I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
Legal precedent, including language from the U.S. Supreme Court, requires federal courts to take a broad view of the “but-for” causation standard for determining unlawful age discrimination in the workplace, Equal Employment...more
Sixth Circuit Will Not Expand Landmark Title VII Case of Bostock v Clayton County to ADEA Claims - Employers in the Sixth Circuit Gain Predictability in the Test for Determining Claims Under the ADEA... ...more
From pay equity to an increased minimum wage, pro-worker and pro-union labor policies, and additional anti-discrimination protections, President-elect Biden has touted support for numerous legislative and regulatory proposals...more
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County announced that employees are protected from discrimination based on their LGBTQ status. In reaching its historic holding, the Bostock Court engaged in an...more
Last week, the US Supreme Court made it easier for a federal worker to establish a claim for age bias. This decision does not impact private employers, because it relied on the specific language of the federal sector...more
In an 8-to-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court just made it easier for federal employees and applicants to prove age discrimination by ruling that courts should not apply a heightened causation standard in such cases. By...more
On April 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Babb v. Wilkie, holding that the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), does not require proof that age...more
On April 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal-sector plaintiffs in age discrimination cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) need not show that negative consideration of age is a...more
In Babb v. Wilke, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the applicable standard for imposing liability against federal-sector employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This...more
What does an age discrimination plaintiff have to prove to succeed? Federal employees may have an easier path for proving an age discrimination claim, if we are reading the tea leaves correctly on the Supreme Court’s oral...more
Taking a three-year look back at the Supreme Court’s workplace law decisions gives you the sense that the exciting cases only come down every other year. In the ho-hum term that ended in 2017, the Court handled relatively...more
Rejecting the motivating factor causation standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that the “but-for” standard of causation applies to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination claims....more
As this recent case demonstrates, consistent documentation can be your saving grace in defending a wrongful termination lawsuit, while inconsistent enforcement of rules can be your downfall. Facts - Ramona DeBra worked...more
Synopsis: In an ADEA collective action alleging that a community college discriminated on the basis of age when it announced it would no longer employ any person receiving an annuity from the State Universities Retirement...more
Last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s protected activity must be the “but for” cause of an adverse action to support a claim for retaliation under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court...more
In the case of DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, the Third Circuit ruled for the first time that the more demanding “but for” causation standard applies to retaliation claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), rejecting the lower...more
Several recent Supreme Court decisions have upended causation standards in the statutory alphabet soup of federal remedial rights. It is now clear that “but for” causation governs discrimination claims under the Age...more
On February 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reiterated that courts must analyze claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) “separately and independently from any [related] federal...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