|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link 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. Report Link Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions Broaden Employees’ Ability to Bring Retaliation Claims.Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. - June 16, 2008 The Unites States Supreme Court has recently ruled in separate decisions that two federal statutes prohibiting discrimination also prohibit retaliation, even though the statutes do not explicitly address retaliation. Report Link Retaliation: How the New U.S. Supreme Court Decision in CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries Impacts EmployersGray Plant Mooty - June 06, 2008 The number of retaliation claims filed against employers has grown rapidly in the last few years, and a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court is likely to further increase that growth. On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, that employees may bring retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Report Link 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. Report Link 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. Report Link 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. Report Link 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. Report Link 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). Report Link 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. Report Link Supreme Court Considers Whether to Allow Retaliation Claims Brought Under 19th Century Civil Rights Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 25, 2008 The Supreme Court heard oral arguments February 20 from an employer seeking to overturn the vast majority of federal appellate court rulings that a post Civil War-era civil rights statute prohibiting race discrimination allows claims for retaliation, even though the statute is silent on the question. Several Justices appeared concerned about the lack of any provision authorizing such claims. CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431. Report Link Supreme Court Prohibits Section 1981 Lawsuit by Corporate Officer.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 02, 2006 The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a corporate officer cannot sue for race discrimination in his own right under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on a contract between his corporation and the company sued. Among other things, § 1981 protects the right of all people "to make and enforce contracts" without respect to race. The statute protects not only the right to enter into a contract, but all the rights and benefits inherent in the contractual relationship, including performance, modification and termination. Report Link Customer Bias Case Demonstrates Importance Of Employee Training (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - December 16, 2005 A post-Civil War statute referred
to as “Section 1981” forbids discrimination
against black citizens’ right
to form contracts. The statute is often
invoked in discrimination lawsuits
brought by employees and, less frequently,
by retail customers. Report Link SECOND CIRCUIT RULES THAT AT-WILL EMPLOYEES MAY SUE UNDER SECTION 1981. Employment Law Information Network - June 01, 2000 Discussion of Lauture v. IBM Corp., 99-7732, (2d Cir., June 20, 2000), in which the court held that an at-will employee may proceed with a Section 1981 claim. Report Link Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiffs May Use Section 1981 to Sue for Retaliation.Hogan & Hartson LLP - (No Date) On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, (No. 06-1431), that employees may bring claims based on or arising from retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981, one of a number of federal laws addressing discrimination, provides that “[a]ll persons . . . have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Although the text of the statute does not specifically mention retaliation, the Court held that Section 1981 nevertheless encompasses retaliation claims.
|
ArticlesFound: 14 ArticlesSUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
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