The Commission defines national origin discrimination broadly as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual's, or his or her ancestor's, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. The Commission will examine with particular concern charges alleging that individuals within the jurisdiction of the Commission have been denied equal employment opportunity for reasons which are grounded in national origin considerations, such as (a) marriage to or association with persons of a national origin group; (b) membership in, or association with an organization identified with or seeking to promote the interests of national origin groups; (c) attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques, generally used by persons of a national origin group; and (d) because an individual's name or spouse's name is associated with a national origin group. In examining these charges for unlawful national origin discrimination, the Commission will apply general title VII principles, such as disparate treatment and adverse impact.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
109
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case:
United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011).
United States v. Brennan, 650 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Relying on the EEOC's definition of "national-origin discrimination" in 29 C.F.R. § 1606.1 , the district court held that "an ancestral place of origin is sufficient to establish membership in a protected class.”
Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Fed. Credit Union, 952 A.2d 878 (D.C. 2008).
· cites it 4× “" 29 C.F.R. § 1606.1 (2008). The EEOC regulations establish that "[t]he title VII principles of disparate treatment and adverse impact equally apply to national origin discrimination.”
Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987).
· cites it 2× “See 29 CFR § 1606.1 (1986) (emphasis added) (national origin discrimination "includ[es], but [is] not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of an individual's, or his or her ancestor's, place of origin; or because an individual has the physical,…”
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973).
· cites it 4× “" 29 CFR § 1606.1 (d) (1972). Like the Court of Appeals, we have no occasion here to question the general validity of this guideline insofar as it can be read as an expression of the Commission's belief that there may be many situations where discrimination on the basis of…”
The People v. Jose Aviles, 68 N.E.3d 1208 (NY 2016).
· cites it 2× “As such, the EEOC guidelines broadly define national origin discrimination to include "linguistic characteristics of a national origin group" for the purposes of Title VII enforcement ( 29 CFR § 1606.1 ). The EEOC further advises employers that "[t]he primary language of an…”
Wamget v. State, 67 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “" Often, however, the two are identical as a factual matter: one was born in the nation whose primary stock is one's own ethnic group.”
Salas v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 493 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2007).
“29 C.F.R. § 1606.1 (emphasis supplied). Although the EEOC does not define the term “national origin group,” Hispanics would qualify as such a group.”
Fahn v. Cowlitz Cnty., 610 P.2d 857 (Wash. 1981).
· cites it 2× “In keeping with the broad directive from the legislature to the Human Rights Commission, therefore, we believe it is well within the agency's authority to determine that a preemployment inquiry with respect to height and weight, when not related to job requirements, is an unfair…”
Ortiz v. Dameron Hosp. Ass'n, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
“) Ortiz also presented evidence that Alvarez said that "she was tired of attending meetings where Filipinos and minority workers over 40 were present" and made disparaging statements about Filipino unit coordinators to Roxas and Duke. Alvarez told Roxas that the Filipino unit…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.