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
In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more
As the United States Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term drew to a close at the end of June, commentators observed a continuing gradual but perceptible shift to the right by the Court. The Roberts Court is generally viewed as...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
Where a person seeks compensation for injury resulting from wrongful conduct, there must be a demonstrated connection between the wrong alleged and the injury — i.e., causation. The default rule, developed in connection with...more
Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....more
On June 24th, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In...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
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more
Windsor v. United States - Issue: Can the federal government define marriage? Holding: No. Loser: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, was...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
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
On June 24, 2013, a divided U.S. Supreme Court issued much-anticipated decisions in two Title VII cases in which the Court provided some needed certainty and relief to employers on the front lines of employment litigation. In...more
INTRODUCTION. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two significant employment decisions: Vance v. Ball State University (addressing the issue of who is properly called a "supervisor" when assessing workplace harassment claims);...more
Title VII retaliation claims must be proven according to traditional “but for” causation principles, and not the less strict “motivating factor” standard applicable to other claims under the Statute, the U.S. Supreme Court...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