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 a win for employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court defines “supervisor” narrowly for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act - Under Connecticut’s civil rights law, an...more
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT US: MULTI-STATE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW - We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. 2019 Update - In the wake the of the #MeToo...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
Under Title VII, employers are generally strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors. In its Faragher and Ellerth decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a limited defense for employers accused of supervisor...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing employee was not a...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
Most hostile environment harassment claims brought under Title VII involve allegations of offensive conduct by the plaintiff’s supervisors or co-workers. In a few situations, the employee alleges that his or her subordinates...more
Employers are well aware of their potential liability for workplace harassment claims involving co-workers or third parties. They also understand their heightened legal responsibility when the alleged harasser is the...more
The employment practices risk profile for companies that employ members of the same family may have just increased as a result of Dillon v. NED Management, Inc., a decision out of the Eastern District of New York. ...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
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
In This Issue: - Supreme Court Issues Two Key Title VII Rulings - Ogletree Deakins Launches New Fall Seminar - Are Your HIPAA Privacy Policies Up To Date - OFCCP Clarifies Damages For Victims Of Bias - The...more
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
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
In This Issue: - U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Important Decisions Under Title VII - Supreme Court Holds Lone Plaintiff’s FLSA Collective Action Is Moot When Claims Are Resolved Before Certification -...more
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
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
As the United States Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term drew to a close at the end of June, commentators observed a continuing gradual but perceptible shift to the right by the Court. The Roberts Court is generally viewed as...more
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University ruled that employers are strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor where the supervisor is empowered to take tangible...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
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 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