When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: title 7 lawsuit against employer for stress and anxiety statistics worldwide

Search results

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

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Nashville

    Writing for the majority, Justice Souter defines two activities Title VII protects, saying section 704(a) "makes it unlawful 'for an employer to discriminate against any... employe[e]' who (1) 'has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter' (opposition clause), or (2) 'has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation ...

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Civil Rights Act of 1991 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991

    It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment. U.S. President George H. W. Bush had used his veto against the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1990. He feared racial quotas would be ...

  6. 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.

  7. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_v._Martin...

    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children.

  8. Employment discrimination law in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination...

    The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal ...

  9. 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.