#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie...more
In Scheer v. Regents of the University of California, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to claims asserted pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5....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
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
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal district court in Arkansas recently denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on two EEOC-initiated ADA claims – in EEOC v. Crain Automotive Holdings LLC, No. 4:17-CV-627, 2019 U.S. Dist....more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on a case in which a former financial advisor of JPMS claimed his employment was terminated based on racial discrimination. Through application of the three-part burden...more
White male discontent has been a major media talking point since the presidential election, and even long before. This talking point has made its way into the workplace, where tech firms are now being targeted for allegedly...more
Most employees who file employment discrimination claims hope for one of two things – a really sympathetic jury or an employer that is willing to generously settle the lawsuit to avoid the risks and uncertainties of trial. ...more
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a seminal ruling in Bulwer v. Mt. Auburn, which clarified the type of evidence an employment discrimination plaintiff needs to defeat a summary judgment motion. In...more
In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that plaintiffs claiming retaliation under Title VII must prove that “but for” the retaliation they would not have been discharged. University of Texas Southwestern Medical...more
In Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, the Fourth Circuit recently made clear that the McDonnell-Douglas test is alive and well, rejecting a District Court’s decision which had attempted to back away from the...more
In its 2013 Nassar decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs who allege workplace retaliation under Title VII and related statutes must demonstrate that the retaliatory animus is a “but for” cause of the...more