|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Supreme Court Limits Time Period for Filing Pay Discrimination Charges (pdf).Vedder Price - August 31, 2007 Before bringing a discrimination lawsuit against an
employer, employees must fi le a charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
within 180 days from the date of the alleged
discrimination (300 days if the employee is fi ling
a charge for a violation of both federal and state or
local antidiscrimination laws). Report Link Go Goodyear.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - July 13, 2007 In May, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to exempt an employee challenging her former employer’s pay decisions as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from the Act’s 180-day time limit for filing a charge of discrimination (subject to an extension of up to 300 days in deferral states) with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or an equivalent state agency). Report Link Slender Sup. Ct. Majority Promotes Certainty In Incentive Pay Plans.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 25, 2007 Like many employers, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. based its employees' salary at least partially on the performance reviews of supervisors and managers to whom employees report. Better performance reviews were rewarded with corresponding pay raises. Report Link Supreme Court Limits Employer Exposure to Discriminatory Pay Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 04, 2007 In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has held that an employer's determination setting an employee's wages, and not the mere issuance of a paycheck based on that decision, triggers Title VII's deadline to file an administrative charge based on discriminatory pay. Report Link Supreme Court Limits Title VII Suits.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 01, 2007 In a decision announced Tuesday, May 29, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the time period in which employees can challenge pay discrimination under Title VII. Specifically, the Court held that Title VII’s deadlines, which require discrimination complaints to be filed as soon as 180 days after a discriminatory act occurs, preclude employees from bringing a suit on a salary decision made beyond the 180-day period, even if the past decision lowers the employee’s current salary. Report Link Supreme Court Protects Employers From Stale Pay Discrimination Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 31, 2007 The Supreme Court's May 29 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear (No.05-1074) provides critical protection to employers against stale discrimination claims based on events long past. Title VII sets short deadlines for bringing discrimination claims. The Court held that with pay discrimination claims, as with other kinds of discrimination claims, the deadline for filing the claim is measured from the date of the allegedly discriminatory pay decision – in this case, negative performance evaluations many years earlier that had limited the employee's pay raises at those times. Report Link The Real Lessons of Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber CoLittler Mendelson, P.C. - May 31, 2007 On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., limiting the potential liability of employers for pay discrimination under Title VII. The fact pattern it considered is rather common, which is one reason why this case is so important. Suppose that during the 1980s, a female employee was paid less than comparable males working for the same employer. Thereafter, the female employee and these male employees receive the same pay raises, but because the salary paid to the female employee was initially lower, she continues throughout the 1990s to earn less in each year than her male counterparts. Report Link Supreme Court Requires Timely Challenge To Pay DecisionsOgletree Deakins - May 31, 2007 In a sweeping decision, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, split along ideological lines, ruled today that Title VII plaintiffs must timely challenge particular pay decisions and cannot rely on the continuing violation theory to reach back to allegedly discriminatory decisions made before the charge filing period established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074, U.S. Supreme Court (May 29, 2007). Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Limits Ability to Sue Over Past Pay Discrimination (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - May 30, 2007 In a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court today
limited employees’ ability to sue employers for pay
discrimination resulting from decisions made years earlier.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The case focused on
the 180-day deadline that employees have for complaining
about alleged discriminatory employment decisions under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Report Link Supreme Court: Federal Four-Year Limitations Statute Applies to Suit Under 1991 Civil Rights Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 14, 2004 A unanimous U. S. Supreme Court has ruled a four-year statute of limitations applies to a class action lawsuit alleging wrongful discharge, hostile work environment, and refusal to transfer in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Report Link Sexual Harassment Suit Barred by Time Limitation in Job Application.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - December 01, 2002 The Daimler Chrysler employment application had a statement obligating the employee to bring employment claims within six months and she did not adhere to this time limit.
|
ArticlesFound: 11 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Affirmative Action : An Overview of Your Obligations
Jackson
August 25, 2008 Baker DonelsonPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Online
August 26, 2008 Shaw ValenzaManaging Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire Woods |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds