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
In the wake of McDonalds’ CEO Steve Easterbrook’s decision to step down for having a consensual relationship with an employee in violation of company policy, many are left wondering, is there any room in the restaurant...more
In recent years, a number of federal appellant courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have issued opinions finding that a single use of a racial slur can be enough to constitute a hostile and offensive working environment...more
Hospital Supervisors Refused Accommodation for Deaf Employee, Federal Agency Charges - SANTA FE, N.M. - Christus Health, doing business as Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, N.M., violated federal...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
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
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
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
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
The Supreme Court staked out a definition for "supervisor" in the context of Title VII. Vance v. Ball State Univ., No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013). Whether a person is a "supervisor" determines whether the employer can be held...more
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
In Vance v. Ball State University, a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito and delivered on June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for the purpose of determining an employer’s liability under Title VII of the Civil...more
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more
Resolving a split among the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “supervisor” for Title VII harassment liability is limited to those who have the power to take a tangible employment action against the alleged victim...more
Since two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1998, the courts have applied different rules to sexual and other discriminatory harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") based on...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
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
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
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), holding that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability...more
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
Employers “may be vicariously liable for an employee’s unlawful harassment only where the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim…,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25,...more
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
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
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will provide useful tools to employers in defending employment litigation....more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Title VII, a supervisor is defined as someone who can undertake or effectively recommend tangible employment...more
These days, everyone has good reason to be leery of threats in the workplace, and the courts are generally supportive of employers who take those threats seriously. A recent Tenth Circuit decision is a good example. ...more