Plaintiffs need not allege discrimination with respect to an “ultimate employment decision” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to survive a motion to dismiss, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held, overturning precedent. Hamilton v. Dallas County, No. 21-10133, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21780 (Aug. 18, 2023).
Articles Discussing General Issues Under Title VII.
On Friday, August 18, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark decision overturning nearly 30 years of precedent limiting plaintiffs in Title VII cases to claims based on “ultimate employment decisions.” Where previously employment discrimination claims were limited to actions such as “hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating,” employees can now pursue claims based on any discriminatory practice that alters the “terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently announced that Title VII plaintiffs are no longer required to plead an “ultimate employment decision” to properly allege a disparate treatment claim.
On October 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit handed employers another reminder of the potential benefits of consistent management.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will rehear a case to decide whether its standard for proving workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act improperly screens out legitimate discrimination Title VII complaints.
Holding a gender-based scheduling policy giving only male detention service officers full weekends off was not unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has invited the full circuit court to revisit its standard for proving workplace discrimination.
Executive Summary: On March 7, 2022, a sharply divided panel of the Second Circuit (covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) addressed the question of what a Title VII plaintiff must claim to adequately plead the existence of an employer-employee relationship under the joint employer doctrine. See Felder v. United States Tennis Association (2d Cir. 2022). Generally, a company is only liable for discrimination against employees and applicants for employment; however, if a company does not directly employ a person, it may be liable as a joint employer. Felder is the first time the Second Circuit has confronted the question of what factors must be alleged to adequately plead a joint-employment relationship. Over a vigorous dissent, the court joined its sister circuits and concluded that non-exhaustive factors drawn from the common law of agency, including control over an employee’s hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline, supervision, and handling of records, insurance, and payroll, are relevant to this inquiry.
Melanie Lynskey, a star of the new Showtime series “Yellowjackets,” recently recounted an incident in which a co-worker allegedly criticized her body on set. According to Lynskey, a production team member asked her what she planned to do about her weight and suggested that the show’s producers would be
Title VII prohibits discrimination at the workplace based on race, color, sex, and national origin. But, only “employees” can bring claims under Title VII as the law does not protect independent contractors. The Tenth Circuit (covering Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah) was asked to determine whether a
I was so proud of myself at the beginning of the pandemic for not giving into the hype and watching Netflix’s Tiger King. In the face of countless memes, tweets, and discussions, I remained undaunted in the face of the social pressure to engage the show.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas recently denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment when its alleged shifting reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment contract raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether those reasons were a pretext for discrimination and/or retaliation.
A district judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed a case due to the plaintiff’s failure to file suit within the allotted time identified in the notice of right to sue (NRTS) that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued. Moyer v.
Legal precedent, including language from the U.S. Supreme Court, requires federal courts to take a broad view of the “but-for” causation standard for determining unlawful age discrimination in the workplace, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said in support of rehearing in a bank teller’s case.
Arguing the decades-old analysis is no longer helpful to anyone, Reginald Sprowl petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to scrap application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis in Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims. On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected Sprowl’s petition and denied certiorari. Sprowl v. Mercedes-Benz