Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 390: Listen and Learn -- Vicarious Liability (Torts)
Life With GDPR: Episode 41-Morrisons at the UK Supreme Court
Life With GDPR: Episode 22- Morrisons’ and vicarious liability
Potential for Vicarious Liability Under the Graves Amendment
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
This edition of Employment Flash summarizes key employment law issues related to COVID-19 as well as two seminal U.S. Supreme Court rulings that protect gay and transgender employees from discrimination, and clarify the...more
Several recent cases concern challenges to executive orders relating to COVID-19 limiting the ability of churches to assemble and imposing other limitations. Beginning with appellate decisions, these cases are summarized in...more
On 1 April 2020 the Supreme Court handed down two judgments regarding vicarious liability in Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13 and WM Morrisons Supermarkets plc [2020] UKSC 12, each addressing one of the two limbs of vicarious...more
Ruth Featherstone alleged that her former employer (SCPMG) discriminated against her based on a "temporary disability" that was caused by an adverse drug reaction, which resulted in an "altered mental state." During this...more
During recent years, the Internet has become the basic foundational infrastructure for the global movement of data of all kinds. With continued growth at a phenomenal rate, the Internet has moved from a quiet means of...more
What happened? In Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc, the Supreme Court decided that the employer was vicariously liable for an employee’s assault on a customer. Mr Mohamud, a man of Somali origin, went into a Morrisons...more
The year 2015 saw a continued wave of class action filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). However, unsettled law continues to place a compliance burden on companies that communicate with consumers by...more
An unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment that would fully satisfy a named plaintiff’s individual claim does not moot individual or class claims opined the U.S. Supreme Court, resolving a split in the circuits. Campbell-Ewald...more
In This Issue: - SEC Pays First Whistleblower Award to Audit and Compliance Professional - Supreme Court Allows Affordable Care Act Contraceptives Religious Exemption - EEOC Adopts New Pregnancy...more
Federal Circuit Remands for Reconsideration of $6.6 Million Attorney Fees Award On September 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit remanded a case to the district court to reconsider an attorney fees award in light of the Supreme...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
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
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Vance v. Ball State University, ruling that only those employees who have the authority to take “tangible employment actions” qualify as supervisors for purposes of...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion favorable to employers, determining the term "supervisor" under Title VII should be defined narrowly. ...more