discrimination in employment

In Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P. 2023 WL 350565, the New York Court of Appeals recently accepted certification of a question on state law put to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, namely:

Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement

On January 31, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public hearing entitled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier”.[1] During the hearing, the EEOC explored the potential benefits and harms associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated

Discrimination in Quebec’s labour relations is mainly covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Both protect an employee from being wronged by his employer based on race or ethnical differences. They offer employees a broad scope of protection namely with regards to hiring

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Quebec Charter) provides the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex. In the employment context, this protection has a wide scope that extends notably, but without limitation, to hiring, to the conditions of employment and to dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

Anti-discrimination legislation in Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory prohibit asking a person, either orally or in writing, to supply information on which unlawful discrimination might be based.

A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) demonstrates the impact these prohibitions have on an employer’s ability to request information of potential job applicants during the recruitment process.

Willmott v Woolworths Ltd [2014] QCAT 601

Woolworths advertised a position for a console operator at its petrol outlet at Beerwah in Queensland.  Applicants were able to apply using Woolworths’ online application system, in which they were required to answer mandatory questions about their gender and date of birth, as well as being required to provide documentary proof of the applicant’s ability to work, in order to submit the application.

Mr Willmott was a potential applicant who lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland arguing (among other things) that Woolworths’ employment application process breached section 124(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (the AD Act), because it requested information regarding age, gender and right to work that might be used as the basis of unlawful discrimination.

On May 22, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that a partner in a BC law firm could not invoke human rights protection against age discrimination in employment to prevent his mandatory retirement.

In McCormick v. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, 2014 SCC 39, the Court held that the existence of an employment relationship was determined