30 03, 2017

Sex Stereotyping Discrimination Claims in the Second Circuit on Hold

By |2017-03-24T11:50:37-05:00March 30, 2017|EPLI, Guest Blog, Uncategorized|0 Comments

In Lorber v. Lew, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21189, *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2017), plaintiff -- an openly gay IRS employee -- filed suit against the former Secretary of the Treasury alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII based on his gender.  Among other things, plaintiff alleged that he had been passed over for promotions, excluded from meetings, and given poor performance reviews for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons.  Although the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court refused to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for discrimination under Title VII for nonconformity with male [...]

31 08, 2016

You Snooze You Sometimes Lose: Court Enforces 6 Month Statute of Limitations with Respect to Section 1981 Claim But Not with Respect to Title VII Claim

By |2016-08-31T08:31:17-05:00August 31, 2016|EPLI, Guest Blog, PL Insurance|0 Comments

Did you know that an agreement shortening the time within which to bring an employment law claim may be enforceable?  Indeed, in Order of United Commercial Travelers of Am. v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 608, 67 S. Ct. 1355, 91 L. Ed. 1687 (1947), the Supreme Court stated with respect to contracts generally that “in the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a provision in a contract may validly limit, between the parties, the time for bringing an action … to a period less than that prescribed in the general statute of limitations, [if] the shorter period [is] [...]

23 08, 2016

Breaking EPL News!

By |2016-08-22T13:51:29-05:00August 23, 2016|Current Events, EPLI, Guest Blog|1 Comment

In Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13746, **54-56 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Title VII sexual orientation claim based on the doctrine of stare decisis – relying on the jurisdiction’s precedent determining that Title VII does not protect against same-sex discrimination.  In doing so, however, the court made clear its reservations, noting the incongruity whereby a same-sex couple can marry legally in the United States on a Saturday and be fired on Monday for having done so.  The court’s conclusion [...]

Go to Top