Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Harksen v Lane NO and Others is an important decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, delivered on 7 October 1997.The court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Insolvency Act, 1936, finding that it was consistent with the right to property and right to equality for the property of a solvent spouse to be attached to the insolvent estate of his or her partner.
The 2012 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 1, 2012, and concluded October 6, 2013. The table illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. Seven members of the Court (1) agreed that disparate impact analysis may be applied to allegedly discriminatory subjective or discretionary employment practices, and (2) agreed regarding certain aspects of ...
WASHINGTON -- Wells Fargo & Co has agreed to pay $125 million to resolve allegations it discriminated against certain borrowers on the basis of race and national origin in its mortgage lending ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even ...
In a case testing the scope of federal workplace protections, the justices ruled 9-0 to throw out a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the officer, Jatonya Muldrow, and ...
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [1] The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion ...