Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [citation needed] Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court, holding that neither the racial disparity in jury pools nor the decade-long absence of any black juror to serve at trial presented evidence sufficient to "make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment."
In 1977, there were height and weight restrictions (minimum 5’2”, 120 lbs) to be considered as an applicant for an Alabama prison guard. Such requirements ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who brought forth a class action suit against the requirements under the disparate impact theory of Title VII. After Rawlinson filed her suit, Alabama passed a ...
This discrimination is often enacted upon completion of employment applications that require responses about past criminal history. Many developed countries, such as Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States, have passed legislation prohibiting discrimination based on criminal record. However, the availability and extent of protection ...
Under federal employment discrimination law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (including sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] disability (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military ...
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 1872, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on mixed-race marriage violated the "cardinal principle" of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the Equal Protection Clause. [31] Almost a hundred years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court followed that Alabama case (Burns v. State) in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
Bostock v. Clayton County –— a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 2020 in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity; Civil Rights Act of 1866 [3] Civil Rights Act of 1871 [4] Civil Rights Act of 1957 [5]