Showing 73 posts in Title VII.

Justice Department Extends Title VII Protection to Transgender Government Employees

December 19, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a surprising reversal, on December 18, 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") will now interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") as extending to protect discrimination claims based on gender identity, including transgender status. Although this is a noteworthy change of position by the Department, the Employment Litigation Section of the DOJ enforces Title VII against state and local governments only, and private employers, therefore,will not be affected by this expansion.   More ›

11th Circuit: Exposure to Subjectively Unpleasant Weather Conditions and Deprivation of Office Amenities is not Adverse Employment Action

September 30, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Henry McCone worked for several years as a non-driving customer service associate. His job duties involved opening received mail and preparing outgoing mail. Pitney Bowes transferred him to a position requiring him to drive correspondence and files between sites in the Orlando area. The result was McCone had to endure unfavorable weather conditions and lost regular access to office amenities, such as air-conditioning, restrooms, a microwave oven, and a refrigerator. Two women who also served as customer service associates were neither trained nor required to work as a driver. More ›

Fifth Circuit Broadens Definition of "Adverse Employment Action" under Title VII

September 24, 2014 by Andrew M. Gordon

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has historically been one of the more restrictive federal appellate courts in its definition of an "adverse employment action." The court recently held, however, that a city police department's restriction of a detective's responsibilities after his return from a disciplinary suspension was sufficient to fall within the category of "adverse employment action." More ›

Corporate Franchisor may be Liable for Harassment of Franchisee even if Unnamed in EEOC Charge

September 22, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Plaintiffs Kimberly Kulig and Laura Baatz worked at a franchise-location of Berryhill Baja Grill & Cantina in Houston, Texas. The franchise-location was owned and operated by Defendant Phillip Wattel. The two female employees filed charges with the EEOC complaining of Mr. Wattel’s sexual harassment. Mr. Wattel admitted to groping, slapping, and even biting Kulig and Baatz, arguing in his defense that Berryhill Baja Grill is a “grab-assy place.” More ›

Eighth Circuit: Supervisor Physically Preventing Employee from Leaving Office does not Amount to sex Discrimination or Harassment

January 29, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The employee, a female graphic designer, was working with her male supervisor when the two got into an argument. The supervisor began screaming and cursing at her, and when the employee attempted to leave, her supervisor put his hand on her multiple times and physically prevented her from leaving for some time before finally letting her go.  More ›

Sixth Circuit: No Gender Bias in Wage Difference between Male and Female Counterparts

December 2, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In this case, the employee began working with the auto parts manufacturer when she was a student. After she graduated, she was hired as a test engineer with the same starting salary as the other engineering graduates. More ›

Employers Eyeing First GINA Cases for Further Guidance

August 23, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants based on genetic information. Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decision, restricts employers and other entities from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. Over the course of the past few years, the EEOC has filed two cases against employers, alleging violation of this particular Act.  More ›

Supreme Court: Proving Title VII Retaliation Claim Requires “But-For” Causation

June 25, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Adding to a recent string of victories for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 24, 2013, that claims for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved "according to traditional principles of but-for causation." More ›

Seventh Circuit: Employer’s Shifting Explanations for Termination Suggest Pregnancy Discrimination

June 13, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Employers take heed: in a decision issued earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer’s varying explanations for terminating a pregnant employee indicated possible discrimination, even though the multiple explanations given were only slightly different. The case serves as a reminder that, when terminating an employee, absolute consistency is critical. By providing multiple reasons for a disciplinary decision — even multiple reasons that are almost the same — an employer would needlessly expose itself to discrimination claims. More ›

Court Incorrectly Denies Employee Opportunity to Present Comparator Evidence

June 6, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A product engineer took an approved four-week leave of absence to visit family in Gaza, but upon return, security issues rendered it impossible for him to return to the United States prior to the end of his leave. His employer extended his leave for another 45 days. On the day he was scheduled to be terminated for failure to return to work, the employee sent an email to his supervisors advising that he was finally able to exit Israel and was trying to get a flight back to the United States.The employee returned to work roughly one week later and was informed that he had been terminated. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives