|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Article Index » title vii: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link The Ministerial Exception: How Far Is Too Far?Fisher & Phillips, LLP - May 07, 2008 Two recent court decisions have further defined the contours of the "ministerial exception," which prohibits courts from addressing employment claims brought against religious organizations when the decisions were based on the organization's religious principals or practices. Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen demonstrates that this exception has its limits; Klouda v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary shows just how far the exception can be applied. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Update.Ford & Harrison LLP - April 25, 2008 The Supreme Court has issued several employment related decisions already this year. Report Link Surviving Discrimination Claims (Video).Nexsen Pruet - April 21, 2008 Surviving Discrimination Claims. Report Link Sprint/United Management Co. v. MendelsohnBaker Hostetler LLP - April 11, 2008 In a unanimous decision on February 26, 2008, in the case Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, the United States Supreme Court held that a trial court can permit a plaintiff employee to introduce evidence that other employees have also experienced discrimination, provided that the testimony—also known as “me too” evidence—is relevant to the case and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of its prejudicial effect before the jury. In so ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that “me too” evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible but, rather, the trial court must make a determination weighing the evidence's relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect. Report Link Employee Testing Positive for Drug Use Failed to Prove Discrimination and Retaliation Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 04, 2008 An African-American employee, who tested positive for drug use, failed to prove her race and disability discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 (the Civil War-era Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled. Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., No. 06-15400 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008). The plaintiff alleged that the employer violated Title VII and Section 1981 by failing to promote and cross-train her, and retaliating after she complained by directing her to take drug tests. Report Link Seven Tips for Avoiding Retaliation Claims (And Still Hold Poor Performers Accountable).Fisher & Phillips, LLP - April 02, 2008 Experienced Human Resources professionals know this dilemma all too well – slackers and malcontents who have learned to use the threat of retaliation claims as a sword instead of a shield. Besides failing to perform their duties, these employees regularly grouse or nitpick, almost daring their supervisors to intervene. Meanwhile, frustrated supervisors put off dealing with poor performance or disruptive conduct. Report Link Supreme Court Decides that EEOC Intake Questionnaire May Be a Charge of Discrimination.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 10, 2008 Is an intake questionnaire filed with the EEOC sufficient to be considered a discrimination charge? It depends. On February 27, the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 vote in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki that a former employee who filed an intake questionnaire supported by a detailed affidavit had filed a charge that entitled her to file an ADEA suit. The Supreme Court decided that a document filed with the EEOC that requests action to protect the employee’s rights or to settle a dispute with the employer constitutes a discrimination charge under the ADEA. Report Link Supreme Court Refuses to Bar Co-Workers’ “Me, Too” Testimony in Discrimination Cases.Phelps Dunbar LLP - March 07, 2008 On February 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Ellen Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221. Employers had hoped that the case would provide a categorical rule barring so-called "me, too" testimony-that is, testimony offered by a plaintiff's co-workers who are not parties to the suit, claiming discrimination by different supervisors who had no role in the challenged employment decision. Instead, the Supreme Court held that trial court judges have discretion to admit or exclude such testimony, depending on the particular facts of the case. The Court's decision is problematic for employers, because it leaves open the door to inflammatory, hard-to-refute testimony by disgruntled co-workers in employment discrimination cases. Report Link Supreme Court Holds "Me Too" Evidence May Be Admissible to Prove Discrimination.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 06, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its unanimous opinion in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (Feb. 26, 2008) concerning whether a plaintiff alleging discrimination can rely on alleged evidence of discrimination from employees not supervised by plaintiff's supervisor or manager. The Supreme Court unanimously held that such "me too" evidence could be admissible depending upon the circumstances. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Ruling on “Me Too” Evidence.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - March 06, 2008 The Supreme Court announced its decision on the admissibility of so called “me too” evidence. “Me too” evidence refers to testimony by other employees describing their own experiences of discriminatory treatment by the same employer. From an employer’s perspective, this type of evidence makes discrimination trials longer, more expensive, and harder to defend.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
UNDERSTANDING YOUR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AT WORK (AB 1234 COMPLIANCE)
Sacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPPreventing Wage/Hour Class Actions.Online
May 13, 2008 LittlerHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSacramento
May 13, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPHow to Stay Union FreeLas Vegas
2008-5-13 Jackson Lewis LLPConducting Effective Investigations of Employment Claims: Essential Skills for Internal InvestigatorsHouston
May 13, 2008 Littler2008 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Universal City
May 13, 2008 Ballard RosenbergSHRM Morris County Monthly Legal UpdateFlorham Park
2008-5-14 SHRM Morris County ChapterThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-5-14 Jackson Lewis LLPDigital Dangers: Recent E-Discovery Developments and TrendsLas Vegas
May 14, 2008 LittlerHealth Care's New Labor and Privacy Law Frontiers: Defusing Tomorrow's Problems TodayDenver
May 14, 2008 Littler |
|
| ||
|
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