Does Title VII’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) protect nursing mothers against post-pregnancy workplace discrimination? One federal court – the 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals – recently gave a resounding “Yes” to that question. Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 11th Cir., No. 16-13003, September 7, 2017. (With that decision, the Eleventh
Want a road map on how not to react to a successful applicant who announces her pregnancy immediately after receiving an offer letter? Look at the reaction of one prospective employer in Florida, who recently settled a legal claim on that issue. EEOC v. Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc., MDFL, No. 6:16-cv-1326-Orl-37DCI, Consent Decree
The 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have expanded the mechanisms available for individuals who plan to bring claims of sexual harassment or discrimination against an employer that conducts educational programs or activities, specifically including private teaching hospitals.
Recently, the Third Circuit found that a private teaching hospital could be held liable – under
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 1, 2015, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (FEP Cases 157) has resulted in a deluge of case summaries and commentaries, and engendered some level of panic among employers, who believe that the case has created a seismic shift in hiring criteria. But has it, really?
In its own words, the purpose of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is to: “enforce, for the benefit of job seekers and wage earners, the contractual promise of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity required of those who do business with the Federal government.”
The OFCCP is part of the Department of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination against an individual because of that person’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” While courts routinely address claims of race discrimination, claims of discrimination on the basis of color alone are far less frequently reviewed.
Recently, in a case of first impression, the 5
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of certain protected characteristics, including gender. In order to support a claim under Title VII, an individual must point to an “adverse employment action” that was taken again
Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) underscored its attention to religious discrimination claims by posting on its website two “technical assistance publications” on the subject. The first is a fact sheet that provides basic information about religious discrimination and includes information related to an employer’s obligation to accommodate workers’ religious observances in the workplace.
Can transferring an employee into a position for which he had applied nine months earlier be viewed as an “adverse employment action” sufficient to support a claim of discrimination? (HINT: Don’t bet your paycheck on this one.)
Robert Deleon, a 53 year old Hispanic male, was employed by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission for twenty-eight
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a pregnancy discrimination claim, finding that an employer’s “no accommodation for non-work-related injuries” raised an issue of pregnancy discrimination for a jury. Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Center, 6th Cir., No. 12-2408, December 23, 2013.
Jennifer
