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
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
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more
News agencies flocked to Washington D.C. to witness the end of the United States Supreme Court's October 2012 term expecting something momentous. Handing down historic decisions on such controversial issues as affirmative...more
Windsor v. United States - Issue: Can the federal government define marriage? Holding: No. Loser: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, was...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 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