Add to ORKGThis Comment first outlines a few basic insurance concepts and distinguishes employer-provided plans from individually purchased policies. It then examines discrimination criteria and City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power v. Manhart\u27s application of Title VII and applies those principles to Supreme Court cases. The Comment also suggests that FIPA be revised to extend its gender-neutral requirements only to employer provided group plans
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Seventh Circuit have taken the position t...
Many Americans currently believe that federal law prohibits discrimination because of sexual orienta...
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as it has been interpreted by the courts, is an uncompromisi...
This Comment first outlines a few basic insurance concepts and distinguishes employer-provided plans...
Marie Manhart, a former employee of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, brought a...
While race, religion, ethnicity, and sex will always remain salient social issues in our nation, sex...
In Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania S...
Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) to abolish race- and gender-preference pro-grams by amending the...
Title VII prohibits discrimination whereby women or men are denied employment opportunities because ...
Title VII¿s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex is read broadly to include gender nonc...
This commentary breaks down the case of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Man...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis...
Four years have elapsed since the enactment of federal fair employment practice legislation banning ...
Part I of this Note reviews Title VII and foundational caselaw, including cases regarding sex discri...
The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Altitude Express v. Zarda, a case t...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Seventh Circuit have taken the position t...
Many Americans currently believe that federal law prohibits discrimination because of sexual orienta...
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as it has been interpreted by the courts, is an uncompromisi...
This Comment first outlines a few basic insurance concepts and distinguishes employer-provided plans...
Marie Manhart, a former employee of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, brought a...
While race, religion, ethnicity, and sex will always remain salient social issues in our nation, sex...
In Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania S...
Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) to abolish race- and gender-preference pro-grams by amending the...
Title VII prohibits discrimination whereby women or men are denied employment opportunities because ...
Title VII¿s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex is read broadly to include gender nonc...
This commentary breaks down the case of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Man...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis...
Four years have elapsed since the enactment of federal fair employment practice legislation banning ...
Part I of this Note reviews Title VII and foundational caselaw, including cases regarding sex discri...
The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Altitude Express v. Zarda, a case t...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Seventh Circuit have taken the position t...
Many Americans currently believe that federal law prohibits discrimination because of sexual orienta...
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as it has been interpreted by the courts, is an uncompromisi...