Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 575 U.S. 768 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding a Muslim American woman, Samantha Elauf, who was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in 2008 because she wore a headscarf, which conflicted with the company's dress code. [1]
The case was heard on October 8, 2019, alongside two other cases, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda which dealt with Title VII protection related to sexual orientation. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision under Bostock but covering all three cases on June 15, 2020, that Title VII protection extends to gay and ...
One of the plaintiffs in this case, Kennedy, filed with the EEOC a Form 283 “Intake Questionnaire” and a signed affidavit more than 60 days before filing suit. The EEOC, however, did not take the usual steps after a filing to process it as a charge. FedEx argued that Kennedy failed to file a charge with the EEOC as required by the ADEA.
The EEOC argued that it possesses a broad Congressional mandate to investigate and remedy employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that any infringement of the University's First Amendment rights is permissible because of the substantial relation between the EEOC's request and the overriding ...
The lawsuit González v.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 3:03-cv-02817, filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment."
A woman who worked at a Maryland lodge was fired days after telling her supervisor she had a miscarriage and couldn’t make it to her shift, a federal lawsuit says.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Health Programs of America is a case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.The court ruled that an employer's imposition of an "Onionhead" or "Harnessing Happiness" system of beliefs on employees constituted a religions imposition in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution, the right to an accounting, human rights violations and violations of international law: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation: violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York