions shaping the landscape of civil rights, government liability and employment practice. The intent of our review is to provide local governments, school districts, governmental agencies, governmental officials, private entities and insurance companies with an overview of the national decisions impacting the representation and defense of all entities that may be subject to claims involving individual civil rights and employment practices. We greatly appreciate your interest in our newsletter and ask for your commentary, as well as questions. Please feel free to share this publication with your colleagues.

Variety Is The Spice Of The Court: A Preview of the 2013-14 Supreme Court Term

The upcoming Supreme Court term promises a series of significant decisions for employers. No less than seven cases (and potentially two more pending petitions) will have at least some impact on all employers this year. The outcomes of these cases could affect employers’ negotiations with unions, change defense strategies in litigation, or follow recent trends in favor of arbitration. This article is a brief introduction to the issues presented by each case and what each case may mean for you.

Employers Go "Two For Two" – Three Times Over: A Review Of The 2012-13 Supreme Court Term

Looking back at the recently-completed 2012-2013 Supreme Court term, employers should have reason to feel good about how things turned out. In fact, of the six major decisions that impact employers and can be categorized in the “win” or “lose” column, employers won all six of them – two victories each in three different categories of cases.

Life for the Employer After a Discrimination Claim

The workplace is often incredibly uncomfortable following an employee’s claim of work-related discrimination. The employer must balance its goal of productivity and profit while maintaining employee morale and equality on the job. At times, an employer facing a charge of discrimination may feel hamstrung by the looming charge and may permit employee conduct that was otherwise sanctionable out of fear of what may be perceived as retaliation against the employee for filing a charge. But, as the recent decision out of the Seventh Circuit proves, a charge of discrimination does not provide the employee with free reign to violate work-place protocol.

Two Supreme Court Rulings Improve Employer's Ability to Defend Against Harassment, Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two critical decisions regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which improve an employer’s ability to defend against employee claims of harassment and retaliation.

A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 Term

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term drew to a close at the end of June, commentators observed a continuing gradual but perceptible shift to the right by the Court. The Roberts Court is generally viewed as pro-business, and its employment-related decisions issued this term did nothing to alter that perception. Indeed, nearly every major Court ruling addressing employment-related issues this term was favorable to employers in at least some respect. The 11 employment-related decisions issued by the Court this term included the following:

Federal Government Action on Employment Discrimination Before Title VII

Congress as early as the Unemployment Relief Act of 1933 made a policy declaration "That in employing citizens for the purpose of this Act no discrimination shall be made on account of race, color, or creed."

The Next Protected Class - Ex-cons

The EEOC last year issued some updated guidance on Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII. It laid out a blue print for how to plead a case under Title VII using the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Although not as common as disparate treatment cases, disparate impact cases tend to have much broader application because one of the requirements is a business practice that is applied uniformly with a disparate impact on a protected category.

Employment Law Made Un-Scary: Title VII

Everything you ever wanted to know about Title VII in one handy post.

Title VII and ADA can apply in employment situations involving domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Neither Title VII of the Civil Rights Act nor the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifically prohibits discrimination against individuals who may be victims of domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. However, a recent fact sheet/guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) has employers scrambling to update anti-discrimination training to reflect the examples listed in that guidance, and to make managers aware of circumstances under which such individuals might be the targets of discrimination under those federal statutes. While discrimination in a particular situation must be determined through a case-by-case analysis of the facts, the EEOC sets forth numerous examples involving domestic violence and sexual assault victims, and which include disparate treatment, harassment and retaliation scenarios under both Title VII and the ADA.

Federal Appeals Court Resists Categorizing “Sexual Stereotyping” Claim As Violation Of Title VII

Under Title VII, an unlawful employment practice is established when an employee demonstrates that gender is a motivating factor for an adverse employment action. Under that analysis, a number of federal appellate courts have determined that adverse treatment of an individual because he or she does not fit the stereotypical characteristics of his or her gender may be a violation of Title VII.

Is Employment Litigation Going Up or Down?

Our latest Quarterly Employment Litigation Index

A Review of the Supreme Court's 2011 - 2012 Term

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term drew to a close at the end of June, the Court’s decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPACA or the Act) dominated media coverage. Unquestionably, this decision delivered a historic victory to President Barack Obama’s administration and requires that employers now turn their full attention to complying with the law.

EVERYBODY HATES EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

A study shows that both plaintiffs and defendants are less than thrilled with the litigation process.

Non-traditional Plaintiff Theme Continues

At the start of 2011, I noted that one of the stories of the year might be that more and more of what I would call non-traditional plaintiffs would be filing discrimination suits. See, 2011 ---- the Year of the Non-minority?

