RSS Feed

Tech Support

1753-54 (holding that discrimination primarily based on sexual orientation or transgender status is actionable below Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibition, however declining to deal with how an employer’s religious convictions about sexual orientation or transgender standing are protected underneath Title VII’s statutory religious organization exception, RFRA, or the first Amendment’s ministerial exception, noting that how doctrines "protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII are questions for future cases"); Bob Jones Univ. 2002) (holding that proof supported finding of religiously motivated constructive discharge based mostly on plaintiff’s Native American spiritual beliefs); EEOC v. Univ. 2007) (affirming abstract judgment, citing lack of statistical evidence for employer on Title VII declare brought by instructor who asserted coverage favoring teachers whose kids attended the general public faculties had a disparate impression on those whose youngsters attended non-public school for religious quite than secular causes); Muhammad v. N.Y. 2009) (holding that Pentecostal worker said a claim beneath Title VII for religion-primarily based disparate influence when challenging gown code requiring female bus operators to wear pants reasonably than long skirts). 2014) (analyzing disparate impression declare arising from disproportionate effect of employer’s gown code provision on these carrying sure sorts of religious garb); Jenkins v. N.Y. 2009) (holding that Pentecostal employee stated a declare below Title VII for disparate affect primarily based on religion difficult dress code requiring feminine bus operators to put on pants somewhat than long skirts).