Termination Harassment

News & Analysis as of

Federal Arbitration Case Update | Compelling and Appealing

Following are two recent federal court rulings related to arbitration. Acknowledgement of Dispute Resolution Policy Sufficient to Compel Arbitration of Retaliation Claim - Ashbey v. Archstone Property Management,...more

New Harassment and Retaliation Standard in Fourth Circuit

Last month, in Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473 (4th Cir. May 7, 2015), the federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes North and South Carolina, articulated a new standard for analyzing...more

In a Win for Employees, Fourth Circuit Finds That Two Racial Slurs May Support Harassment Claim

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently made two noteworthy rulings in a single case concerning sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. First, as it relates to sexual harassment, the Court found that two...more

Sixth Circuit Contradicts New TN Supreme Court Decision Regarding Retaliation Claims

Last month, the Tennessee Supreme Court narrowed the definition of retaliation under state law. Less than one month later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio and...more

Employment Client Alert: Punitive Damages Award in Title VII Sexual Harassment Case Does Not Violate Due Process

In State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, WL 6918577, published December 10, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an award of $300,000 in punitive damages did not violate due process even though no compensatory damages...more

California Employment Law Notes

Google Required To Produce Emails In Response To Former Employer's Subpoena - Negro v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 5341926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) - Navalimpianti USA, Inc. subpoenaed Google, Inc. to produce copies of...more

“Discipline” included “dismissal”: employer did not breach safety-reprisal settlement when it dismissed employee after harassment...

An employer that dismissed an employee after a harassment investigation did not breach a previous safety-reprisal settlement with the employee, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has held. In effect, the employer never...more

NLRB Finds That Employer Improperly Disciplined Employee Who Obscenely Grabbed His Crotch in Front of Female Co-Worker

On July 3, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handed down a decision in the case of Consolidated Communications d/b/a Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. and Local 702, Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,...more

Fired Employee Who Accused Coworkers of Sleeping with Boyfriend Lacks Triable Bias Claim

A retail employer did not violate federal civil rights laws or the Massachusetts state anti-discrimination law when it fired an employee because she made harassing, disparaging, and inappropriate accusations against her...more

March 2014 California Employment Law Notes

Max Taylor worked as a floorhand on an oil rig where he alleged he was harassed by his supervisors who called him “queer,” “fagot [sic],” “homo,” and “gay porn star” and was subjected to other humiliating and harassing...more

California Appellate Court Holds Substantial Motivating Factor Required In Wrongful Termination Case

Mendoza v. Western Medical Center Santa Ana, G047394 (January 14, 2014): A California Court of Appeal recently held that a retrial is necessary in the case of a gay nurse who was fired after his employer investigated his...more

UK Employment Law Developments – 2013 Looking Back and 2014 Looking Forwards

2013 saw a raft of changes to UK employment law and there are likely to be more in 2014. In this Employment Alert, we recap some of the key changes that happened in 2013 and look ahead at what to expect in 2014....more

The Employment Law Authority - November/December 2013

In This Issue: - Harassment. Are your executive training programs effective? - State Round-Up. Learn about the latest employment law news in your state - Unions. Harold Coxson and Baker Wyche discuss the new...more

December 2013's review of the year

Sandra Wallace, Partner and Employment group head, highlights the most important legislative and case law developments from 2013 and identifies the key cases to watch out for in 2014. ...more

New Definition Of “Supervisor” For Purposes Of Title VII

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling settling a split in the circuit courts over the definition of “supervisor” for purposes of employer liability for harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in Vance...more

EEOC Sues Cordia Senior Living for Retaliation

Federal Agency Says Westmont Senior Residence Fired Employee for Complaining About Sexual Hostile Work Environment - CHICAGO - A Westmont, Ill., senior living center violated federal law by retaliating against an...more

Fired Employee Failed To Prove That Depression, Harassment Drove Him To Fight: Court

An employee who was fired for fighting after being harassed, did not prove that his harassment or depression caused him to fight. Therefore, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario was wrong to find that his firing was...more

Connecticut Public Policy Supports, And In Some Cases, Requires, Termination Of Workplace Harassers

State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391, No. 18749 (August 6, 2013): The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld the reversal of an arbitrator’s decision to reinstate an employee whose employment was terminated...more

Fenwick Employment Brief - August 2013

As this FEB went to publication, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 292, which clarifies that sexual harassment claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act do not require a showing of sexual desire. The...more

Update: Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Beautiful: Termination Based on "Irresistible Attraction" is Not Unlawful Sex Discrimination

On January 4, we wrote that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist acted legally when he fired a female employee because he had become irresistibly attracted to her – a situation the employer’s wife, also an employee,...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

Your Greatest Risk: Retaliation Claims

Let’s start with the statistics. Last year, there were 99,412 EEOC charges filed; 37,836 of them – more than one out of every three – asserted retaliation. Put differently, more charges of retaliation were filed than any...more

Employers Prevail In Two U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more

"But for" causation must be used in Title VII retaliation cases, U.S. Supreme Court says

Title VII retaliation claims must be proven according to traditional “but for” causation principles, and not the less strict “motivating factor” standard applicable to other claims under the Statute, the U.S. Supreme Court...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Key Title VII Rulings

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

38 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×