In the remand of the high profile Mach Mining litigation that was before the Supreme Court in 2015, a district court denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration of a discovery order pertaining to the scope of the EEOC’s investigation, and denied the EEOC’s motion to amend its complaint to add as defendants seven entities who did not receive actual notice or an opportunity to conciliate.
Last week, I reported that summary judgment was granted against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its transgender discrimination lawsuit against R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, linked to the decision (but here it is again), and then said I’d be back in touch after I’d had a chance to really read it.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued two final rules confirming that employers can offer limited incentives (in the form of a reward or avoidance of a penalty) to encourage employees and their spouses to participate in workplace wellness programs.
The tension between employment discrimination and religious freedom recently played out in a Michigan federal district court case.
In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received almost 28,000 charges of discrimination alleging workplace harassment — a number that has remained relatively constant over the last five years.
In one of the first two ever transgender discrimination cases brought by the EEOC, a federal court in Michigan granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding the employer met its burden in demonstrating that it is exempt under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while the EEOC failed to suggest a less restrictive alternative in its challenge of the employer’s gender-specific dress code policy.
Remember EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes? This was the transgender discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a suburban Detroit funeral home chain for allegedly discriminating against an employee after she began presenting as a female.
The Fifth Circuit is a risky place to do business. Sometimes, it just reaches some strange conclusions.
The EEOC’s revised pay rule expands collection of pay and hours-worked data from employers filing EEO-1 reports. The proposed rule requires employers, including federal contractors, with 100 or more employees to report summary W-2 income by sex, race, ethnicity, and job group.
Throughout 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) has been examining initiatives to identify and attempt to rectify a perceived lack of diversity in the workplace.