Tag: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Striking a Balance: Insights From EEOC, DOJ Guidance on DEI and Title VII

On March 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance clarifying how diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives intersect with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The guidance provides critical direction for employers seeking to implement inclusive workplace policies while ensuring compliance with […]

Supreme Court to Weigh in on Heterosexual Employee’s Reverse Discrimination Claim

At the end of February 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an employment discrimination lawsuit that focused on a reverse discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the Supreme Court’s decision isn’t expected for a few months, the questions posed during oral arguments provide potential insight […]

Navigating the Legal Maze: Ensuring Hiring Compliance in a Complex Regulatory Landscape

The hiring process can be complex and time-consuming for even the smallest businesses. As they grow, of course, the landscape becomes even more complex, full of potential legal landmines that can be costly in terms of both out-of-pocket costs and business reputations. It takes a great deal of time, money and effort to post job […]

Employee’s Personal Social Media Account May Create Hostile Work Environment

Workers continue to find new ways to create potential hostile work environment liability for their employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In June 2023, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to employers in all the states covered by West Employment Law Letter) held that offensive music […]

SCOTUS Order Signals It May Invalidate Some EEOC Harassment Guidelines

In August, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an injunction to the Department of Education’s recently issued rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. This order—coupled with its decision overruling Chevron deference—signals the […]

Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold Title IX Trans Harassment Guidance

On August 16, the Supreme Court refused to lift lower court orders blocking the Department of Education’s (DOE) new regulations protecting LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on gender identity. The new rule expanded the definition of sex-based discrimination under Title IX to protect gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in federally funded schools. The entire […]

Religious accommodations: Where do we stand?

Last summer, in Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court upended the analysis used to determine whether and how employers must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs. In the year since, there have been some applications of Groff’s reasoning in lower court cases, and here are some takeaways you can apply when working through an employee’s […]

Case Study: Examining DEI One Year After SFFA v. Harvard/UNC

In a momentous decision overturning decades of precedents, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC last year that the use of race in college admissions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Harvard) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (UNC). While the decision was focused on higher […]

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 […]