We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 64

EEOC pushes its strategic enforcement plan and advocates for transgender workplace protections under Title VII

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2014

No federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Nevertheless, in recent years, the EEOC has

Enough is enough: Retail Litigation Center advises court that the EEOC has overstepped in attack on releases

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2014

As many of our loyal readers are aware, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

California court of appeal limits plaintiffs' request for discovery to locate new class representatives in a "headless" class action

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2011

In a ruling on April 25, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District in Starbucks v. Superior Court (Lords), No. G043650 (Cal. App. Apr. 25, 2011), overturned a trial court's order allowing a fishing expedition to find class representatives in a "headless" class action

Managing transgender issues in the workplace following the EEOC's Macy ruling

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2012

Although no federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity, courts have increasingly held that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination under federal law

Court holds employer is responsible for conciliation failure because it refused to make counter-offer to EEOC's baseless monetary demand

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 20 2013

Recently, in EEOC v. Wedco, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00523 (D. Nev. March 12, 1013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada considered whether

Court finds the EEOC's delay in pursuing lawsuit unreasonable

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2012

On June 28, 2012, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina gave employers an additional tool for combating an increasingly common EEOC practice of dragging out investigations and the initiation of lawsuits

The EEOC secures approval of $11 million consent decree in its largest settlement of 2012

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2012

The EEOC secured approval of its largest settlement in 2012 this past week in EEOC v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. and YRC, Inc., No. 09-7693 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2012), a pattern or practice lawsuit involving allegations of systemic race discrimination

"Seriously concerned" about rule 23 requirements, district court ponders dismissal of plaintiff's "rebooted" class claims in Dukes

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2012

While we don't often blog about hearings without resulting rulings, here is an exception - on June 8, 2012, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California presided over what could be the final chapter for one of the smaller “rebooted” class actions following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011

Denied! plaintiffs fail to effectively “reboot” class claims and class certification is denied (again) in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 4 2013

As our loyal blog readers are aware, following their stinging defeat before the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541

Rise of the zombie lawsuit: Fifth Circuit revives former Dukes class member’s individual claims against her former employer

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 15 2014

As we previously reported, following the re-booting of discrimination claims by a member of the former class in Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc