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
Articles Discussing General Issues Under Title VII.
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
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued an opinion letter clarifying its authority to bring “pattern and practice” lawsuits under § 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission’s detailed guidance, issued September 3, 2020, announces a more restrained approach by the agency
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on August 3, 2020, that it will begin dismissing charges that were suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It seems the end has finally come for at least one part of the pay data reporting story. On Monday, February 10, Judge Chutkan ordered the EEO-1 Component 2 pay data reporting portal closed. The closing of the portal signals the end of the required collection of pay data for
The absence of an adverse employment action by an employer routinely is fatal to a claim of discrimination (absent proof of constructive discharge). This bedrock principle was reiterated recently in a case where an applicant alleged that she was forced to resign after failing a physical abilities test. Jane D.
Dollar General is the latest employer to settle with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its use of criminal background information in the hiring process. The EEOC’s lawsuit argued that Dollar General’s hiring and screening procedures, even though facially neutral, had a disproportionately negative effect on African American applicants as compared to white applicants. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General, 1:13-CV-04307 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2013).
On August 6, 2019, in Texas v. EEOC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt the EEOC a significant setback, largely affirming the district court’s decision that the EEOC violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing its 2012 Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Guidance”).
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employees to file an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or equivalent state agency before going to court was procedural and not jurisdictional.
Executive Summary: In a much anticipated decision to settle a significant split between the federal appellate circuits, the Supreme Court held on Monday that Title VII’s requirement that a plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC prior to filing suit in federal district court is a procedural, not jurisdictional, requirement “that must be timely raised to come into play.” See Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (June 3, 2019). Siding with the majority of federal appellate circuit courts, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdictional” prescriptions are usually reserved to determine the classes of cases the court can entertain, and over whom the court may exercise authority, while procedural prescriptions fall more in line with “claim-processing rules and other preconditions to relief.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement, while mandatory, is merely procedural, and requires defendants to timely raise the defense or else waive it.
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the requirement to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC (or relevant state or local agency) is not a jurisdictional prescription to a lawsuit’s claim under Title VII. Rather, it is a non-jurisdictional mandatory claim-processing rule that is a precondition for relief. The practical result of this decision is that employers must now timely raise any defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or face the risk that their defense will be waived.