The Employment Law Authority (October 2011)

NLRB Imposes New Posting Requirement Recent Developments From The OFCCP - Federal Contractors Beware Agencies Sign Misclassification Memorandum NLRB Hands Down Union-Friendly Decisions Court Rejects Claim Of Insufficient Notice In ERISA Suit New Enforcement Procedures For Investigating Workplace Violence

New Supreme Court Term Promises a Range of Labor and Employment Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2011-2012 term this Monday. Although the Court may not issue as many landmark labor and employment decisions as it did last term—such as Dukes v. Wal-Mart—it is likely to hear a full complement of cases with significant implications for employers. The Court has already selected several labor and employment cases that it will hear this term, including the following:

Employers Can Discriminate!

For some employees who can't figure out why they are not getting that promotion, the answer could be as simple as looking in the mirror. Grooming and personal appearance are playing an ever-increasing role in workplace raise and promotion decisions. A recent CareerBuilder.com survey listed the following as the top reasons that would make an employer less likely to offer an employee a promotion:

First Monday in October - Ho Hum for L&E Types

Tomorrow marks the start of the Supreme Court's new term, and at least for private sector Labor and Employment types, there's not a lot to get excited about. (From the employer side of the docket at least the Court has not taken a retaliation case!)

A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2010 – 2011 Term

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2010-2011 term drew to a close, commentators observed several trends in its holdings. In particular, cases involving the First Amendment dominated the term, and the Court imposed substantial barriers to class actions. These latter decisions, in particular, hold major implications for employers.

The Employment Law Authority (April 2011).

U.S. Supreme Court Rules On "Cat's Paw" Theory; Changing The Game: OFCCP And Active Case Enforcement; DHS Launches New E-Verify Self Check Tool; HIV And The Workplace: An Update For Employers; OSHA Issues New Enforcement Directive On Personal Protective Equipment; USERRA Does Not Provide A Claim For Hostile Work Environment; Ninth Circuit Rules Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Are Exempt Under FLSA.

Systemic Discrimination in a Nutshell

"It is imperative that the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] make the identification, investigation, and litigation of systemic discrimination a top priority." Thus read the recommendation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ("EEOC") Systemic Task Force. While the EEOC always pursued claims of systemic discrimination on some level, in recent years the EEOC has focused on systemic discrimination in a more concerted way. The result: a rising number of investigations where the EEOC seeks to uncover "pattern or practice" discrimination or combat broad-based discrimination. Increased budget appropriations for the EEOC portend an even further increase in such efforts.

Supreme Court Rejects Six Employment Cases, Still Has Full Docket on Tap

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review six labor and employment law cases which had been presented. The Court showed no favoritism, denying petitions for certiorari on cases coming out of U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits and covering substantive and procedural issues, including age claims, disability claims, retaliation, and due process, among others.

Supreme Court Rejects Six Employment Cases, Still Has Full Docket on Tap

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review six labor and employment law cases which had been presented. The Court showed no favoritism, denying petitions for certiorari on cases coming out of U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits and covering substantive and procedural issues, including age claims, disability claims, retaliation, and due process, among others.

Don't Believe Everything You See On TV.

While many of you have a wealth of experience with litigation – probably more than you want – other readers have been fortunate enough to go years or even decades in business without being part of a lawsuit. Some have recently moved into a new position that puts you front-and-center for lawsuit-related discussions. Those who are new to lawsuits are frequently surprised by the reality of the law, our court system, and litigation in general.

Pattern and Practice Cases: EEOC Renews Focus on Systemic Discrimination

With an increased budget and additional investigative resources, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced its renewed focus on combating systemic discrimination and its intent to pursue a greater number of large-scale enforcement actions through FY 2012 where it seeks relief for numerous applicants or employees. Known as a “pattern and practice” case, this type of litigation poses the greatest exposure and risk to employers through challenges to policies and practices in the workplace that allegedly have a discriminatory impact on a protected class and relies heavily on statistical evidence. In this past year, there has been a spate of EEOC enforcement actions seeking relief on a class basis. Now more than ever, it is imperative for employers to be cognizant of these large-scale cases, to understand the nuances involved in the EEOC’s handling and prosecution of such cases, and to be prepared to timely challenge any attempts by the EEOC to overreach.

Beauty And The Bias

The controversy over discrimination in employment based on appearance is heating up again. Newsweek recently ran a special report entitled "The Beauty Advantage" that included a survey of hiring managers, 57% of whom said qualified but unattractive candidates will have a harder time landing a job. More than half of the managers in the survey advised job applicants to invest time and money in "making sure they look attractive" instead of on polishing a resume. In addition, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode has authored a new book entitled The Beauty Bias that decries appearance discrimination and urges legal reforms to prohibit it.

Employer's continuing efforts to resolve issues complained of by employee supports dismissal of discrimination complaint.

In an unpublished opinion, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss an employee’s claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, based largely upon the “extraordinary lengths” to which the employer went to investigate the issues complained of by the employee.

