What's the Tea in L&E? Supervisor Liability: What Managers Need To Know
What's the Tea in L&E? One Time Too Many: What is “Severe” Conduct?
What's the Tea in L&E? Truth Hurts or Rumors? Lizzo’s Harassment Allegations Serve As A Good Reminder
Bystander Responsibility in the Era of #MeToo: Lessons Learned From Apple TV’s The Morning Show - Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Webinar - DEI Audits: Tools to Enhance Your DEI Practices
#WorkforceWednesday: Judge Barrett’s Employment Law Record, Arbitrator to Rule on Postmates’ Challenge, Responding to Frivolous Lawsuits - Employment Law This Week®
[WEBINAR] Labor & Employment Law: What Changed in 2017
Episode 37: How To Provide Meaningful Employment Training (…and Also Comply With NYC Law)
Employment Law This Week®: Workplace Harassment Review in Federal Courts, DOL Opinion Letters, NLRB Nomination, ICE Raids
This Week in FCPA-Episode 74
Part 1 of 2: My Sit-Down Interview With Former EEOC General Counsel David Lopez
Employment Law This Week: U.S. Supreme Court Nominee, California’s Anti-Harassment Regulations, Oregon’s Minimum Wage, Whistleblower Legislation
AB1825 Training and Anti-Harassment and Discrimination Training
Waldman: Stop Immunizing Websites That Allow Harassment
Stefan Hankin on Online Harassment
Polsinelli Podcasts - Workplace Bullying: What Employers Need to Know
Annual Labor & Employment Update 2013
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more
Resolving a split among the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “supervisor” for Title VII harassment liability is limited to those who have the power to take a tangible employment action against the alleged victim...more
Since two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1998, the courts have applied different rules to sexual and other discriminatory harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") based on...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
This week the Supreme Court issued three decisions that may significantly impact federal contractors and other employers: In Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (U.S. June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court held that a...more
Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), holding that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability...more
At our recent Labor and Employment Law Seminar, we highlighted a number of outstanding legal cases that have the potential to have a significant impact on employer liability. ...more
Employers “may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only where the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim…,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued two Title VII decisions favorable to employers. One case examined the definition of a supervisor under the anti-discrimination laws, and the other dealt with an employee’s burden of...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two highly-anticipated decisions. In Vance v. Ball State University, the justices considered whether the “supervisor” liability rule established by Supreme Court...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will provide useful tools to employers in defending employment litigation....more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Title VII, a supervisor is defined as someone who can undertake or effectively recommend tangible employment...more