Supreme Court Mulls Over Meaning of Adverse Action under Title VII
The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case involving a claim of sex discrimination by a sergeant from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
We address issues, cases and matters of statutory and regulatory compliance of employment law that can impact a business' growth and profitability.
The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case involving a claim of sex discrimination by a sergeant from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
On April 27, 2022, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the dismissal of a former employee’s claims he had suffered retaliation for his past opposition of workplace discrimination.
On April 25, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an opinion dismissing the Title VII claims of a plaintiff who alleged her employer unlawfully denied insurance coverage benefits to her son because he was transgender.
On April 28, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held emotional distress damages are not recoverable under several federal anti-discrimination laws that apply to entities receiving federal funding, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Title VI, and Title IX.
On October 4, 2017, the United States Department of Justice issued a memorandum reversing its stance on whether the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes discrimination based on gender identity. The memorandum was authored by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In the memorandum, Attorney General Sessions supports his conclusion in part by stating that “Title VII expressly prohibits discrimination ‘because of . . . sex’ and several other protected traits, but it does not refer to gender identity.” Although the memorandum explicitly withdraws a 2014 memorandum by former Attorney General Eric Holder who reached the opposite conclusion, Attorney General Sessions continues to state that “[n]othing in this memorandum should be construed to condone mistreatment on the basis of gender identity.”