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
In 2017, following public allegations against notable figures such as Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, the #MeToo movement took on national prominence. A movement of empowerment, #MeToo aims to strengthen sexual...more
On July 3, 2018, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, et al. overturning a district court's granting of summary judgment to an employer against an employee's sexual harassment claim under the...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
In Doe v. Superior Court (filed 5/29/15, No. H040674), the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that a defendant’s reasonable duty of care to prevent harm to a minor and her parents encompassed the duty...more
In Aguas v. State of New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently adopted an affirmative defense—available under federal law since 1998—allowing employers to use their anti-harassment policies to limit vicarious...more
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided two key issues affecting claims of supervisory hostile work environment sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). In Aguas v. State of New...more
Last week, in Aguas v. New Jersey, No. A-35-13 (Feb. 11, 2015), New Jersey’s high court embraced the federal Faragher-Ellerth defense for claims alleging vicarious liability for supervisory sexual harassment under New...more
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court analyzed the impact of an employer’s anti-harassment policy on an employee’s claims of negligence, recklessness and vicarious liability against employers under the New Jersey Law...more
Ellen Tabby, an African-American, has worked for Binge and Purr, a cat food manufacturing company, for several years....more
In a 5-4 decision that represents a major victory for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee must have the power to take tangible employment actions against another worker in order to be considered a...more
In a favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University ruled that employers are strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor where the supervisor is empowered to take tangible...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
Excerpt from Supreme Court Sides With Employers in Title VII Suits - Capping off a term of big decisions with employer-friendly results, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on two major employment issues in a pair of...more
The Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff asserting retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) must prove that the retaliation was the “but for” cause of the employer’s adverse action....more
News agencies flocked to Washington D.C. to witness the end of the United States Supreme Court's October 2012 term expecting something momentous. Handing down historic decisions on such controversial issues as affirmative...more
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its term, employers should take note of three decisions issued this past Monday, June 24....more
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided what the definition of a "supervisor" is for purposes of assessing liability for unlawful harassment under Title VII. The Court ruled that an employer will be vicariously...more
Divided Court holds that a "supervisor" must be empowered to take tangible employment actions for vicarious liability under Title VII to apply and that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a higher "but-for" causation...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), holding that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious employer liability...more
At our recent Labor and Employment Law Seminar, we highlighted a number of outstanding legal cases that have the potential to have a significant impact on employer liability. ...more
On June 24, 2013, a divided U.S. Supreme Court issued much-anticipated decisions in two Title VII cases in which the Court provided some needed certainty and relief to employers on the front lines of employment litigation. In...more