Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[3]: 12, 21 The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender identity), age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.
California law and the FEHA also allow for the imposition of punitive damages [9] [10] when a corporate defendant's officers, directors or managing agents engage in harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, or when such persons approve or consciously disregard prohibited conduct by lower-level employees in violation of the rights or safety of the plaintiff or others.
Snap Inc. and California’s Civil Rights Department have reached a $15-million settlement to resolve allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation at the Santa Monica-based ...
EEOC asserted that due to a portion of DFEH's legal team having previously worked on EEOC's own case against Activision Blizzard, that the complaint was an ethics violation and conflict of interest under California law. EEOC requested the complaint to be removed and should DFEH seek to file a new complaint, they would need to do so with new ...
Snapchat Inc. will pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by California’s civil rights agency that claimed the company discriminated against female employees, failed to prevent workplace ...
"Title VII created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act". [12] It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal ...
The EEOC has sued Tesla, accusing Elon Musk’s electric car maker of violating “federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some ...
Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.