Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
employment discrimination based on sex: San Francisco County Superior Court: 2015 Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney: hiring preference to veterans over non-veterans: Supreme Court of the United States: 1979 R v Sullivan: status of a fetus as a person, with implications for women's rights: Supreme Court of Canada: 1991 Rajender v.
"As a black woman working in corporate America for 20 years, I share similar stories of many women and women of color [in] gender inequality, microaggression based on race and general bigotry, and ...
Minnesota became the first state to ban employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993. [21] [22] Currently, 25/50 states, the District of Columbia, and at least 400 cities and counties have enacted bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Price Waterhouse argued that the employee must prove that the employer gave "decisive consideration to an employee's gender, race, national origin, or religion" in making an employment decision in order for the employer to be held liable, and that the employer could escape liability by proving that—even absent the discriminatory aspects of ...
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.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court.The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer.
General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), is a 1976 United States Supreme Court case authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist concerning gender-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that pregnancy could reasonably be excluded from an employer's the disability ...
The lower courts followed the Eleventh Circuit's past precedent that Title VII did not cover employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case was consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, a similar case of apparent discrimination due to sexual orientation from the Second Circuit, but which had added to a circuit split.