Hiring & Firing Retaliation 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

Appeals Court Upholds Jury Verdict and All Relief Awarded Against A.C. Widenhouse in EEOC Race Harassment Case

Trucking Company to Pay $243,000 for Subjecting African-American Employees to Racial Slurs and Nooses, Retaliation - WASHINGTON - In the latest of a series of successes in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity...more

Four Hawaii Farms to Pay $2.4 Million to Thai Workers to Settle EEOC National Origin and Retaliation Employment Discrimination...

Additional Relief in the Form of Job Offers and Other Benefits Will Be Offered to Vulnerable Thai Laborers, Says Federal Agency - LOS ANGELES - Three years after filing suit against farm labor contractor Global...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

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

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

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

Employment And Labor Insight: Employers Win Big Before The U.S. Supreme Court

As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....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 Issues Two Title VII Decisions Favorable For Employers

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

Supreme Court Issues Two Employer-Friendly Title VII Decisions

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

"But for" causation must be used in Title VII retaliation cases, U.S. Supreme Court says

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

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Key Title VII Rulings

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

Two Important New Employment Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court issued two long awaited and employer friendly decisions today. Both relate to issues raised under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ...more

32 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2