News & Analysis as of

Governor Reinforces Mixed Motive Win For Employers In FEHA Cases

Earlier this year, in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the California Supreme Court gave employers an unexpected win when it approved of the “mixed motive” theory of proof. As a result, in discrimination cases under the Fair...more

California Legislature Deliberating Changes to Remedies in Mixed Motive Cases

This past February, the California Supreme Court addressed the viability of a mixed-motive defense to employment discrimination claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in the Harris v. City of Santa...more

A New Heightened Standard For Title VII Retaliation Claims

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Title VII retaliation claims require a plaintiff to prove the more stringent “but for” causation standard, rather than the lesser “motivating factor”...more

A Summary of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions This Week Which Will Affect Employers

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

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

Attorney Fees Not Available In Mixed Motive Retaliation Claims Under Title VII, Seventh Circuit Rules

Under Title VII, in “mixed motive” discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an employer may limit Plaintiff’s recovery where it can show that it would have...more

Fifth Circuit: No Fee Shifting For Title VII Mixed-Motive Retaliation Claims

On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g))...more

California Supreme Court Revises Jury Instructions And Trial Procedures In Discrimination Cases

Wynona Harris alleged her employment was terminated by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The city claimed Harris had been fired for poor job...more

The California Supreme Court Provides Mixed Result in Mixed Motive Terminations

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, the California Supreme Court provided long-awaited clarification of the standards that apply when an employer terminates an employee for “mixed motives”—that is, when...more

California Supreme Court Rules "Mixed Motive" Is a Mixed Bag for Employers

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the defenses available to employers defending against claims of discrimination. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC341469 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the court ruled that, if a...more

Employment Flash - February 2013

In This Issue: - Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Decision on Surviving Merger Entity’s Ability to Enforce Noncompetition Agreements - “Sweet” Decision for California Employers: Court Approves Time Rounding in Case...more

California Supreme Court Issues Mixed Decision in Mixed-Motive FEHA Employment Discrimination Case

The California Supreme Court's recent decision in a closely watched Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) case should be of interest to employers around the country, even though — or perhaps because — it does not provide an...more

California Supreme Court Eliminates Damages in FEHA Discrimination Cases Where Employer Proves Mixed Motive Defense

Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying details of the “mixed-motive” defense applicable to discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Harris v....more

California Supreme Court Rules On Mixed Motive Defense To Discrimination Claims, But Large Verdicts Persist…

Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - February 2013

In This Issue: *FEATURE ARTICLES - Cal Supreme Court Refuses To Immunize Employers In Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases, But Significantly Limits Remedies - Manager's Bias, Public Policy, And Defamation...more

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For “Mixed Motive” Defense To Employment Discrimination Claims

In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more

California Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly Decision on Mixed-Motive Defense

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more

Legal Alert: California Supreme Court Issues "Mixed Motive" Decision Favorable To Employers

According to a new California Supreme Court opinion, once an employee claiming discrimination demonstrates that a discriminatory reason for his or her termination substantially motivated an adverse employment decision, the...more

California Supreme Court Splits The Baby In Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Case

In Wynona Harris v. City of Santa Monica, decided on February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court addressed the following question...more

California Supreme Court's "Mixed Motive" Ruling May Have Major Impact on Fair Employment and Housing Claims

On February 7, 2013 the California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed that backpay and reinstatement are not available remedies for a plaintiff under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) when an employer...more

California Supreme Court Upholds “Mixed Motive” Defense in Employment Discrimination Cases

In a long-awaited ruling issued Thursday, February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision overturning a damages verdict against the City of Santa Monica, finding that employers may...more

California Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Standard for Defending FEHA Claims

Employers can finally exhale a small sigh of relief. On February 7, the California Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the “mixed-motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California...more

“Substantial” Benefit to Employers in California Supreme Court’s New Formulation of Mixed-Motive Defense (or, Ding Dong, the...

Today in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the California Supreme Court, in a decision that favors employers, answered this question: “What is the trier of fact to do when it finds that a mix of discrimination and legitimate...more

California Supreme Court Rejects Damages, Back Pay, And Reinstatement Where Employer Proves Legitimate Mixed-Motive

On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision on whether the “mixed-motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)....more

Supreme Court Decides Kloeckner v. Solis

On December 10, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Kloeckner v. Solis holding that “[a] federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an antidiscrimination statute...more

27 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2