What's the Tea in L&E? Supervisor Liability: What Managers Need To Know
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part Two
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part One
III-40 – Valentine’s Day Episode on Love Contracts
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
On August 1, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that the definition of “supervisor” set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University to...more
A “supervisor,” for purposes of a Connecticut state hostile work environment claim, is an employee who is empowered by an employer to take tangible employment actions, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held in O’Reggio...more
A recent Ninth Circuit decision clarifies employers’ obligations to address hostile work environment complaints arising out of employees' off-premises social media activity. In Okonowsky v. Garland (No. 23-55404; Jul. 25,...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) first updated enforcement guidance on workplace harassment in 25 years is broken down into the three components of a harassment claim: (1) the covered bases and causation;...more
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that “supervisor” for hostile work environment discrimination claims brought under Connecticut law is the same as applied in similar federal claims brought pursuant...more
Food Services Supplier Failed to Promote Female Employee to Sous Chef, Federal Agency Alleged - HOUSTON - Compass Group USA, Inc. will pay $10,000 to settle a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S....more
Supervisors in Connecticut can be held to have personal liability under some statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment, but not others. In a 2002 decision in the case of Perodeau v. City of Hartford, 259 Conn. 729,...more
Stories of high-profile individuals in politics, media, entertainment and hospitality alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment, or worse, have been breaking at an unprecedented rate. In the wake of these allegations,...more
As all hospitality employers know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” However, the statute does not specifically mention sexual orientation or gender identity. What does...more
Companies often assume they are not responsible for interactions between employees that happen off-site after hours and that are unrelated to their jobs. However, if a supervisor and a subordinate are involved and the...more
Company Discharged Employee After She Reported Harassment, Federal Agency Charges - FRESNO, Calif. - Caruthers, Calif.-based companies South County Support Services and Southwest Transportation Agency will pay $89,691...more
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender. Numerous federal courts have rejected claims by female workers that they were discriminated against when their managers showed preferential treatment toward a female...more
The holidays have come and gone. I hope everyone enjoyed them, and I hope everyone received the gifts and presents they asked for. I come from a big family—three siblings, 14 aunts and uncles, and nearly twenty cousins....more
Looking back at the recently-completed 2012-2013 Supreme Court term, employers should have reason to feel good about how things turned out. In fact, of the six major decisions that impact employers and can be categorized in...more
In This Issue: - A New Supreme Court Decision Helps Employers in Harassment Cases - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Says Nursing Home RNs Are Supervisors - A New Heightened Standard For Title VII...more
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Vance v. Ball State just made it easier for employers to defend against some Title VII harassment lawsuits. In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected the harassment claims brought by...more
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Court Limits Definition of “Supervisor” Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Law - In Vance v. Ball State University (June 24, 2013), in a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Supreme...more
Company Defended Racial Slurs in the Workplace as 'Locker Room Talk,' Federal Agency Charged - CHICAGO, Ill. - Battaglia Distributing Co., Inc., a Chicago wholesale food distributor located at 2500 South Ashland...more
The Potential Implications for Educational Institutions - Last month, at the close of its October 2012 term, the Supreme Court issued two important rulings in Title VII employment discrimination cases that make it...more
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
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued two employer-friendly opinions that substantially narrow potential liability for claims of supervisor misconduct and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Today, we’ll...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will make it more difficult for employees to pursue various employment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more
On one day recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued employer-friendly opinions in two separate and long-awaited cases interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (known simply as “Title VII”), the primary federal...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