Tag: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Adverse Actions

Can an employee sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to challenge a lateral transfer, even if the transfer doesn’t result in a loss of pay? According to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the answer is yes. Employers transfer employees, or take other actions, for a variety of reasons. Until […]

How Much Harm Is Enough? Transfer Supports Title VII Discrimination Claim

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, there was no question that the complaining employee was moved out of her position because of her gender, but she suffered no loss of pay or rank. So the Court had to determine whether she was still able to maintain an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of […]

Remember Your Obligations When Religion and DEI Training Collide

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which clarified that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s  protections against discrimination “based on . . . sex” included sexual orientation and gender identity, an increasing area of legal questions has arisen regarding the conflicts between LGBTQ+ employees’ rights and other employees’ […]

EntertainHR: 9 to 5—Don’t Mess with Dolly

Summertime is nearing, and one of my favorite summer traditions after a long week is to make a big bowl of popcorn, get myself and my dog cozy on the couch, and turn on an old movie. Recently, I rewatched 9 to 5, a classic screwball comedy that will have you rolling on the floor […]

Case Study: Guidance for Employers on Music in the Workplace

In today’s workplace, many employers allow employees to play music. While this is generally a cost-effective way to improve culture, morale, and productivity; it also creates potential exposure for hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is particularly true given a recent decision from […]

Pay Equity Issues Can Arise in Multiple Ways for Employers

Pay equity for women remains an issue for many employers. Among those championing gender pay equity is Megan Rapinoe, an American soccer star who’s set to retire from professional play at the end of the National Women’s Soccer League final this Saturday, November 11, 2023. Rapinoe has been at the forefront of gender pay equity […]

AI Discrimination: What EEOC Settlement with iTutorGroup, Inc., Means for Employers

Can artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning programs lead to discrimination claims? The simple answer is yes, and the recent settlement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and three integrated English-language tutoring companies known as iTutorGroup, Inc., confirms any doubts employers might have. Now more than ever, employers should carefully evaluate the benefits and […]

Denying Religious Accommodations Now More Difficult Under Federal Law

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) requires employers to accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs unless accommodation would result in an undue hardship. Historically, denial of a religious accommodation has carried a minimal burden of showing hardship, but a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court just made denying a […]

Supreme Court Ruling Requires More Rigor from Employers for Employee Requests for Religious Accommodations

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious practices so long as doing so wouldn’t impose an undue hardship on the employers.  Title VII Title VII, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  Whom Does […]

SCOTUS Subtly Redefines the Landscape of Workplace Religious Accommodations

Since 1977, employers evaluating whether an employee’s religious accommodation request would cause undue hardship on their business had a low burden to meet. A denial of a religious accommodation could likely be justified if the proposed accommodation involved more than de minimis cost or inconvenience to the employer. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court changed that […]