Last term, for the second time, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on the question of whether outside job applicants can use the disparate impact theory to challenge age discrimination under section 4(a)(2) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. In Holowecki, the Court ruled that an EEOC Intake Questionnaire filed by a claimant reflecting a clear request for the agency to act constituted a timely filed “charge” of discrimination satisfying the ADEA’s requirement of timely exhaustion of administrative remedies (i.e., time limits—usually 300 days—for filing a charge following an act of discrimination). . We highlight seven noteworthy cases from 2020 that employers should know about. at 17-24. An Oxford University professor forced to retire before his 70th birthday because of the university’s employer justified retirement age policy (EJRA) was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against, an employment … Albertson's. While the focus has been on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, HR professionals have still had their fair share of employment law cases to keep track of in 2020. The Supreme Court is due to hear Royal Mencap Society on 12 and 13 February 2020. You can read the Tribunal's decision here. This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. The Supreme Court struggled Monday with where to draw a line in a dispute concerning when teachers who work in religious schools can file employment discrimination claims. An employment tribunal ruled Friday Jan. 10, 2020, that Samira Ahmed who was paid a fraction of the fee received by a male colleague doing a similar job has won a sex-discrimination … § 623(a)(2) (2016). 2018), a case involving older workers eligible to retire who were laid off in a reduction-in-force and were denied unemployment benefits unless they agreed to retire. 2020), cert. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global LLP. You will be asked to register or log in. . More recently, in the case of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd, an Employment Tribunal decided that a gender fluid / non-binary employee had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. December 08, 2020 : Marcus G. Keegan Appointed as Regional Attorney for EEOC’s Atlanta District Office: December 07, 2020 : Kansas City Nursing Home to Pay $40,000 to Settle EEOC Pay Discrimination Claims: December 02, 2020 : EEOC Launches New Data Tool to Track Employment Trends: December 02, 2020 Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. Colistro v. Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197. On December 9, 2020, the EEOC filed the case, U.S. However, more than 25% of the workers in the UK claim to have been discriminated against at work. Another emerging issue involving disparate impact claims in the age discrimination arena—a theory the Court recognized as valid in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), and further defined in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., Inc., 554 U.S. 84 (2008)—is whether sub-groups of individuals over age 40 (such as those 50 and over) may bring disparate impact claims under the ADEA. Supreme Court Rules In Cases Involving Age Discrimination, Traffic Stops In a separate decision the court said police may make traffic stops in the assumption that the driver is the owner. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed and affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Federal appeals courts are in profound disagreement regarding the proper standard of causation in ADA litigation. The employment tribunal found that this amounted to an act of disability discrimination. 2015), vacated and contrary result entered on reh’g en banc, 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. These cases highlight interesting or topical employment cases. denied, No. Assuming the case proceeds, employers with a recognised trade union will await with interest SC clarification of the scope of s145B. By Melissa Legault on July 8, 2020 Posted in Discrimination, Employment Law, News, Recent Cases, Religion, Termination The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. See Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) (holding 8-1, in an opinion penned by Justice Alito, that plaintiffs need only prove age was “a factor” in an employer’s conduct, rather than that it was a “but-for cause” thereof, in order to establish liability under the Federal sector provision of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. In cases raising this issue, en banc U.S. Courts of Appeals have vacated panel decisions recognizing such a claim. Subscribe to Employment Discrimination. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2292 (2017). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it has entered into a Consent Decree resolving an age discrimination lawsuit against Computer Science Corporation (CSC). Editorial Truss and the government are playing a dangerous game over equality. You'll start receiving the latest news, benefits, events, and programs related to AARP's mission to empower people to choose how they live as they age. 27, 2020) and Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. Alternative legal and compliance services developed by Eversheds Sutherland. You are leaving and going to the website of our trusted provider. As the new year begins we highlight some key cases for HR practitioners and in-house employment counsel which are proceeding in 2020 or are awaiting approval to proceed but are likely to prove significant: See Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., 888 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. . The Third Circuit has also approved ADEA “sub-group” claims, see Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glassworks, LLC, 849 F.3d 61, 66 (3d Cir. Id. denied, No. Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees The Supreme Court says the federal ban on discrimination "based on sex" applies to gay, lesbian and transgender employees. again. 1999). 535 U.S. at 109, 116-17. Through creative use of emerging technology and global resources, we connect your needs with real benefits, and your challenges with transformative solutions. Preview of 2019-2020: Sex Discrimination and Fiduciary Duty on the Docket The Supreme Court granted certiorari for the October 2019 term in several cases with important employment … By Fiona W. Ong on December 1, 2020. Both federal and Wisconsin law prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, disabilities, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation and national origin. On behalf of Alan C. Olson & Associates | Jul 23, 2020 | Employment Law, Employment Law. The U.S. Over the years, the EEOC has investigated numerous job discrimination complaints brought by young workers. You can read more about some recent EEOC cases involving teen workers by following any of the links below. Also, Dewhurst v Revisecatch represents a further interesting development to keep an eye on. Javascript must be enabled to use this site. It is unlawful for employers to discriminate (directly or indirectly) against workers, employees or job applicants who are disabled under the Equality Act 2010. Post navigation Current Cases. In Maryland, if your employment application includes criminal history questions, then you are not paying attention to Shawe Rosenthal’s electronic communications. A pandemic atlas: South Africa acts quickly, dodges disaster . As the new year begins we highlight some key cases for HR practitioners and in-house employment counsel which are proceeding in 2020 or are awaiting approval to proceed but are likely to prove significant: Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake: in a long-running case of particular significance for the social care sector, the SC will consider whether workers carrying out ‘sleep-in’ shifts are entitled to the national minimum wage only during the time they are awake and working, not when they are sleeping at the workplace.