Search for: "Bostock v. Clayton County" Results 161 - 180 of 521
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2020, 4:03 pm by Andrew Koppelman
Clayton County that if an employer fires women who date women, but not men who date women, it violates Title VII of the Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 3:30 am by Allison Brownell Tirres
Allison Brownell Tirres Advocates of equality breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bostock v. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 6:55 am
Yesterday just-so-happened to be the anniversary of the Bostock v. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 6:55 am
Yesterday just-so-happened to be the anniversary of the Bostock v. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 12:10 pm by Lawrence Solum
  Here is the abstract: The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 11:30 am by William Eskridge
But for Bostock’s male sex, Clayton County would not have objected to his attraction to men and would not have fired him. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
” For a slightly more detailed explanation, I’ll defer to Commissioner Lucas: “[EEOC] Chair Burrows unilaterally issued the ‘technical assistance’ document addressing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. [read post]