Search for: "DOES I-VII"
Results 81 - 100
of 3,540
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2010, 9:02 pm
The EEOC does not consider isolated incidents of "sexual favoritism" to be violations of Title VII. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:40 am
The employer argued for the dismissal of Terveer’s complaint, since Title VII does not include protections against sexual-orientation discrimination. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 10:00 am
The post Symposium: Title VII did not and does not extend to sexual orientation or gender identity — in 1964 or today appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
2 May 2019, 1:32 pm
I said in the article, “my prediction is that the court will find that Title VII does not extend to sexual orientation or gender identity,” but that there will be a call for Congress to deal with the issue, although attempts over the years “have never really gotten any legs to do it through a legislative remedy. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 4:12 am
Most courts that have examined this issue agree with your observation that this type of “favoritism” does not violate Title VII. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 12:26 pm
I appreciate this opportunity to guest blog on the Volokh Conspiracy about my latest article, posted on SSRN a few weeks ago, entitled Ordinary Meaning as Last Resort: The Meaning of "Undue Hardship" in Title VII. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 12:14 pm
Eastern Airlines, Inc., 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.1984), which held that Title VII does not cover transsexuals. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 4:25 am
Last week, I discussed the limits of Title VII’s opposition clause in protecting (or not protecting, as the case may be) employees who make unreasonable or unfounded complaints about discrimination. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 7:49 am
More to the point, the text of Title VII does not require a separate showing of some harm. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 6:31 am
At least not under Title VII, which has strict requirements to prove an adverse employment action.This case arose in New York City, so I wonder if plaintiff might still win under the New York City Human Rights Law, which does not follow Title VII's adverse action requirements. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 5:48 am
This opinion is long but the answer to that question is short -- no.Where does Title VII come in? [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 4:27 am
Every circuit to consider the issue has [held] that Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 9:24 am
No, Title VII does not prohibit favoritism based on a special relationship, says the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
” However, the Court concluded that “Doe’s testimony belies and utterly destroys any such contention” and that, “[i]n its zealous representation of Doe, EEOC is mischaracterizing Doe’s own testimony. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 3:29 pm
” However, the Court concluded that “Doe’s testimony belies and utterly destroys any such contention” and that, “[i]n its zealous representation of Doe, EEOC is mischaracterizing Doe’s own testimony. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 11:56 am
I suspect the case will turn on whether Title VII requires actual notice, or if the employer's correct assumption that the applicant requires a religious accommodation is sufficient to trigger some obligation (like, the interactive process perhaps). [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 4:30 am
Title VII does not require that XYZ corporation remove the wreaths and tree or add holiday decorations associated with other religions. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 3:30 am
I teased this last March, when I blogged here about how a New York federal court agonized that it was bound by Second Circuit precedent that Title VII does not protect employees from discrimination because of sexual orientation. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 3:30 am
I teased this last March, when I blogged here about how a New York federal court agonized that it was bound by Second Circuit precedent that Title VII does not protect employees from discrimination because of sexual orientation. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 4:39 am
The employer moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that Title VII does not cover sexual-orientation discrimination. [read post]
