News & Analysis as of

50 for 50: Five Decades of the Most Important Discrimination Law Developments - Number 38: The Supreme Court Defines “Supervisor”...

In hostile environment harassment cases under Title VII, an employer’s liability for the conduct of its employees depends on whether a supervisor or an individual contributor commits the wrongful acts. If a supervisor...more

Employment Newsletter - October 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Limits Who Qualifies as a “Supervisor” under Title VII

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013), issued one of the most important decisions on workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act since it...more

International Employment Law Review: August 2013 - Issue 4: Recent Employment Law Developments in the United States

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

Eleventh Circuit Declines to Impute Supervisor's Knowledge of Misconduct to the Employer

On July 24, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit joined several other courts of appeal in declining to allow the Secretary of Labor to lay blame for a supervisor's knowledge of his own misconduct to his employer in establishing a prima...more

When Knowing Is No Sure Thing: 11th Circuit Requires OSHA to Dig Deeper Before Imputing Supervisor's Misconduct to Employer

In a recent case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) and held that an employer is not automatically liable for the health...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Three Decisions Favorable to Employers

By the end of this year’s term, the United States Supreme Court had issued three “employer-friendly” decisions. While the decisions do not dramatically alter the employment law landscape, employers will still welcome the...more

Words Can Hurt. Seriously.

There are certain responsibilities that come with being a supervisor, and knowing how to talk to people is one of them. ...more

Supervisor Misconduct Alone Is Insufficient To Impute Employer Liability Under The OSH Act

On July 24, 2013, in Comtran Group, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned a final decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ("Review...more

Raising the Bar on Employer Liability for Harassment and Retaliation

On June 24, the Supreme Court issued two new opinions in favor of employers, both five-to-four decisions that narrowly construe the scope of Title VII’s retaliation and employer liability rules and significantly raise the bar...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2013: Employee Claiming Retaliation Must Meet Higher Standard of Proof

In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more

United States Supreme Court Issues Two Employer-Friendly Decisions With Far-Reaching Impact in Employee Harassment Cases

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

Part 2 of 2: Supreme Court Rules That "Supervisors" Under Title VII Must Have Power to Take Tangible Employment Actions

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

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

Did You Know…U.S. Supreme Court Narrowly Defines “Supervisor” For Purposes Of Title VII Employer Liability

In Vance v. Ball State University, No.11-556, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ball State, making it harder for employees to sue employers for harassment under Title VII. ...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Favorable Rulings for Employers

Employers received two big wins in the U.S. Supreme Court last week. In two rulings, decided on June 24, 2013, both of which were 5-4 decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted standards that will assist employers defending...more

Impact of Supreme Court Pro-Employer Title VII Decisions Blunted by State Laws

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

Chipotle Assistant Managers Allege They Were Misclassified As Exempt Employees, Court Rules They Can Proceed With Overtime Claims

A New York federal court recently granted conditional certification of a nationwide class of Assistant Managers at Chipotle restaurants based on the allegations that Chipotle misclassified Assistant Managers as exempt from...more

Recent Supreme Court Cases Raise Bar for Plaintiffs Under Title VII

Two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its 2012-13 term, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State University, will significantly alter the landscape of employment...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

Employment Law Advisory for July 2, 2013 - United States Supreme Court Defines Supervisor Narrowly Under Title VII for Purposes of...

Most employers are well aware of their obligation under federal and state law to provide a workplace free from harassment. However, even the most diligent employers sometimes experience the rogue employee who engages in...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Who Qualifies As A Supervisor In Title VII Cases

In Title VII harassment cases, liability of an employer may depend on whether the harassing employee is the victim’s co-worker or supervisor. The United States Supreme Court was recently faced with the task of defining who...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

Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Definition Of Supervisor Under Title VII

The Supreme Court has ruled in Vance v. Ball State University that the authority to take tangible employment actions is the defining characteristic of a supervisor, and that without such authority an employee is not a...more

23 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1