22 Wednesday Jul 2015
Posted in Employment Law, Religious Discrimination, Wrongful Termination
≈ Comments Off on Wrongful Termination for Religious Discrimination – Spoiler Alert! The Employer Wins.
Tags
Employment Law, Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor, Religious Discrimination, Title VII
Oy Vey! No Religious Discrimination in Jewish Nurse’s Termination, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor
A recent religious discrimination claim dismissed in favor of an employer offers a number important take-aways for both employers and employees. . . .
28 Saturday Mar 2015
Posted in Employment Law, Pregnancy Discrimination, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Latest Supreme Court Opinion on Pregnancy Discrimination Claims.
Tags
Civil Rights, Employment Law, Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor Blog, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Title VII
A New Day for Pregnant Employee Workplace Accommodations – Understanding the New Framework, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor Blog
http://www.michiganemploymentlawadvisor.com/category/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
Yesterday [March 26, 2015] the U.S. Supreme Court issued the much anticipated opinion in a pregnancy discrimination claim, Young v . United Parcel Service.
For context, the claim in Young v UPS arose under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA was added to Title VII (the gold-standard in terms of civil rights law prohibiting workplace discrimination) to overcome a prior Supreme Court ruling that allowed employers to treat pregnant female workers less favorably based on being pregnant.
There are two anti-discrimination provisions under the PDA: the first prohibits pregnancy bias as a form of discrimination based on sex; the second prohibits employers from treating female employees who become pregnant different than other employees who perform the same sort of work. . . .
14 Saturday Jun 2014
Posted in Anti-Retaliation, Bullying, Disabilities, EEOC, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination
≈ Comments Off on Note Limited Time to File Employment Discrimination Charge!
Tags
Anti-Discrimination, EEOC, Employment Law, EPA, Equal Pay, Harassment, Sex Discrimination, Title VII
Time Limits For Filing A Charge, U.S. Equal Employment Commission
http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/timeliness.cfm
The anti-discrimination laws give you a limited amount of time to file a charge of discrimination. In general, you need to file a charge within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis. The rules are slightly different for age discrimination charges. For age discrimination, the filing deadline is only extended to 300 days if there is a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforcing that law. The deadline is not extended if only a local law prohibits age discrimination.
Note: Federal employees and job applicants have a different complaint process, and generally must contact an agency EEO Counselor within 45 days. The time limit can be extended under certain circumstances.
Regardless of how much time you have to file, it is best to file as soon as you have decided that is what you would like to do.
Time limits for filing a charge with EEOC generally will not be extended while you attempt to resolve a dispute through another forum such as an internal grievance procedure, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation before filing a charge with EEOC. Other forums for resolution may be pursued at the same time as the processing of the EEOC charge. . . .
27 Sunday Apr 2014
Posted in Appellate Law, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Harassment
≈ Comments Off on New Standard for Proving Sexual Harassment.
Tags
Hostile Work Environment, Lexology, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Sexual harassment, Title VII
Two New Cases Demonstrate High Bar For Proving Sexual Harassment, by Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Lexology®, in cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
Not all sex-related behavior in the workplace gives rise to an actionable claim for sexual harassment. In order to violate Title VII, the actions complained of must be unwelcomed, and must create a hostile and offensive working environment based on the victim’s gender. Two new federal appellate cases show how alleged workplace behavior can be obnoxious and unwelcomed, and yet still fail to reach this threshold. . . .
04 Monday Nov 2013
Posted in Employment Law, Harassment, Race Discrimination, Trial Tips and Techniques, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on “Supervisor” Defined by U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court refines Title VII standards, by Kevin B. Leblang and Robert N. Holtzman, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
On June 24 2013 the US Supreme Court handed down opinions in two cases refining the standards applicable to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, the court ruled that only employees with the authority to hire, fire or promote the alleged victim will be considered supervisors for purposes of Title VII harassment suits. Second, the Supreme Court applied a strict and employer-friendly causation standard to Title VII retaliation claims.
The Researching Paralegal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.