Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Supreme Court of the United States: 1991 United States v. Virginia: struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) Supreme Court of the United States: 1996 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes: discrimination in promotions, pay, and job assignments: Supreme Court of the United States: 2011 Weinberger ...
The case revolves around protections relating to public and private employees from being discriminated upon because of sex and whether this applies to gender identity for transgender persons. [5] In May 2020, before the Supreme Court had issued a decision, Stephens entered hospice care, as her long-term kidney disease had become untreatable. [10]
Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.
Kagan noted that many cases will come out differently under the lower bar the Supreme Court adopted Wednesday. She pointed to cases in which people lost discrimination suits, including those of an ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even ...
Two female employees at Apple sued the company on Thursday, alleging the company paid women less than men for the same work. The women are proposing a class action, seeking to represent more than ...
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in favor of Elauf. In an opinion by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Elauf did not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring. [1]
The Court ruled unanimously that all discrimination based on sex was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act regardless of the victim’s gender. [119] The statutory interpretation by the Court allowed for a precedent to be set for deciding the outcome in same-sex harassment cases. [ 117 ]