|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link "But For?" What For? Standards of Proof in Federal Discrimination Cases Confuse Courts, Jurors, and Lawyers.Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP - July 14, 2009 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., illustrates the often confusing and conflicting standards that apply when a plaintiff claims that an employment decision was discriminatory. Report Link Sixth Circuit Announces New Summary Judgment Standard for Mixed Motive Discrimination Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 29, 2008 Easing the way for plaintiffs to get to trial, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has announced a new standard for “mixed motive” discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the summary judgment stage. 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 Court of Appeals Clarifies Summary Judgment Standard on Pretext.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 05, 2007 Addressing a rare claim of "reverse" religious discrimination, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has held that in raising a factual question over the asserted pretextual nature of an employer's explanation for promoting another candidate worthy of being tried, a plaintiff may rely either on direct evidence of the employer's discriminatory motive or indirect evidence that undermines the credibility of the employer's articulated reasons. Noyes v. Kelly Services,No. 04-17050 (9th Cir. May 29, 2007). Because the trial court imposed a heavier burden on the plaintiff, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer. Report Link The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer and Orders a Title VII Trial to Proceed Where the Employer Claims a "Mistake" in Stating its Reasons for Discharging the Plaintiff/Employee (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - August 29, 2006 In the recent decision of Staten v. New Palace Casino, LLC,
2006 WL 1737438 (5th Cir.(Miss.)), the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals [which governs federal district court cases on appeal in
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas] issued an important ruling to
which all employers should pay close attention. Report Link Jefferson County Worker's Bias Claim Fails (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - June 20, 2006 Employer's explanation was not a pretext for discrimination. Report Link Implications of the Desert Palace Decision for Employers.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - January 23, 2004 In June, the U.S. Supreme Court in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (2003) unanimously held that an employee asserting a mixed motive theory of discrimination under Title VII need not show direct evidence of discrimination. Report Link No Heightened Evidentiary Burden Is Imposed In A Title VII Mixed-Motive Case.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - September 01, 2002 The Ninth Circuit ruled that the jury was properly instructed that it could find for the employee if it decided that her sex was a motivating factor for her termination, even if there were other lawful reasons for her termination. Report Link Employer's Claim That Termination Was Due To Employees Damaging Airplane Prevails Over Employees Claim That Termination Was Based On Discrimination And Violation Of Public Policy.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 01, 2002 Discusses Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2002), in which the court held that adding a reason for termination does not show pretext unless it were to conflict with a prior stated reason for the treatment. Report Link SUPREME COURT RULES ON PRETEXT PLUS. Employment Law Information Network - June 01, 2000 Discussion of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., __ U.S. __, No. 99-536 (June 12, 2000), in which the court ruled that a jury may find for a plaintiff who establishes 1) a prima facie case of discrimination; and 2) that the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for his discharge is false. Report Link Supreme Court Rules on Fundamental Issues Involving Evidence in Discrimination Cases. Jackson Lewis LLP - March 01, 2000 Discussion of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., __ U.S. __, No. 99-536, in which the court ruled that a jury may find for a plaintiff who establishes 1) a prima facie case of discrimination; and 2) that the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for his discharge is false.
|
ArticlesFound: 11 ArticlesSUBTOPICS Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 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