I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....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
Michael Schmidt of Cozen O'Connor addresses recent trends and noteworthy developments on certain employment policies related to political activity, confidential customer information, FMLA retaliation, and maximum leave...more
We have written in the past about how important it is for an employer to be accurate in articulating its reason for terminating an employee. For example, if an employer is terminating an employee for poor performance, the...more
It’s a common scene played out in employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuits everywhere: An employee is demoted, terminated, or otherwise affected by an employer’s action. The employer claims the decision was made for...more
On June 7, 2017, a California jury returned a 9-3 verdict, dismissing whistleblower claims brought by a former Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (“SpaceX”) employee. Jason Blasdell v. Space Exploration Technologies...more
In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar...more
The federal appeals court that covers Oklahoma recently ruled in favor of Dillon Companies, Inc., a Kansas corporation that does business as King Soopers, in a lawsuit filed by a former grocery store employee who claimed he...more
It’s been awhile since Oklahoma’s Supreme Court weighed in on the ability of fired employees to sue their employers for wrongful discharge. Now a vomiting nurse gets to take a shot at the nursing center that terminated his...more
Seyfarth Synopsis. The Eleventh Circuit clarifies the framework in mixed-motive cases. Although damages are limited, a plaintiff can establish a mixed-motive claim by showing a protected characteristic was a motivating factor...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
In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued an opinion with negative consequences for employers...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
The Tenth Circuit recently ruled that pretext would not be found if an employer terminated an employee based on a genuine belief that the employee had violated company policy....more
In Meyers v. Eastern Oklahoma County Technology Center, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld judgment for the employer even though the plaintiff had engaged in legally protected activity because she disregarded her...more
In order for a plaintiff to prove age discrimination, he/she must show that age is a “but for” reason for the termination or other employment action. In other words, but for the plaintiff’s age, the termination decision would...more
In California, Arbitration Agreement Valid Despite Lack of Rules - Why it matters: California employers scored a victory with the Peng decision, with the court making clear that a procedural error in failing to include...more
This past February, the California Supreme Court addressed the viability of a mixed-motive defense to employment discrimination claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in the Harris v. City of Santa...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Title VII retaliation claims require a plaintiff to prove the more stringent “but for” causation standard, rather than the lesser “motivating factor”...more
Windsor v. United States - Issue: Can the federal government define marriage? Holding: No. Loser: The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, was...more
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued two Title VII decisions favorable to employers. One case examined the definition of a supervisor under the anti-discrimination laws, and the other dealt with an employee’s burden of...more
On June 24, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that an employee alleging unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must prove that a retaliatory motive was the...more
Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which addresses the causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII. The Supreme Court has already held...more
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
On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g))...more