COVID-19 Guidance for Government Contractors
A retaliation claim under Title VII requires proof of a “materially adverse action.” Short of discharge, what could be more materially adverse than a suspension? The Fifth Circuit Court recently ruled that even a suspension...more
From the California Legislature: New Employment Laws, Bills Set for Signature: Why it matters - The California Legislature has been busy with employment-related bills, passing measures to provide additional...more
In Precia Jones v. SEPTA, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals last week joined six sister courts in finding that a suspension with pay typically does not constitute an “adverse employment action” within the meaning of Title...more
In an issue of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday, August 12, that a paid suspension does not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII, joining the unanimous opinion of the six...more
On August 12, 2015, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, holding that a paid suspension “typically” is not an adverse employment action within the meaning of...more
On August 12, 2015, the Third Circuit ruled that a suspension with pay does not constitute an adverse employment action within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Pennsylvania Human...more