Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. [ 6 ] [ 7 ] In April 2016, Carli Lloyd published an essay in the New York Times entitled "Why I'm Fighting for Equal Pay," which emphasized that the U.S. women's team generates more revenue for the U.S. Soccer Federation, but that the Federation was still unwilling to pay the women ...
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
A Denver police sergeant has filed a Title VII complaint alleging she was punished and retaliated against for raising concerns about gender and race discrimination within the Denver PD.
Reeves v CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc, 5 No. 07-10270 (11th Cir. January 20, 2010) is a US labor law case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which ruled that a hostile work environment can be created in a workplace where sexually explicit language and pornography are present.
Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S. employers must not engage in workplace discrimination such as writing bad job references, or otherwise retaliating against former employees as a punishment for filing job discrimination complaints.
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.
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.
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.