Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013), is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor. [1]
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Saxbe was the first case in a U.S. District Court to establish that quid pro quo sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [12] A male supervisor was found to have retaliated against Diane R. Williams, an African American woman, by firing her after she refused to have sex with him.
The antecedents of the case were posed when Lilly Ledbetter, a production supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, filed an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, six months before her early retirement in 1998.
In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic (e.g. race or sex) under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact , where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a ...
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court.The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer.
Case history; Prior: Judgment for plaintiff, 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1985); Affirmed, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 321, 825 F.2d 458 (1987): Holding; Once a Title VII plaintiff proves that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant can only avoid a finding of liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision regardless of ...