Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Kiran Aftab Seldon
Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights from Our Lawyers on Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs in the Workforce
By Peter Talibart, Kiran Seldon, Erin Hawthorne and Kathryn Weaver Seyfarth Synopsis: In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating global religious accommodation: insights from our lawyers on employer responsibilities towards religious beliefs in the workforce
In a previous blog, we summarised the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating global religious accommodation: insights from our lawyers on employer responsibilities towards religious beliefs in the workforce
In a previous blog, we summarised the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights From Our Lawyers On Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs In The Workforce
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights from Our Lawyers on Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs in the Workforce | JD Supra
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights from Our Lawyers on Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs in the Workforce
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Navigating Global Religious Accommodation: Insights from Our Lawyers on Employer Responsibilities Towards Religious Beliefs in the Workforce
In a previous blog, we summarized the recent case of Groff v. Dejoy, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously clarified the undue hardship standard under Title VII, a federal law in the United States that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Test For Religious Accommodation Under Title VII
Most of our readers have transnational business operations. If they have employees in the United States, they should review carefully today's decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court clarified—and raised—the bar that employers must meet in order to show that a religious accommodation imposes an "undue hardship" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Groff v. DeJoy, Case No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023).
Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Test For Religious Accommodation Under Title VII | JD Supra
Most of our readers have transnational business operations. If they have employees in the United States, they should review carefully today’s decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court clarified—and raised—the bar that employers must meet in order to show that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Groff v. DeJoy, Case No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023).
Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Test For Religious Accommodation Under Title VII
In a 9-0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court clarified—and raised—the bar that employers must meet in order to show that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Groff v. DeJoy, Case No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023). Lower courts had for decades held that anything “more than a de minimis cost” sufficed to establish undue hardship, relying on language in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63 (1977).
Supreme Court Rejects De Minimis Test For Religious Accommodation Under Title VII
Most of our readers have transnational business operations. If they have employees in the United States, they should review carefully today’s decision of the United States Supreme Court. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court clarified—and raised—the bar that employers must meet in order to show that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Groff v. DeJoy, Case No. 22-174 (June 29, 2023).
Halkbank v. United States: Initial Read on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Foreign State Immunity from Criminal Prosecution | JD Supra
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank v. United States.[1] This groundbreaking case represents the first known attempt by the United States (or likely any state in modern history) to indict and criminally-prosecute the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.
Halkbank v. United States: Initial Read on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Foreign State Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank v. United States.[1] This groundbreaking case represents the first known attempt by the United States (or likely any state in modern history) to indict and criminally-prosecute the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.
Halkbank v. United States: Initial Read on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Foreign State Immunity from Criminal Prosecution
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank v. United States.[1] This groundbreaking case represents the first known attempt by the United States (or likely any state in modern history) to indict and criminally-prosecute the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.
A Job Applicant Is Not An Employee For Compensation Purposes
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that job applicants are not entitled to compensation for time devoted to pre-employment drug tests because an employment relationship has not yet been formed. The Ninth Circuit held that the "control test" does not apply to job applicants, and that, under California contract law, the applicants had no contract for employment until they passed the pre-hire drug tests. Johnson v. WinCo Foods.
A Job Applicant Is Not An Employee For Compensation Purposes | JD Supra
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that job applicants are not entitled to compensation for time devoted to pre-employment drug tests because an employment relationship has not yet been formed. The Ninth Circuit held that the “control test” does not apply to job applicants, and that, under California contract law, the applicants had no contract for employment until they passed the pre-hire drug tests. Johnson v. WinCo Foods.
Student-Athletes Are Students—And Athletes—But Not Employees | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Supreme Court Unanimously Confirms Scope of Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
The United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 last week that whistleblowing employees seeking to sue for retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act must bring their concerns to the Securities and Exchange Commission before suing their employer.[1] Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, U.S. S. Ct. Case No. 161276 (Feb. 21, 2018).
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Kiran Aftab
Contact Kiran Aftab, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack