What's the Tea in L&E? Supervisor Liability: What Managers Need To Know
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part Two
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part One
III-40 – Valentine’s Day Episode on Love Contracts
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
On August 1, 2024, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in O’Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities that the definition of “supervisor” set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University to...more
In a win for employers, the Connecticut Supreme Court defines “supervisor” narrowly for purposes of vicarious employer liability under Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act - Under Connecticut’s civil rights law, an...more
A “supervisor,” for purposes of a Connecticut state hostile work environment claim, is an employee who is empowered by an employer to take tangible employment actions, the Connecticut Supreme Court recently held in O’Reggio...more
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) first updated enforcement guidance on workplace harassment in 25 years is broken down into the three components of a harassment claim: (1) the covered bases and causation;...more
In a recent decision, the Connecticut Appellate Court held that “supervisor” for hostile work environment discrimination claims brought under Connecticut law is the same as applied in similar federal claims brought pursuant...more
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT US: MULTI-STATE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW - We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. 2019 Update - In the wake the of the #MeToo...more
In recent years, a number of federal appellant courts, including the Fourth Circuit, have issued opinions finding that a single use of a racial slur can be enough to constitute a hostile and offensive working environment...more
Under Title VII, employers are generally strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors. In its Faragher and Ellerth decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a limited defense for employers accused of supervisor...more
Stories of high-profile individuals in politics, media, entertainment and hospitality alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment, or worse, have been breaking at an unprecedented rate. In the wake of these allegations,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a U.S. District Court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the harassing employee was not a...more
As all hospitality employers know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” However, the statute does not specifically mention sexual orientation or gender identity. What does...more
Most employers using temporary workers from an employment agency assume that they are liable as employers for certain legal claims. While a reasonable assumption, until last week, this status had never been formally...more
Employers are well aware of their potential liability for workplace harassment claims involving co-workers or third parties. They also understand their heightened legal responsibility when the alleged harasser is the...more
Despite consistent direction from the United States Supreme Court that courts should look at "all the circumstances" in determining whether a workplace environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive to give rise to an...more
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender. Numerous federal courts have rejected claims by female workers that they were discriminated against when their managers showed preferential treatment toward a female...more
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
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
On June 24, the Supreme Court issued two new opinions in favor of employers, both five-to-four decisions that narrowly construe the scope of Title VII’s retaliation and employer liability rules and significantly raise the bar...more
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
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
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
In Vance v. Ball State University, No.11-556, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ball State, making it harder for employees to sue employers for harassment under Title VII. ...more
On June 24th, the Supreme Court issued two important decisions that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In...more
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
The Supreme Court has ruled in Vance v. Ball State University that the authority to take tangible employment actions is the defining characteristic of a supervisor, and that without such authority an employee is not a...more