News & Analysis as of

March 2014 California Employment Law Notes

Max Taylor worked as a floorhand on an oil rig where he alleged he was harassed by his supervisors who called him “queer,” “fagot [sic],” “homo,” and “gay porn star” and was subjected to other humiliating and harassing...more

Employment Law Update 2014 - New Developments in Employment Law 2014

In this issue: - 2014 Schedule of Seminars - Wage & Hour Developments - Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Developments - Arbitration and Class Action Developments - Employer...more

New Year, New Employment Laws

With the New Year comes a number of new laws, including several that will affect California employers. Employers should include on their list of resolutions a review of the company’s policies and procedures to ensure...more

Annual Labor & Employment Update 2013 [Video]

BB&K labor and employment law attorneys hosted a webinar focusing on new legislation and case law impacting California employers - private and public. Topics included: - New Legislation Public and Private Employers -...more

Ringing in the New Year: A Summary of New California Employment Laws for 2014

California’s 2012-2013 Legislative Session concluded with the enactment of a variety of new laws that will affect California employers. In light of these developments, summarized below, California employers should review...more

Serving Alcohol At Your Holiday Party

We here at the McNees Wallace & Nurick Labor and Employment Law Group have been busy preparing for the holiday season. While holiday parties can be great fun, hosting a holiday party or placing holiday decorations in...more

Week in Review - December 12, 2013

Your company holiday party can be added to the list of things impacted by technology. In addition to the risk of alcohol-induced harassment, injuries, or property damage, employers should be mindful that technology and mobile...more

December 2013's review of the year

Sandra Wallace, Partner and Employment group head, highlights the most important legislative and case law developments from 2013 and identifies the key cases to watch out for in 2014. ...more

At Least The Unicorn Won’t Sue You

When not writing about the legal issues raised by my favorite TV shows, most of this blogger’s Law Law Land blogs have involved either employment law or social media issues. So you can imagine my sheer delight when the news...more

Fired Employee Failed To Prove That Depression, Harassment Drove Him To Fight: Court

An employee who was fired for fighting after being harassed, did not prove that his harassment or depression caused him to fight. Therefore, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario was wrong to find that his firing was...more

Look Out Business Owners: 2013 EEOC – “Strategic Enforcement Plan”

On December 17, 2012, the EEOC handed down its Strategic Enforcement Plan for FY 2013 – 2016. The following areas were identified as focus points for enforcement...more

Two Supreme Court Rulings Improve Employer's Ability to Defend Against Harassment, Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two critical decisions regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which improve an employer’s ability to defend against employee claims of harassment and retaliation. ...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Decides Several Employment and Employment-Related Cases

Employer strictly liable for supervisor’s harassment of employee only if supervisor has hire and fire authority over subordinates - In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State...more

Supreme Court Narrows Scope Of Employer’s Liability For Title VII Claims Against Co-workers

On June 24, 2013 in the case Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court defined the scope of supervisory status as it applies to harassing co-workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). ...more

Supreme Court Ruling Defines "Supervisor" and Gives Clarity, Peace of Mind to Employers

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a bright-line standard for determining which employees qualify as supervisors in harassment lawsuits filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, thus resolving a split in the...more

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Employee Must Prove That Illegal Retaliation Was The "But For" Cause Of Adverse Job Action Under Title VII - University of Tex. S.W. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 2013 WL 3155234 (2013) - The United States...more

Supreme Court Makes Defending Title VII Cases Easier For Employers; Decides To Review Noel Canning, Will Rule On NLRB Recess...

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases which are clear victories for employers. First, in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court held that “an employer may be vicariously liable for...more

Your Greatest Risk: Retaliation Claims

Let’s start with the statistics. Last year, there were 99,412 EEOC charges filed; 37,836 of them – more than one out of every three – asserted retaliation. Put differently, more charges of retaliation were filed than any...more

Supreme Court Defines “Supervisor” For Title VII

The Supreme Court staked out a definition for "supervisor" in the context of Title VII. Vance v. Ball State Univ., No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013). Whether a person is a "supervisor" determines whether the employer can be held...more

Five Grievances Don’t Make A (Dismissal) Right

A recent case in the UK Employment Appeals Tribunal Woodhouse v. West North West Homes Leeds Limited UK EAT/0007(12) has looked at whether it is possible to fairly dismiss an employee who has raised repeated grievances, on...more

Employment Law -- Jul 03, 2013

Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Employer Liability In Title VII Supervisory Harassment Cases

In a significant decision issued on June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers are vicariously liable for unlawful harassment committed by a supervisor only if the supervisor is empowered by the employer to...more

Words that Make or Break a Client Relationship

In a week of landmark rulings on same-sex marriage and voting rights, it was easy to miss a significant employment law decision issues by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is doubly true in California, where plaintiffs prefer...more

SCOTUS Adopts a Workable Definition of “Supervisor” Under Title VII

In Vance v. Ball State University, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito and delivered on June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for the purpose of determining an employer’s liability under Title VII of the Civil...more

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Limits Employer Liability in Title VII Cases

Vance v. Ball State University - You may be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vance v. Ball State University, issued on June 24, 2013, which held that an employer is not strictly liable for a supervisor’s...more

58 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3