‘Beauty Bias' In the Workplace Is Not Illegal

The controversy over discrimination in employment based on appearance is heating up again. Newsweek recently ran a special report entitled "The Beauty Advantage" that included a survey of hiring managers, 57 percent of whom said qualified but unattractive candidates will have a harder time landing a job. More than half of the managers in the survey advised job applicants to invest time and money in "making sure they look attractive" instead of on polishing a resume. In addition, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode has authored a new book entitled The Beauty Bias that decries appearance discrimination and urges legal reforms to prohibit it.

A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2009 -- 2010 Term.

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2009-2010 term drew to a close, commentators remarked on the evolution of the Roberts Court. Justice Roberts continued to emerge as a key figure this term, as he was a member of the majority 92 percent of the time, more than any other justice. While his majority percentage may suggest to some a willingness to compromise with his more liberal colleagues on certain issues, he also clearly demonstrated firm convictions on important issues such as campaign finance and gun rights, which yielded some the most highly publicized decisions of the term. Indeed, the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which invalidated legislation imposing limits on corporate spending in elections, has led some commentators to conclude that the Roberts Court is ushering in era where business interests will reign supreme.

How Will Kagan Treat Employers?

Over the past several years, we have relied upon the tried-and-true method of asking our Magic Eight Ball to help predict how newly-nominated Supreme Court Justices would treat employers once seated on the bench. In retrospect, the Magic Eight Ball turned out to be a fairly accurate predictor in examining Justices Alito and Sotomayor and their handling of labor and employment law matters.

Patient’s or Customer’s Preferences May Not Be A Defense to Discrimination Claims.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a nursing home maintained a racially hostile working environment by accommodating its residents’ requests to be treated by white-only personnel and by terminating the plaintiff, a black nursing assistant, for an alleged workplace infraction. Chaney v. Plainfield Health Center

A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2009 – 2010 Term.

As the United States Supreme Court’s 2009-2010 term drew to a close, commentators remarked on the evolution of the Roberts Court. Justice Roberts continued to emerge as a key figure this term, as he was a member of the majority 92 percent of the time, more than any other justice. While his majority percentage may suggest to some a willingness to comprise with his more liberal colleagues on certain issues, he also clearly demonstrated firm convictions on important issues such as campaign finance and gun rights, which yielded some the most highly publicized decisions of the term. Indeed, the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which invalidated legislation imposing limits on corporate spending in elections, has led some commentators to conclude that the Roberts Court is ushering in era where business interests will reign supreme.

Victory Is Sweetest When You've Known Defeat.

Good news for employers this year! Well . . . at least as compared to last year's Supreme Court term. The majority of the employment cases decided by the Court this term can be considered a victory for employers, and even one of the decisions siding with employees is not all bad. So, after losing all but four of the eleven employment decisions decided last year, employers can finally breathe a welcome sigh of relief. As discussed below, employers can claim victory in six cases, while only accepting defeat in one case and considering another case to be a mixed result.

What's After EFCA? The Rest Of The Agenda!

Shock and awe! When Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29, 2009, during the first week of the 111th Congress (without any committee action, little floor debate, and no amendments), and President Barack Obama quickly signed the bill into law (P.L. 111-2), it became shockingly clear to the business community how fast "change" could come to workplace law.

U.S. Supreme Court - New Supreme Court Term Set To Open Justices To Review Several Key Employment Law Cases.

In early October, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral argument for the 2008-2009 term. There are currently four labor and employment related cases on the docket - the most notable involving the scope of the anti-retaliation provision contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The justices also have agreed to decide whether an arbitration provision in a union contract bars an employee from suing for age bias.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Looking Back at the 2007-2008 Supreme Court Term.

The recently-concluded U.S. Supreme Court term offered employers several reasons to cheer but even more reasons to jeer. Of the 11 cases decided by the Court between October 2007 and June 2008, only 4 of them could be considered as victories for employers; many of them proved to be real setbacks for management. Although most Supreme Court watchers would label the current Supreme Court as conservative and business-friendly, a review of these 11 decisions shows that the Court is anything but.

Keeping an Eye on Labor and Employment Legislation.

In a previous issue we took a look at several pending laws that would drastically change the labor and employment scene ("Cute Titles for Bad Laws" by John Zenor, Labor Letter, May 2008). This month we'll review a few more pieces of pending legislation.

The Ministerial Exception: How Far Is Too Far?

Two recent court decisions have further defined the contours of the "ministerial exception," which prohibits courts from addressing employment claims brought against religious organizations when the decisions were based on the organization's religious principals or practices. Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen demonstrates that this exception has its limits; Klouda v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary shows just how far the exception can be applied.

Surviving Discrimination Claims (Video).

Surviving Discrimination Claims.

Key Employment Cases On High Court Docket.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2007-2008 term is currently well underway. Several of the key pending labor and employment cases are summarized below.

U.S. Supreme Court Wraps Up Term With Three Cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently concluded its 2006-2007 term. In the surge of decisions issued in the last few weeks of the term, the justices issued three decisions of interest for employers.
    SORT ARTICLES
  • No Subtopics.