|
|
|
  CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries (U.S. 2008) Phelps Dunbar LLP - September 11, 2008 On May 27, 2008 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 128 S.Ct. 1951 (2008). The Court held, for the first time, that plaintiffs may bring claims for race-based retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Retaliation claims already are available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, but that statute imposes significant limits on damages and requires plaintiffs to submit their claims for review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before they may file suit. The CBOCS ruling will have substantial consequences for employers, including exposure to unlimited damages, and perhaps a longer time period for employees to file retaliation suits.  More Retaliation Claims On The Horizon.Ogletree Deakins - June 25, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has further expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation - an area of employment law that has exploded in recent years. Specifically, the Court held that a federal statute enacted shortly after the Civil War granting all citizens the right to enter into and enforce con-tracts (referred to as "Section 1981") can be used to bring a claim of employment-related retaliation. Supreme Court Holds That Employees May Bring Race-Based Retaliation Claims With Fewer Restrictions Under Section 1981.Phelps Dunbar LLP - June 04, 2008 On May 27, 2008 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries. The Court held, for the first time, that plaintiffs may bring claims for race-based retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Retaliation claims already are available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, but that statute imposes significant limits on damages and requires plaintiffs to submit their claims for review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before they may file suit. The CBOCS ruling will have substantial consequences for employers, including exposure to unlimited damages, and a longer time period for employees to file retaliation suits. Supreme Court Rules that Section 1981 Encompasses Retaliation Claims.Baker Hostetler LLP - June 02, 2008 In an important case closely watched by civil rights and business groups, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 27, 2008, that the 19th-century civil rights statute commonly referred to as "Section 1981" provides a cause of action for retaliation. In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, a decisive majority of seven justices rejected arguments that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 should be interpreted narrowly. In an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court chose to construe Section 1981 as not only prohibiting racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, but as also prohibiting retaliation against persons who complain of such discrimination. Supreme Court Extends Retaliation Claims to More Employees (pdf).Vedder Price - May 30, 2008 In its 2006 Burlington Northern
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
adopted a relatively easy standard
for stating a retaliation claim under
Title VII. On May 27, 2008, it issued
two decisions which, in effect, enable
more employees to bring retaliation
claims. Although the decisions come
as no surprise, they highlight the
increasing risk that employers face
for retaliation claims. High Court Allows Workers to Sue for Retaliation Under Section 1981.Ogletree Deakins - May 29, 2008 Today, the U.S. Supreme Court further expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation – an area of employment law that has exploded in recent years. Specifically, the Court held that a federal statute enacted shortly after the Civil War granting all citizens the right to enter into and enforce contracts (commonly referred to as "Section 1981") can be used to bring a claim of employment-related retaliation. Supreme Court Gives Green Light for Retaliation Claims Under Two Civil Rights Statutes.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 29, 2008 In separate decisions issued the same day, the Supreme Court has given employees the okay to bring retaliation claims against their employers under anti-discrimination statutes, even though the laws make no mention of a retaliation cause of action. In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the Court held by a 7-2 vote that a Reconstruction-era civil rights statute prohibiting race discrimination permits retaliation claims. No. 06-1431, 553 U.S. ____ (May 27, 2008). In the other case, Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, the Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that federal employees who complain about age discrimination are protected from retaliation by their employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). No. 06-1321, 553 U.S. ____ (May 27, 2008). Supreme Court Confirms: Section 1981 Includes Retaliation Claims.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - May 28, 2008 The Supreme Court delivered its decision in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries holding that Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 unequivocally includes claims of retaliation by those pursuing race and color claims under the statute. The Court's ruling has significant consequences for employers, including a longer period of time in which aggrieved employees may file suit, exposure to uncapped damages, as well as providing federal remedies for a greater number of employees who, until this decision, may not have been covered by federal anti-retaliation statutes.
|
Employment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonEssential Immigration Compliance: Critical Updates on I-9s, Government Audits and E-VerifyWebinar
March 23, 2010 OgletreeCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds