Dothard, Director, Department of Public Safety of Alabama, et al. v. Rawlinson et al.

The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discriminatory job transfers even where the transfer does not result in a significant disadvantage.

The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a case on disparate treatment claims under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Court held that a pregnant employee must show the employer refused accommodations but later provided them to other employees with similar restrictions, and remanded.· AI-written

The Court held that maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act needed not to be considered in calculating employee pension benefits.

The Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects an employee who opposes unlawful sexual harassment, but does not report the harassment themself.

The Court held that in a Title VII pay discrimination suit, each paycheck was not a discrete discriminatory act, so claims based on pay decisions made more than 180 days before the charge were time-barred, and it rejected the paycheck accrual rule.· AI-written

In a Title VII retaliation case, the Court revised the standard to cover any adverse employment decision or treatment likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a discrimination charge.· AI-written

In a Title VII employment discrimination case, the Court ruled that the fifteen-employee numerosity requirement was not a limit on courts' jurisdiction but a substantive element of the claim, which a defendant must raise before verdict or waive.· AI-written

The court held that an employer may be liable for a Title VII violation under a constructive discharge theory.

The Court held that front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by the Act.

The court held that "an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim."

The Court held that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that a determination about whether a work environment is hostile or abusive requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances.

The Court ruled that Johnson Controls' policy excluding fertile women from hazardous battery manufacturing jobs was discriminatory and violated Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.· AI-written

An accounting firm denied an employee partnership allegedly because she did not fit the partners' idea of how a woman should look and act, and the Court held that this constituted sex discrimination under Title VII since the employer failed to prove it would have denied her anyway.· AI-written

In a workplace sexual harassment case, the Court unanimously recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and set standards for unlawful conduct and employer liability.· AI-written

The court held that employers cannot charge women more for pension benefits, despite women living longer than men, on average, and therefore receiving more retirement benefits.

The Court held that pregnancy discrimination is not sex-based discrimination, and therefore the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court interpreted the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and held that Corning Glass Works violated the Act by paying male night shift inspectors higher wages than female day shift inspectors performing the same work.

The Court found that overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children.

The Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment.