On August 18, 2023, in Hamilton v. Dallas County,[1] the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, handed down a significant Title VII ruling that has far-reaching implications for future employment discrimination cases in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Employees seeking to bring a discrimination claim no longer need to
In Gauthreaux v. The City of Gretna, 22-424 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/29/23), ___ So.3d ___, 2023 WL 2674191, Louisiana’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that Louisiana’s statutory employment protections related to sex did not extend to sexual orientation and declined to extend the United States Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that an employer who fires an individual based on the individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity violates the express terms of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),
Responses to the coronavirus that directly impact employers are making their way through Congress. CBS and other news outlets are reporting on Congressional leaders’ negotiations regarding various measures that will directly impact employers. These measures include paid emergency sick leave and disaster unemployment assistance. See the attached link from CBS News regarding the Congressional response
Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against United Airlines, Inc. and alleged that United violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment) by subjecting a female flight attendant to a hostile work environment.
According to the EEOC, a
On July 17, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that Estée Lauder Companies will pay $1,100,000 and provide other relief to settle a class sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.
In 2017, the EEOC filed suit against Estée Lauder in federal court in Pennsylvania. The EEOC alleged that Estée Lauder discriminated against
It’s been a busy end of February. For employers, the past two weeks have included several notable decisions:
Dodd-Frank Does Not Protect In-House Whistleblowers
Last Wednesday, on February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the anti-retaliation provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) does not
On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As previously noted, there has been much debate among the courts regarding the meaning of the term “sex” under Title VII and whether discrimination based on sexual orientation
As with any change in administration, this is a time of uncertainty. One example is the rights of transgender individuals to access certain restrooms in the workplace, which, based on recent events, will likely continue to be a source of uncertainty for many employers.
Federal law does not expressly prohibit discrimination based on transgender status.
On January 26, 2015, Saks Fifth Avenue withdrew a pleading that had sparked the attention of federal agencies and gender rights activists. In so doing, Saks abandoned its previously-pled position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination statute, does not protect transgender individuals. Gender rights activities tout the withdrawal