Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query employment and discrimination returned 76 results.

	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Opinion]
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT [Syllabus]
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES [Syllabus]
	GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER [Syllabus]
	SWIERKIEWICZ V. SOREMA N. A. [Syllabus] A complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, but instead must contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN. [Syllabus]
	EEOC V. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC. [Syllabus] An agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes does not bar the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages, in an action to enforce Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
	AT&T CORP. V. HULTEEN [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIV. OF ALA.V. GARRETT [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits by private citizens in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-consenting states. 2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by private citizens under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 against non-consenting states."
	CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE [Syllabus] Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. CHICAGO [Syllabus]
	WEST V. GIBSON [Syllabus]
	REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
	DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA [Syllabus] 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
	KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS [Syllabus] Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a private suit in federal court against a State for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RICCI V. DESTEFANO [Syllabus]
	RAYTHEON CO. V. HERNANDEZ [Syllabus] Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES [Syllabus]
	GROSS V. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. [Syllabus]
	ROBINSON V. SHELL OIL CO., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CRAWFORD V. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OFNASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY. [Syllabus]
	STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL [Syllabus]
	NEVADA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS [Syllabus] Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
	MCKENNON V. NASHVILLE BANNER PUBLISHING CO., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). [Syllabus]
	EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE [Syllabus] An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
	WALTERS V. METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., 519 U.S. 202 (1997). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. V. JACKSON [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP [Syllabus]
	ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. V. EVANS ET AL., 517 U.S. 620 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN [Syllabus]
	O'CONNOR V. CONSOLIDATED COIN CATERERS CORP., 517 U.S. 308 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI [Syllabus] Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LOCKHEED CORP. ET AL. V. SPINK, 517 U.S. 882 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES,P. C. V. WELLS [Syllabus] Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
	LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC. [Syllabus]
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	CITY OF BOERNE V. FLORES, 117 S.CT. 2157, 138 L.ED.2D 624 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RAYGOR V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF MINN. [Syllabus] Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d), which purports to toll the statute of limitations for supplemental state-law claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, does not apply to claims against nonconsenting state defendants that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
	[Syllabus]
	OUBRE V. ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., 522 U.S. 422 (1998) [Syllabus]
	JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WOODFORD V. NGO [Syllabus]
	HAYWOOD V. DROWN [Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	COMMISSIONER V. BANKS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HATTER [Syllabus] The judgment below is reversed insofar as the Federal Circuit found that the application of Medicare taxes to the salaries of federal judges taking office before 1983 violated the Compensation Clause, but affirmed insofar as that court found the application of Social Security taxes to the salaries of judges taking office before 1984 unconstitutional; a 1984 salary increase received by federal judges did not cure the latter violation.
	CHEVRON U.S. A. INC. V. ECHAZABAL [Syllabus] The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 permits an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation authorizing an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual because his performance on the job would endanger his own health.
	MEYER V. HOLLEY [Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.