Tim Coffield Attorney
  • Home
  • Law Practice
  • Blog
  • Timothy Coffield Attorney | Press
Select Page

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: Sexual Harassment is Unlawful Discrimination

by Tim Coffield | Jun 11, 2019 | Supreme Court, Uncategorized

In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964..  As discussed in an earlier post, Title VII protects employees from workplace...

Smith v. City of Jackson: ADEA Authorizes Employee Disparate Impact Claims

by Tim Coffield | May 16, 2019 | Supreme Court, Uncategorized

In Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, authorizes disparate impact claims. This means that an employee, to prevail on an age...

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The Law of Stereotyping

by Tim Coffield | Apr 17, 2019 | Uncategorized

In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court recognized Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination necessarily includes a prohibition on gender stereotyping. The female employee in Price Waterhouse was denied a promotion because she was...

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.: Burden of Proving Off-the-Clock Work

by Tim Coffield | Mar 19, 2019 | Supreme Court, Uncategorized

The Supreme Court classic Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946),  concerned the extent to which employees’ pre-work activities are compensable working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (for the text of the FLSA, go here). The case also...

Griggs v. Duke Power: Disparate Impact Without Discriminatory Intent

by Tim Coffield | Feb 12, 2019 | Supreme Court, Uncategorized

The Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), addressed the Title VII issues created by employer policies that are facially neutral, but which adversely impact employees on the basis of race, sex, or religion. In short, the Griggs...

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green: A Framework for Analyzing Discriminatory Intent Using Indirect Evidence

by Tim Coffield | Jan 18, 2019 | Supreme Court, Uncategorized

In the landmark McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Supreme Court described a burden-shifting framework by which employees can prove their employers engaged in unlawful discrimination under Title VII without any “direct” evidence of...
« Older Entries

Recent Posts

  • Muldrow v. City of St. Louis: Revised Standard of Harm in Discrimination Cases
  • Bartels v. Birmingham: Early Economic Reality Test For Employment Relationship in Music Industry
  • Citicorp v. Brock: FLSA Hot Goods Provision Applies to Secured Creditors
  • Groff v. DeJoy: Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Defend Denial of Religious Accommodation as Undue Hardship
  • Darveau v. Detecon: FLSA Retaliation And Post-Employment Counterclaims

Archives

  • August 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • February 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018

Categories

  • Discrimination
  • FLSA
  • Fourth Circuit Cases
  • Harassment
  • Insights
  • Minimum Wages
  • Misclassification
  • Overtime
  • Religion
  • Religious Accommodation
  • Religious Accommodations
  • Retaliation
  • Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Tim Coffield Attorney
  • Title VII
  • Uncategorized
  • Wages

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Disclaimer

Timothy Coffield Attorney Social Media

Behance

Crunchbase

LinkedIn

Patch

Pinterest

SoundCloud

Strikingly

Twitter

Weebly

YouTube

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by WordPress