Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 AUGUST 2019

Employment Flash

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contributor
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden has become a go-to firm in the German legal market since opening our doors in Frankfurt in...

View firm profile
Explore more from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

This edition of Employment Flash looks at developments in labor and employment law, including a Supreme Court ruling that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional

United StatesEmployment and HR

This edition of Employment Flash looks at developments in labor and employment law, including a Supreme Court ruling that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is nonjurisdictional and new state legislation in New York, Illinois and Washington that range from increasing protections against discrimination and harassment to new requirements applicable to noncompete agreements. We also examine a decree in France that is aimed at eliminating the gender pay gap.

Supreme Court Rules That Defendants Can Lose Objection Based on Title VII’s Charge-Filing Requirement if Not Timely Raised

In a June 3, 2019, decision, Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a conflict among the federal circuit courts and held that the charge-filing requirement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is nonjurisdictional (meaning that the requirement does not delineate the classes of cases a court may entertain or the persons over

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from