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
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
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
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
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
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a bright-line standard for determining which employees qualify as supervisors in harassment lawsuits filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, thus resolving a split in the...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
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
The United States Supreme Court recently delivered a “win” for employers in Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. __ (June 24, 2013) in which the Court narrowed the definition of supervisor for purposes of employer...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions that will make it more difficult for employees to pursue various employment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....more
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
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
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