MENU

Discrimination Law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 3-11-15 featuring Rachel Paulose
Rachel K. Paulose March 11, 2015

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. This case asks whether knowledge of a required Title VII religious accommodation and an applicant or employee's clear notice of their "religious observance or practice" to their prospective or current employer is required for an employer to be held liable for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for choosing not to hire an applicant or dismissing an employee because of said "religious observance or practice."

To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate Confirmed United States Attorney.

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Todd Gaziano
Todd F. Gaziano January 28, 2015

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. This case involves the Fair Housing Act, which states that it is illegal to "refuse to sell or rent...or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race." The question in this case is whether disparate impact claims, which permit liability based on disproportionate impact in the absence of express discriminatory intent, are allowed under the Fair Housing Act. 

To discuss the case, we have Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation.

Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Paul Mirengoff
Paul E. Mirengoff January 27, 2015

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.

Disparate Impact Liability and the Fair Housing Act: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Todd F. Gaziano January 22, 2015

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The Supreme Court has previously attempted twice to hear cases reaching the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, in Magner v. Gallagher and Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, and in both instances the cases were settled less than a month before oral arguments. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” Do policies that can be demonstrated to have a discriminatory effect on certain racial groups, without a showing of discriminatory intent, violate the statute?

  • Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation

A Sign of Things to Come?: Reed v. Town of Gilbert - Podcast

Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
Hans A. von Spakovsky January 13, 2015

On January 12, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The Town of Gilbert has a sign code that imposes limits on the size, location, number, and duration of the signs advertising the weekly services of the Good News Community Church, whose pastor, Clyde Reed, sued. The sign code does not impose the same restrictions on political, ideological, and homeowners’ association signs. Does the First Amendment rule against content discrimination require a plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination by a government entity? Does the Town of Gilbert's assertion that its sign code lacks a discriminatory motive render its facially content-based sign code content-neutral and justify the code's differential treatment of religious signs?

  • Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation