Total Articles: 8
High Court Decision Addresses Disparate Impact.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held yesterday that a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a particular employment practice may nevertheless assert a disparate impact claim that challenges the employer’s subsequent application of that practice. Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974 (May 24, 2010).
Supreme Court Finds Firefighters' Disparate Impact Claims Timely.
In a unanimous decision issued May 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs complaining of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) because the charge was filed within 300 days of the employer's application of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice; the charge did not have to be filed within 300 days of the employer's adoption of the practice. See Lewis v. City of Chicago (May 24, 2010). Based on this determination, the Court held that the plaintiffs in Lewis should be permitted to proceed with their disparate impact lawsuit; however, the Court did not rule on the merits of their claims.
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Employers in Disparate Impact Cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed employees and job applicants a victory by recognizing that, in a disparate impact (i.e., unintentional discrimination) case, the Title VII statute of limitations is measured from the employer's adoption and each subsequent use of an unlawful employment practice. Each use of an unlawful employment practice – such as multiple rounds of hiring based on a written test that has a disparate impact on minority applicants – is now considered a new violation of Title VII, which will make it easier for employees to file timely claims.
Supreme Court to Determine First Title VII Statute of Limitations Case in Post-"Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" Era.
Since its passage in January 2009, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act ("the Act") has created as many questions as it has answered, including whether it applies to disparate impact cases (that is, cases involving claims that an employment practice or policy that appears neutral on its face actually affects a protected group more harshly than an unprotected group) and whether the courts will extend coverage beyond cases of pay discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that may give it the opportunity to answer these two questions.
Supreme Court Limits Time Period for Filing Pay Discrimination Charges (pdf).
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).
Slender Sup. Ct. Majority Promotes Certainty In Incentive Pay Plans.
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.
Supreme Court Requires Timely Challenge To Pay Decisions
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).
Sexual Harassment Suit Barred by Time Limitation in Job Application.
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.
