Tag

#Bostock v. Clayton County

Home » Bostock v. Clayton County

12 posts

July 4th, 2019

Today’s News & Commentary — July 4, 2019

Published July 4th, 2019 -

Over 40 briefs in support of Title VII’s extension to sexual orientation and/or gender identity were submitted by amici curiae in time for yesterday’s deadline in the cases of Zarda, Bostock, and Harris (see Adrienne’s recap of the cases here).  Jon Davidson o... More »

April 26th, 2019

Today’s News & Commentary – April 26, 2019

Published April 26th, 2019 -

The Eighth Circuit stayed further consideration of Horton v. Midwest Geriatric Management, LLC following the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Bostock and Zarda.  Horton, like the aforementioned cases, concerns whether Title VII’s bar against discrimination ... More »

April 25th, 2019

Today’s News & Commentary — April 25, 2019

Published April 25th, 2019 -

In Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held yesterday that “[u]nder the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.”  In the case, Lam... More »

April 23rd, 2019

Today’s News & Commentary —April 23, 2019

Published April 23rd, 2019 -

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide next term whether federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees. The Court granted certiorari in three cases: Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda; and R.G. & G... More »

March 14th, 2019

Today’s News & Commentary — March 14, 2019

Published March 14th, 2019 -

Yesterday Democrats in both the House and the Senate reintroduced the Equality Act, a bill that would bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations.  Forty-four business groups, inclu... More »

October 25th, 2018

Today’s News & Commentary — October 25, 2018

Published October 25th, 2018 -

In a brief to the Supreme Court yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Title VII’s prohibition against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex does not protect workers against discrimination on the basis of transgender identity or transitio... More »