Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Doe”) filed a lawsuit under a pseudonym and alleged 23 causes of action including human trafficking, sexual battery, forced labor and involuntary servitude against Defendants Mr. and Mrs. Penzato. Mrs. Penzato had offered Doe $1,500 per month, free room and board, and transportation to the United States in exchange for child care and housekeeping services. Doe accepted the offer and moved to San Francisco, California.
Jane Doe attended University High School in Urbana, Illinois. Although University High was a public school, it was affiliated with the University of Illinois, which had the responsibility for overseeing the school’s administration. From January 1993 through May 1994, while a student at University High, Jane was a victim of an ongoing campaign of verbal and physical 13 perpetrated by a group of male students at the school. Doe and her parents complained on numerous occasions to officials of both the high school and the University of Illinois.
The plaintiff-appellant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, initiated sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII against New Breed Logistics, the defendant, on behalf of three employees. The plaintiff alleged that Calhoun, a supervisor at New Breed sexually harassed three female employees and then retaliated against the women after they complained. The plaintiff further alleged that Calhoun retaliated against a male employee who verbally objected to Calhoun’s harassment of the women.
A Massachusetts statute made it illegal to give “drugs, medicine, instrument or article whatever for the prevention of contraception” to any unmarried person. The plaintiff, found guilty of violating the statute, challenged its constitutionality, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court held that a statute preventing unmarried people from obtaining contraception was unconstitutional.
In the case Emilee Carpenter LLC v. James, a professional photographer, Emilee Carpenter, challenged New York’s public-accommodations statutes (under the Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law) after indicating she would decline to provide wedding-photography services for same-sex couples due to her religious and personal beliefs about marriage.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 amended Title VII to include a prohibition of discrimination based on pregnancy in its prohibition of gender discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination based on current, past, or potential pregnancy.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) amended Title VII to include in its prohibition of gender discrimination a prohibition of discrimination based on pregnancy, which includes abortion and the use of contraception.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on certain characteristics, including race, gender, color, religion, or national origin.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against applicants, as well as current and former employees, based on race, gender, color, religion, or national origin. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the court interpreted Title VII’s prohibition on gender discrimination in the workplace as including a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
