Hiring & Firing Discrimination Harassment

Hiring & Firing refers to the process of recruiting, interviewing and offering employment and the process of evaluating performance and dismissing employees. Hiring & Firing is a highly regulated area and... more +
Hiring & Firing refers to the process of recruiting, interviewing and offering employment and the process of evaluating performance and dismissing employees. Hiring & Firing is a highly regulated area and can create tremendous liability for employers who fail to properly adhere to acceptable employment practices. Some of the potential pitfalls in this area stem from discriminatory hiring practices, improper performance evaluations, and retaliatory firings.  less -
News & Analysis as of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Limits Employer Liability in Title VII Cases

The United States Supreme Court (“Court”) issued two decisions on June 24, 2013, significantly limiting employer liability in discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et...more

When Words Are Not Text: Don't Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight

Appellate advocacy often comes down to a conflict over the meaning of words. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Vance v. Ball State Univ. provides graphic proof that not all fights over terminology are created equal. Advocates...more

Employers Prevail In Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more

Two Major Supreme Court Wins for Employers

On Monday, June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court issued two 5-4 rulings in important cases affecting the employment world, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State University. By making it...more

Supreme Court Issues Important Affirmative Action And Employment Law Decisions

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

Supreme Court Issues Two Important Title VII Opinions

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

Supreme Court Adopts an Employer-Friendly Definition of "Supervisor" for the Faragher/Ellerth Analysis

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

U.S. Supreme Court Answers Question Left Open by Faragher and Ellerth: Adopts Definition of "Supervisor" for Purposes of Title VII...

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Vance v. Ball State, limiting the definition of "supervisor" as it relates to an employer's vicarious liability in Title VII harassment cases under the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects EEOC’s “Nebulous” Definition of “Supervisor” under Title VII

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

40 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2