A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week will slow down an area of employment litigation that has been on the rise for years — claims that an employer retaliated against a worker for complaining about discrimination.
Defense lawyers are touting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week on Title VII supervisor liability as a significant win for employers, providing a welcome clarification to the law while dealing a blow to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
An employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that an employer was not vicariously liable for a racially hostile work environment created by an employee who did not have the power to hire, fire or discipline the victim of the alleged harassment.
Workers who allege that their employer retaliated against them must meet a higher burden than merely showing that the desire to retaliate was one motivating factor, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that vacates a $3.4 million jury verdict.
In greater numbers, workers are asking their bosses to change their work schedules, relax company dress codes and make other adjustments so that they can fulfill their job requirements and religious obligations at the same time.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s lawsuits against two companies alleging unlawful and discriminatory use of criminal background checks in their hiring policies should serve as a reminder to employers to tread carefully.
A volunteer firefighter was not an “employee” who could claim the protections of federal employment discrimination law, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
An employer may be liable for sex discrimination under Title VII for allegedly discharging a female employee because she wanted to express breast milk at work, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.
A plaintiff who alleged she was twice denied an entry-level sales job with Cintas because of her gender was not entitled to class certification of her Title VII claims, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.