Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
The Army Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEO) is a U.S. Army mandated program designed "to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, reprisal, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as a parent, or other impermissible basis, and to promote the full realization of EEO through a continuing diversity and inclusion ...
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), was a case regarding affirmative action in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, [1] which prohibits racial discrimination by private employers, does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. [2]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us more ways to reach us
Latino civil rights organization MALDEF has sued financial institutions for allegedly discriminating against DACA recipients by denying them loans and other services based on their immigration status.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The result was that employers could not be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims were based on decisions made by the employer 180 days or more before the claim.
Kansas’ favorite son fought for, not against, the United States. So long, Fort Gordon. | Opinion
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]