The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Country desks feature Dentons lawyers in one jurisdiction with a particular focus or experience in another jurisdiction.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
Dentons secures 145 individual and 43 practice rankings in Legal 500 US 2018
Dentons earned 145 individual recognitions and 43 practice rankings in the 2018 edition of Legal 500 US, an annual legal directory, cataloguing the nation's top-rated lawyers and law firms based on in-depth research and interviews.
2018 Election Update - 150 Days Out Report
Dentons' 2018 Election Update is our Public Policy team's 50-state analysis of these key federal and state races.
Bill introduced to support increased residency training to combat opioid crisis
A new, bipartisan bill was introduced in both houses of Congress on May 15, 2018, to support the creation of new Medicare-funded direct and indirect graduate medical education (DGME and IME) residency training slots specifically to help combat the opioid crisis.
The cannabis tracking system: the known, the inferable and the to-be-announced
One objective of the efforts to legalize cannabis is to displace the illicit market.
The art of good contract management
The Canadian government recently introduced a Bill which contained the most significant changes to Canada's trademark laws in modern history.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
With 125+ locations in 50+ countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
Dentons' IP lawyers recognized as 2018 IP stars
Dentons is very proud to see 27 of its Patent lawyers and 179 of its Trademark lawyers appear as IP Stars in this year's edition of Managing Intellectual Property IP Stars.
Dentons achieves pro bono victory for family's right to choose
Global law firm Dentons successfully represented a couple in an important pro bono litigation related to parents’ right to choose for their family.
Dentons partner Scott Turow nominated for 2018 Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction
Dentons partner Scott F. Turow is the author of Testimony, one of three novels nominated for the 2018 Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction.
By Jim McNeill, Lino Lipinsky, Dan Beale, and Peter Stockburger of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
The Supreme Court’s recent “headscarf” decision (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 2015 WL 2464053, 575 U.S. __ (June 1, 2015)) has received extensive attention in the media and across the Internet. The basic holding of the case is now well known and is fairly easily stated: employers are liable under Title VII for failing to provide job applicants or employees with a religious accommodation, even if the need for such accommodation is not made clear, so long as the employer acts with the motive of avoiding religious accommodation, whether said motive is substantiated or not.2015 WL 2464053, at *5.
But this case leaves some key unanswered questions for employers seeking to navigate compliance with Title VII. For example, what happens when an employer does not know that a particular practice is religious? The Court did not resolve this question. Instead, Justice Scalia, writing for the 8-1 majority, recognized it would be “arguable” that the motive requirement would not be met unless the employer “knows” or “at least suspects that the practice in question is a religious practice,” but declined to resolve the “unargued point by way of dictum” because the retailer in question “knew – or at least suspected – that the scarf was worn for religious reasons.” Id. at *6 n.3.
This open question was laid bare in Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, where he argued for a more clear standard: “an employer [should not] be held liable for taking an adverse action because of an employee’s religious practice unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason.” Id. at *3 (Alito, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Otherwise, as Justice Alito observed, an employer could be held liable even if it has no reason to know or suspect that the particular practice is religious. According to Justice Alito, “[t]hat would be very strange[:]”
In this case, the…employee who interviewed [the applicant] had seen [the applicant] wearing scarves on other occasions, and for reasons that the record does not make clear, came to the (correct) conclusion that she is a Muslim. But suppose that the interviewer in this case had never seen [the applicant before]. Suppose that the interviewer thought [the applicant] was wearing the scarf for a secular reason. Suppose that nothing else about [the applicant] made the interviewer even suspect that she was a Muslim or that she was wearing the scarf for a religious reason. If “[Title VII] does not impose a knowledge requirement,” [the retailer] would still be liable. The EEOC, which sued on [the applicant’s] behalf, does not adopt that interpretation (citation), and it is surely wrong.” Id.
The Court’s new Title VII standard will create confusion in the lower courts. Take, for example, the case of Xodus v. Wackenhut Corp., 619 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2010), where an applicant for employment was told his dreadlocks violated the company dress code, even though he advised the interviewer that cutting his hair would be “against his beliefs.” When not hired, he sued for religious discrimination under Title VII. The case was dismissed because the applicant never mentioned the word "religion" and the interviewer was not familiar with the Rastafarian religion or its beliefs. Id. at 686-87. The Supreme Court’s recent decision calls the Xodus outcome into question: (1) the dismissal would not have been proper based solely on the applicant’s failure to specify his religious beliefs; but (2) the employer had no knowledge, suspicion or otherwise, that the particular practice of wearing dreadlocks was religious in nature. What result?
Notwithstanding these difficult legal questions, employers should consider some important takeaways:
The URL of this tweet is below. Copy it to easily share with friends.
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more