News & Analysis as of

Discrimination › Retaliation › Supreme Court of the United States

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 -
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

The man who said "no" to DEI training, and four lessons for employers

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on

Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Get with the Pronoun: Eleventh Circuit Rules Pervasive Misgendering Is Harassment

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Seventh Circuit Takes On Religious Discrimination

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer in a religious discrimination case involving a teacher who refused to call transgender students by their chosen names....more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

EEOC Argues For Broader Causation Standard And Provides A Peek Into The EEOC’s Future Focus

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

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

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Says Section 1981 Claims Require ‘But For' Causation

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making of contracts, including employment contracts. Section 1981 is often used by employees suing for race discrimination as...more

BakerHostetler

Can Employers in the Fifth Circuit Be Liable for Retaliation Under Title VII When the Decision Maker Had No Retaliatory Motive?

BakerHostetler on

In Zamora v. City of Houston, 14-20125 (Aug. 19, 2015), the Fifth Circuit joined the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in holding that the “cat’s paw” theory of causation can also be utilized in Title VII retaliation cases,...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Legislature Targets Employment Arbitration Agreements

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

It is no secret that California is no friend to arbitration agreements. As the United States Supreme Court noted in its 2011 opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, “California’s courts have been more likely to hold...more

Baker Donelson

SCOTUS Jurisdiction Watch: Exhaustion of EEOC Administrative Remedies

Baker Donelson on

On May 28, 2015, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to meet and decide whether to grant or deny certiorari in Duble v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., Supreme Court Case No. 14-1028. Petitioner, Duble, seeks...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

The Employment Law Authority - March/April 2015

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

In this Issue: - Immigration - State Round-Up - Best Practices - Retaliation - Employment Discrimination - Excerpt from Immigration; Spouses of H-1B visa holders will be eligible for work...more

Baker Donelson

What 2013 Gifts will Employers be Enjoying well into 2014?

Baker Donelson on

The holidays have come and gone. I hope everyone enjoyed them, and I hope everyone received the gifts and presents they asked for. I come from a big family—three siblings, 14 aunts and uncles, and nearly twenty cousins....more

Fisher Phillips

Labor Letter, September 2013: Employers Go "Two For Two" – Three Times Over: A Review Of The 2012-13 Supreme Court Term

Fisher Phillips on

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

Fisher Phillips

Labor Letter, September 2013: Supreme Court Tightens Standard In Retaliation Cases

Fisher Phillips on

As the U.S. Supreme Court ended its most recent term with a number of cases that will have broad societal implications, one employment law case decided by the Court seems to have taken somewhat of a back seat, despite the...more

Dechert LLP

International Employment Law Review: August 2013 - Issue 4: Recent Employment Law Developments in the United States

Dechert LLP on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Makes it Harder for Employees to Bring Suits Under Title VII

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

The Employment Law Authority - July/August 2013

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Three Decisions Favorable to Employers

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on

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

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC

Two Supreme Court Rulings Improve Employer's Ability to Defend Against Harassment, Retaliation Claims

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2013: Employee Claiming Retaliation Must Meet Higher Standard of Proof

Fenwick & West LLP on

In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more

Cole Schotz

United States Supreme Court Issues Two Employer-Friendly Decisions With Far-Reaching Impact in Employee Harassment Cases

Cole Schotz on

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

Proskauer Rose LLP

California Employment Law Notes - July 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

Stoel Rives LLP

Part 2 of 2: Supreme Court Rules That "Supervisors" Under Title VII Must Have Power to Take Tangible Employment Actions

Stoel Rives LLP on

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

BakerHostetler

Employees Must Prove Retaliation Was “But-For” Cause of Employment Action

BakerHostetler on

Employers are well aware that poorly performing employees may lodge baseless retaliation claims as a smokescreen to interfere with legitimate discipline....more

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Supreme Court Applies “But-For” Standard To Title VII Retaliation Claims

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

Also on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court addressed the standard courts should apply to determine whether an employer violates Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Because of a statutory amendment in 1991, courts apply a...more

McAfee & Taft

Supreme Court rulings favor employers in retaliation, discrimination cases

McAfee & Taft on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Recent Supreme Court Cases Raise Bar for Plaintiffs Under Title VII

Foley Hoag LLP on

Two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its 2012-13 term, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State University, will significantly alter the landscape of employment...more

44 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

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