Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Discrimination

Employer loses insurance coverage for failure to timely report a claim of discrimination By Michael R. Lied Labor and Employment Law, September 2008 The lesson here? Read your policy requirements. Arrowood Indemnity Co. refused to defend Westrec Marine Management Co., because Westrec failed to timely report a claim of discrimination.
Employers beware: Illinois gives employees ticket to take discrimination claims to state court By Ellen M. Girard Corporate Law Departments, February 2008 Major amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“Act”) will give complainants the choice of taking their Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) charges on to Illinois circuit courts – regardless of the outcome at the IDHR. Previously, complainants could only proceed before the Illinois Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) – but only in cases where the IDHR found substantial evidence or did not timely complete its investigation.
Recent developments under Batson By Kathryn R. Hoying Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2007 In the matter of Mack v. Anderson, the appellate court addressed the seminal case on the prohibition against racial discrimination in jury selection, Batson v. Kentucky, and reversed the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ Batson motion.
Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace By James E. Snyder and Hon. Reva S. Bauch Labor and Employment Law, June 2007 Imagine being called into your employer’s boardroom and being told: “You’re a great employee, but you’re gay, so...you’re fired!” Federal law does not prohibit this kind of conduct by the employer. And in 33 states it is not an unlawful employment practice.
Smith v. City of Jackson: A hollow victory in age discrimination cases By Kristi Vetri Elder Law, June 2007 Two years ago, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-3, made it easier for employees to bring lawsuits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pub. L. No. 90-202, 81 Stat. 602 (Dec. 15, 1967), codified as Chapter 14 of Title 29 of the United States Code, 29 U.S.C. § 621 through 29 U.S.C. § 634 (ADEA) by holding that they may bring disparate impact claims under the Act.
A discrimination lawsuit filed by an individual in a protected class who alleges adverse employment action may proceed even though the individual’s replacement is a person in the same protected class By Paul E. Freehling Labor and Employment Law, January 2006 Suppose P, a person in a protected class, alleges that an adverse employment action—such as discharge, failure to hire, demotion, or failure to promote—resulted from, for example, age, disability, gender, national origin, pregnancy, racial or religious bias.
An at-will employee may maintain a discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 By Lori D. Ecker Federal Civil Practice, March 2004 One of the significant changes to discrimination law occasioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was its expansion of the availability of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") as a viable cause of action.
Basics of employment discrimination: Who can sue whom for what By Iain D. Johnston Corporate Law Departments, August 1999 Title VII (42 U.S.C. section 2000e)
Floodgates open to equal protection claims By Michael D. Bersani Local Government Law, March 1999 The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."