When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Crawford v. Nashville - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Nashville

    From the employees' perspective, agreeing with Nashville and the Sixth Circuit would mean the prudent employee may decide not answer questions regarding discrimination, as there would be no protection against retaliation. If employees choose not to participate in internal investigations, the employer would have a defense, should a Title VII ...

  3. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Northern_&_Santa...

    Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.

  4. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

    Although private employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it was held in Washington v. Davis (1976) that the disparate impact doctrine does not apply to the equal protection requirement of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, lawsuits against public employers may be barred by sovereign immunity.

  5. McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_burden...

    In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.

  6. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas...

    The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v.

  7. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Corp._v...

    After the Supreme Court ruling, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) amended several sections of Title VII. [1] Title VII prohibits employment discrimination "because of" certain reasons. While "because of" may be understood in the conversational sense, the McDonnell Douglas case was the first landmark case to define this phrase.

  8. The impact of toxic work culture on employee turnover ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/impact-toxic-culture-employee...

    Such environments can cause chronic issues like anxiety, depression, burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and even physical health problems. These issues are not limited to the four walls of the ...

  9. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_v._Shell_Oil_Co.

    Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S. employers must not engage in workplace discrimination such as writing bad job references, or otherwise retaliating against former employees as a punishment for filing job discrimination complaints.