News & Analysis as of

Discrimination Attorney's Fees

Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's... more +
Discrimination is prejudicial treatment related to (or inappropriate consideration of) an individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular class, group or category, such as an individual's race, religion, gender, age, to name a few.  less -
Hendershot Cowart P.C.

So, Your Business Has Been Sued. Now What?

Hendershot Cowart P.C. on

Receiving notice of a lawsuit is stressful, disruptive, and distracting. Even if the claims are without merit, you are required to respond to the lawsuit and follow procedural rules. Here’s the good news: An experienced...more

Butler Snow LLP

Step-dad’s “slobbery” kiss leads to big trouble for Tennessee employer

Butler Snow LLP on

Under Title VII, an employer can be held liable for retaliation by a non-supervisory co-worker if (1) the conduct is sufficiently severe to dissuade a complaint of discrimination; (2) management was aware of the behavior; and...more

Allen Matkins

California Allows Attorney's Fees Award To Successful Whistleblowers

Allen Matkins on

California's Labor Code currently prohibits employers, or persons acting on their behalf, from retaliating against employees who "blow the whistle".  Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5.  The same statute also prohibits employers, or...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

So What’s it Going to Cost Me?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

When faced with an employment discrimination, harassment or retaliation claim, often the immediate response is, “We are going to defend ourselves and prove we are right,” followed by, “So what will it cost us if we lose?”...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Tells EEOC It May Be on the Hook for Fees if It Does Not Fulfill Its Statutory Pre-Suit Duties

Franczek P.C. on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to a party who prevails in a discrimination or retaliation claim brought under that statute. Although this fee shifting provision...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Supreme Court Agrees to Review EEOC's Obligation to Pay Employer's Attorneys Fees

Over the past several years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken a decidedly more aggressive position with regard to litigation against employers accused of discrimination. The EEOC has brought a number of...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

New Women’s Equality Act Legislation Raises Bar for New York Firms

Last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law eight (8) bills forming the bulk of the Women’s Equality Act, originally introduced in the New York State Legislature in 2012. The legislation amends the New York Labor Law and the...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

What’s Your Two Cents? Employment Law In The News

I’ve been vacationing by the shores of Gitche-Gumee this week, so I’m trying to give myself a little blog-cation as well. Here are some entertaining and controversial legal or employment-related developments from the news...more

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

EEOC Loses One, Wins One

The EEOC had a roller coaster week with respect to its aggressive challenges to employers’ background check practices. On September 3, a federal district court in Maryland slapped the EEOC with an attorney’s fees...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Employment Law Notes - September 2015

Newly Enacted California Statutes - The Word "Alien" Is Stricken From The California Labor Code - Section 1725 of the California Labor Code defines "alien" as "any person who is not a born or fully naturalized...more

Polsinelli

ADA Compliance: Landlords, You're On the Hook

Polsinelli on

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability. Title III of the ADA requires that businesses provide accommodations to persons with disabilities and access that is equal or similar to...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Five Surprising Facts About the Inclusive Communities Case

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In the Supreme Court’s recent, landmark decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___, 2015 WL 2473449 (Jun. 25, 2015), the Court held that, while disparate...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Failure to Comply with Terms of EEOC Consent Order Costs Employer $400,000 in Agency's Costs

Under federal civil rights laws, one major difference between suits brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and private parties involves liability for attorney’s fees. Losing employers must pay the prevailing...more

Pullman & Comley - Labor, Employment and...

Should Employers Sue to Recover Attorney’s Fees After Winning a Lawsuit?

Unfortunately, the usual answer is no. After being sued by an employee for discrimination without a scintilla of evidence to support the claim, clients often ask “Can we countersue the employee for attorney’s fees?”...more

BakerHostetler

Not Settling for Less: The EEOC’s Latest Challenge to Employee Releases

BakerHostetler on

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently filed a “pattern or practice” lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, Inc., alleging that CVS uses an “overbroad, misleading and unenforceable Separation Agreement” that...more

Buchalter

Ringing in the New Year: A Summary of New California Employment Laws for 2014

Buchalter on

California’s 2012-2013 Legislative Session concluded with the enactment of a variety of new laws that will affect California employers. In light of these developments, summarized below, California employers should review...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

’Tis the Season of Giving, Right?

We all think of December as the season of giving. Unfortunately, prevailing defendants in Title VII cases don’t always feel that way. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prevailing plaintiffs enjoy compensatory...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Employment Law -- Dec 20, 2013

Despite $27,000 Jury Award, 9th Circuit Approves Almost $700,000 in Attorney’s Fees - Why it matters: Affirming the broad discretion of federal district court judges to award attorney’s fees, the Ninth U.S. Circuit...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

California Employment Law Update: What’s New for 2014

The California Legislature was unusually active this year. Significantly, California increased the state minimum wage, created new “unfair immigration-related practices,” and expanded protections for whistleblowers. All laws...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

EEOC Ordered To Pay Attorney’s Fees and Costs After Bogus Discrimination Case

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP on

The Sixth Circuit has ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to pay more than $750,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for pursuing a frivolous employment discrimination case....more

Littler

Major Changes to Colorado Discrimination Law Will Negatively Impact Employers Large and Small

Littler on

On May 6, 2013, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law the Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act Of 2013 (Act), which amends the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the state law prohibiting...more

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Attorney Fees Not Available In Mixed Motive Retaliation Claims Under Title VII, Seventh Circuit Rules

Under Title VII, in “mixed motive” discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an employer may limit Plaintiff’s recovery where it can show that it would have...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Rules "Mixed Motive" Is a Mixed Bag for Employers

Littler on

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the defenses available to employers defending against claims of discrimination. In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. BC341469 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the court ruled that, if a...more

Nossaman LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For “Mixed Motive” Defense To Employment Discrimination Claims

Nossaman LLP on

In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more

Mintz - Employment, Labor & Benefits...

New York City on the Verge of Prohibiting Discrimination Based on an Individual's Unemployment Status

New York City employers beware: The New York City Council has once again acted to expand the nation’s broadest anti-discrimination law – this time to prohibit discrimination against New York City’s unemployed. While several...more

28 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide