Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Those cases are pending in Superior Court with Paiano's suit scheduled to go to trial on Sept. 23. The township has denied the allegation in those lawsuits. More: Two more Piscataway police ...
The lawsuit González v.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-02817, filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment."
tech-employment sex and race discrimination: San Mateo County Superior Court: 2015 Huang v. Twitter: class action sex discrimination lawsuit: 2015 [1] J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. Intentional discrimination on the basis of sex by state actors in the use of peremptory strikes in jury selection: United States Supreme Court: 1994 Ledbetter v.
Case Docket no. Question(s) presented Certiorari granted Oral argument A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools: 24-249: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education. January 17, 2025
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.
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 ]
Pages in category "United States equal protection case law" The following 200 pages are in this category, out of approximately 222 total.
The McDonnell Douglas case established that, in an employment discrimination case: The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [9] The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates. [11]