Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. , 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act . [ 1 ]
Case history; Prior: 608 F.2d 563 (vacated and remanded): Holding; In a Title VII discrimination claim, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff throughout the trial; a shift to a defendant's burden is merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion.
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 the evidentiary standards applicable in such case
Now, the 53-year-old woman has been sentenced to seven years and three months in prison, according to an Oct. 3 news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas.
Scammers are using AI-powered voice-cloning tools to prey on people. But experts say there's a simple way to protect you and your family.
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 ...
Nearly 20,000 scam calls have been made to unsuspecting Texans over the past month alone, some aggressively demanding payment. Hundreds of thousands of robocall scams target Texas student loan ...
The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v.