enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Corp._v...

    Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

  3. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of...

    The lawsuit sought a jury trial to review the EEOC's charges of pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination, as well as an injunction for the company to cease unlawful behavior and pay restitution to affected employees. That day, Activision Blizzard announced it had reached a settlement with the EEOC, pending judicial approval.

  4. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

    303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state ...

  5. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes

    Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender ...

  6. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swierkiewicz_v._Sorema_N._A.

    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.

  7. Minister of Finance v Van Heerden - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Finance_v_Van...

    Minister of Finance and Another v Van Heerden is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of affirmative action.Delivered in July 2004, it marked the court's first application of the affirmative action clause in section 9(2) of the Bill of Rights.

  8. Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en voor Racismebestrijding ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrum_voor_Gelijkheid...

    Advocate General Maduro advised that it was direct discrimination.. 17. It would lead to awkward results if discrimination of this type were for some reason to be excluded altogether from the scope of the Directive, because by implication Member States would be permitted, under the Directive, to allow employers to differentiate very effectively between candidates on grounds of racial or ethnic ...

  9. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

    Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. She argued that the firm denied her partnership because she ...