Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.
Case history; Prior: 674 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2012); rehearing en banc denied, 688 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140 (2013).: Holding; A plaintiff establishes a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII if the plaintiff proves that the defendant would not have made the adverse employment action but for the defendant's retaliatory motive.
The EEOC argued that it possesses a broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that any infringement of the University's First Amendment rights is permissible because of the substantial relation between the EEOC's request and the overriding ...
“That is retaliation, with respect to anyone who worked on the Jan. 6 cases, which to Donald Trump was a direct attack on him and his supporters,” Zaid said.
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to religious organizations' selection of religious leaders.
DFEH said that the settlement would remove the employees from protection of California's law which is outside of the jurisdiction of the EEOC, and that provisions of the settlement would allow destruction of evidence needed for its case. [43] EEOC asserted that due to a portion of DFEH's legal team having previously worked on EEOC's own case ...
Over the last decade, the agency has won settlements in 171 race discrimination suits involving Black workers, 59 cases involving Latino victims, 12 involving Asian victims and six involving white ...
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 768 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a Muslim American woman, Samantha Elauf, who was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because she wore a headscarf, which conflicted with the company's dress code. [1]