On October 11, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued the first decision applying its broadened standard for Title VII claims in Narayanann v. Midwestern State University. The unanimous three judge panel ruled that a Malaysian professor could pursue his race-based case against a Texas university when his request to teach summer courses was rejected.
Under the Fifth Circuit’s new standard, a plaintiff’s Title VII claim can survive a motion to dismiss by pleading adverse actions with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without showing that their ...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently proposed regulations (the “Proposed Rule”) to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for additional conditions relating to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Issued on August 11, 2023, the Proposed Rule is currently open for public comment, and has, as of this writing, already received more than 40,440 public submissions responding to the EEOC’s proposal. Many remarks address the fact that the EEOC included ...
As a result of a recent Fifth Circuit decision, some employers in Texas will now face a tougher hurdle when defending against Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims in federal court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that in order to establish an actionable claim for disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII, plaintiffs need not plead an “ultimate employment decision” related to hiring, granting leave, terminations, promotions, or pay. In a significant departure from decades-old precedent, the Fifth Circuit held ...
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three opinions. Of them, Groff v. DeJoy ("Groff”),in which the Court unanimously revised the standard for determining whether accommodating an employee’s religious beliefs would constitute an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), will have the most immediate impact on employers. In Groff, the Court held that employers cannot deny a religious accommodation by demonstrating that it would result in only more than a de minimis cost, but rather must demonstrate that it would result in a substantial cost.
On February 1, 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced that the agency is giving employers two additional months to file their EEO-1 workforce data surveys, extending the deadline from March 31, 2019 to May 31, 2019. The extension comes as a result of the EEOC’s partial lapse in appropriations and closure during the recent shutdown of the federal government. According to the EEOC website, detailed instructions for submission of EEO-1 data will be forthcoming.
Each year, the EEOC requires private employers who are subject to Title VII with 100 or ...
On June 4, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of a Christian Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious objections to gay marriage.
Although the case previously had been litigated on free speech grounds, the Court’s opinion largely avoids this constitutional question, and does not address whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Instead, the decision focuses on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision finding against Masterpiece Cakeshop and ...
The first quarter of 2018 has already stirred up an array of legal matters that employers in the hospitality industry should be conscious of, both in their day-to-day operations and long-term planning. In February alone, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to curb lawsuits focused on the inaccessibility of brick-and-mortar business establishments and a federal appeals court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a ...
Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Health Employment and Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Sixth Circuit Finds Title VII Covers Discrimination Based on Transgender Status.”
Following is an excerpt:
In a significant decision on Wednesday, March 6, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes that discrimination against a worker on the basis of gender identity or transitioning status constitutes sex ...
Featured on Employment Law This Week: Second Circuit: Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination.
“Legal doctrine evolves.” Those words from the Second Circuit spoke volumes as the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, overturning their own long-standing precedent. The court ruled in favor of a skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired for telling a client he was gay.
The majority opinion began by looking at whether sex is a motivating factor in the alleged unlawful practice. And, in this case, looking at ...
Featured on Employment Law This Week: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may consider ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects sexual orientation.
On its face, Title VII prohibits discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and courts have been unwilling to go further. In this case, the Seventh Circuit has granted a college professor’s petition for an en banc rehearing and vacated a panel ruling that sexual orientation isn’t covered. Also, an advertising executive who is suing his former agency ...
Our colleague Linda B. Celauro, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “Seventh Circuit Panel Finds That Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias.”
Following is an excerpt:
Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S ...
Our colleague Linda B. Celauro, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Seventh Circuit Panel Finds That Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias.”
Following is an excerpt:
Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S ...
Our colleague Linda B. Celauro, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Seventh Circuit Panel Finds That Title VII Does Not Cover Sexual Orientation Bias.”
Following is an excerpt:
Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S. District ...
Bound by precedent, on July 28, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The panel thereby affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissing the claim of Kimberly Hively, a part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College, that she was denied the opportunity for full-time employment on the basis of her sexual orientation.
The importance of the Seventh Circuit panel’s opinion is not in ...
The top story on Employment Law This Week is the EEOC's filing of its first sexual orientation bias suits.
Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against an individual for sexual orientation. The EEOC concluded that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of unlawful gender discrimination. This month, the agency filed two landmark federal lawsuits seeking to enforce its interpretation of the statute for the first time. The agency is suing on behalf of workers at a company in Baltimore and ...
In the wake of several high-profile wins for the LGBT community, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) added employment discrimination protection to the list. On July 16, 2015, the EEOC ruled that discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) as discrimination based on sex.
The EEOC held that “[s]exual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” ...
My colleagues Nancy L. Gunzenhauser, Kate B. Rhodes, and Judah L. Rosenblatt at Epstein Becker Green have a Retail Labor and Employment Law blog post concerning a recent EEOC modification to employment discrimination protection: “EEOC Rules Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation Illegal Under Title VII.”
Following is an excerpt:
The EEOC held that “[s]exual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” The EEOC noted that sex-based considerations also ...
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against a harassment victim constitute “supervisors” for the purpose of vicarious liability under Title VII. Per the holding in Vance v. Ball State University, employees who merely direct the work activities of others, but who lack the authority to take tangible employment actions, will no longer be considered supervisors under Title VII.
Under ...
Our colleague Julie Saker Schlegel at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Holds That Only Employees Who Have Authority to Take Tangible Employment Actions Constitute Supervisors for the Purpose of Vicarious Liability Under Title VII” on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog, and we think hospitality employers will be interested. Following is an excerpt:
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible employment ...
Our colleague Julie Saker Schlegel at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Holds That Only Employees Who Have Authority to Take Tangible Employment Actions Constitute Supervisors for the Purpose of Vicarious Liability Under Title VII” on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested. Following is an excerpt:
In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible ...
The Second Circuit has given class action waivers another shot in the arm. In Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (pdf), plaintiff argued that because she had agreed to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims against her employer, but could not proceed in a class-wide arbitration, she must be permitted to pursue her Title VII pattern-or-practice sex discrimination claim as a class action plaintiff in court; otherwise, her arbitration agreement would constitute an impermissible waiver of a substantive statutory right. The Court firmly ...
By Matthew Sorensen and Dana Livne
One of the major ways in which American employment law has traditionally differed from its British counterpart has been its entrenched employment “at-will” doctrine. The “at-will” employment doctrine provides employers with the right to terminate their relationships with their employees at any time, with or without notice or cause. UK companies doing business in the US are often relieved to be advised that they become “at-will” employers to their US-based employees. In the US, unless an employer has entered an employment contract ...
By: Mark M. Trapp
In these challenging economic times, many private clubs are finding it increasingly difficult to attract new members, or to retain existing members. Over the last few years many clubs have lost members, and many more are facing substantial drops in revenues due to a decline in money spent by members on activities such as golfing or dining out. Many golf, country and social clubs are finding it difficult to sustain their amenities and level of service.
Because the economic situation is decreasing the potential membership pool, many clubs are offering incentives to ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- AI Resume Screening Tool Developer Is Subject to Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws, Says EEOC
- Video: SCOTUS Expands Title VII, EEOC’s Final PWFA Rule, AI Screening Tools - Employment Law This Week
- EEOC Final Rule Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Podcast: Navigating Physician Non-Compete Litigation – Employment Law This Week
- Maryland Expected to Expand Pay Transparency Requirements in Fall 2024