News & Analysis as of

Reversal But For Causation

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Lawyers for the...

Florida Appellate Court Reduces Legal Malpractice Verdict From $5M to $250K Because Plaintiff Failed to Prove Underlying Judgment...

After a Florida law firm and one of its attorneys (defendants) were hit with a $5 million jury verdict in a case arising out of an underlying medical malpractice action, they—along with the firm's insurer—appealed. Because...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Clarifies Race Discrimination Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Must Meet More Stringent “But-For” Causation Standard

Bringing positive news for employers and a welcome distraction from the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Supreme Court recently held that for claims of racial discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

National Employment Perspective | Focus on Discrimination

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Upholding But-For Causation in Section 1981 Discrimination Cases - The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

It is Now Easier For Federal Workers to Prove Age Bias

Last week, the US Supreme Court made it easier for a federal worker to establish a claim for age bias. This decision does not impact private employers, because it relied on the specific language of the federal sector...more

Fisher Phillips

Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Federal Workers To Prove Age Discrimination

Fisher Phillips on

In an 8-to-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court just made it easier for federal employees and applicants to prove age discrimination by ruling that courts should not apply a heightened causation standard in such cases. By...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882

On April 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Babb v. Wilkie, holding that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), does not require proof that age...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court Requires But-For Causation for Section 1981 Claims

On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African-American Owned Media, ruled that a plaintiff who alleges race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must plead and...more

Fisher Phillips

SCOTUS Sets High Bar For Those Bringing Race Discrimination Cases

Fisher Phillips on

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court last week ensured that a high standard will be used when assessing whether claims of race discrimination under Section 1981 should advance past the early stages of litigation....more

McAfee & Taft

U.S. Supreme Court confirms ‘but for’ causation in Section 1981 cases

McAfee & Taft on

Surrounded by the confusion and anxiety of the current COVID-19 pandemic, it may feel refreshing to step back and consider some of the basic tenets of employment law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Comcast Corp....more

Hinshaw & Culbertson - Employment Law...

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Section 1981 Racial Discrimination Claims Require But-For Causation

In a unanimous decision issued on March 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that a but-for causation standard applies to claims brought under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court also...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Supreme Court Confirms Strict “But for” Causation Test Applies to Section 1981 Claims

On Monday, March 23, the United States Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous opinion, ruled that a plaintiff asserting race discrimination claims in the making of a contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981) bears the...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Holds that Claims for Intentional Discrimination Under Section 1981 Must Meet “But For” Causation Test

Franczek P.C. on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits intentional race discrimination in all forms of contracting including employment. Lower courts have split as to whether a § 1981 plaintiff must prove that race was only one...more

White & Case LLP

Force Majeure: substantial damages even if you cannot perform

White & Case LLP on

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal has awarded substantial damages to the innocent party after a force majeure event, in circumstances where the party seeking to rely on the force majeure event to excuse liability...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

A District Court’s Discretion to Sanction Is Broad, “But For” a Causal Limitation

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger that even a district court’s exercise of broad discretion to impose a civil sanction for a litigant’s bad faith conduct has to be limited by a...more

Mintz - Bankruptcy & Restructuring Viewpoints

First Circuit Rules that Bankruptcy Court “Retention of Jurisdiction” Provisions Not Enough to Establish Jurisdiction

It is very common for bankruptcy court orders to provide that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Similarly, chapter 11 confirmation orders routinely provide that the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction...more

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP

Front Pay & Back Pay: How About No Pay?

In Caterpillar Logistics Services, Inc. v. Amaya, 2016 WL 822020 (Fla. 3d DCA July 13th, 2016), Rudolph Amaya suffered an on-the-job injury to his back and knee while working at Caterpillar’s facility.  Shortly thereafter,...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide