|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 U.S. Supreme Court Will Determine Whether an Employee who Cooperates in Internal Harassment Investigation is Protected from Retaliation.Ford & Harrison LLP - January 25, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted review in a retaliation case that could have a significant impact on employers. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee (U.S. cert. granted Jan. 18, 2008), the Court will determine whether an employee who cooperates in an employer’s internal investigation of a sexual harassment allegation, where no agency charge has been filed, is protected from retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Report Link Special Report on Retaliation Claims: An Overview for EPL Claims Managers and Underwriters.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 25, 2008 In the last decade, the number of charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging employment retaliation has continued to grow, increasing from 18,198 in 1997 to 22,555 in 2007. Retaliation claims now represent around 30 percent of all charges filed with the EEOC. Report Link No Need to Walk on Eggshells When Reprimanding an Employee Who Has Claimed Discrimination.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 31, 2007 Although an employee made several complaints of harassment and sexually discriminatory treatment, alleged supervisory reprimands, including critical comments on lack of customer solicitations, denial of sales assistance of doubtful value, and the employer's asserted reluctance to discuss the employee's past harassment claims, even if true, would result only in trivial harm and not provide a basis for Title VII retaliation claims under Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006), a federal appeals court in St. Louis has held. Report Link Fifth Circuit Reiterates that Temporal Proximity, Alone, Does not Establish Retaliation.Ford & Harrison LLP - April 20, 2007 When do you discipline an emlpoyee who has previously complained about discrimination? Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Expands Extent of Employer Liability for Retaliation Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - January 15, 2007 In this Littler attorney authored article discussing the new liabilities for employers as a result of the June Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White case, Littler's Gina Cook discusses the new standard for retaliatory conduct. She notes that now "the employee need only show that the conduct was materially adverse and it might have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. This basically means that any action on the part of the employer that is serious enough to possibly, or does in fact, deter an employee from making or assisting in making a charge of discrimination will be considered unlawful and actionable retaliation." Cook also makes several points on why this should grab any employer's attention, and makes recommendations for steps of preparation. Report Link Should Employers Expect an Increase in Retaliation Claims in 2007?Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - January 04, 2007 Earlier this year, the Supreme Court made it much easier for employees to show that an employer has violated Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the Court held that “the scope of [Title VII’s] anti-retaliation provision extends beyond workplace-related or employment-related retaliatory acts and harm” to include any materially adverse employer action which “might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” The Court noted that the standard is an objective one – the alleged retaliatory act must be likely to deter a reasonable person standing in the employee’s shoes from filing a complaint. Report Link The United States Supreme Court Defines Retaliation And Expands Employee Rights.Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - September 13, 2006 Retaliation claims are on the rise, accounting for one out of every four employment claims filed. Courts have long recognized that employer or supervisor mishandling of protected complaints can turn a weak discrimination claim into a strong retaliation claim. On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court (in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White) solidified this point with respect to Sheila White’s claims arising under the federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII. Report Link High Court takes broad view of retaliation (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - September 11, 2006 Report Link Retaliation Reinvigorated (pdf).Hogan & Hartson LLP - September 11, 2006 This update discusses a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court expanding the concept of "retaliation" under federal employment discrimination law and explains how this may make such claims more difficult for employers to resolve. Report Link United States Supreme Court Delivers Double-Whammy for Employers: Retaliation and Discrimination Just Got Easier To Prove (pdf).Jones Walker - September 08, 2006 Retaliation and Discrimination Just Got Easier To Prove. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Expands Anti-Retaliation Provision of Title VII (pdf).Nexsen Pruet - August 09, 2006 Employers have long understood that title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Struggles to Define Employer Retaliation under Title VII (pdf).Vedder Price - August 04, 2006 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
employment discrimination on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin. It also forbids
employers from retaliating against employees
or applicants for fi ling a charge, participating or
assisting in a charge or an investigation, or otherwise
exercising rights provided under Title VII. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Employer Retaliation Under Title VII (pdf).Vedder Price - July 31, 2006 The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, No. 05-259
(June 22, 2006), holds that any adverse employment action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from pursuing a
charge of discrimination is sufficient to state a claim of retaliation under Title VII. This is the standard used by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana), but is broader than the test applied
by other appellate courts. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed that illegal retaliatory action against an employee can
occur outside the workplace. Report Link Retaliation Under Title VII – The United States Supreme Court (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - July 28, 2006 The United States Supreme Court recently held in
Burlington Northern v. White, 2006 WL 1698953 (U.S.),
that the application of Title VII’s retaliation provision
does not confine the actions and harms it forbids solely
to those that are related to employment or occur at the
workplace. The Supreme Court further concluded that
the provision covers those (and only those) employer
actions that would have been materially adverse to a
reasonable employee or job applicant. Report Link New Rules About Title VII Retaliation Claims (pdf).Hogan & Hartson LLP - June 29, 2006 This Labor and Employment Update discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week, which held that that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision does not limit actionable retaliation to activity that is related to employment or occurs at the workplace and covers those actions that are harmful to the point that a reasonable employee would be dissuaded from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Report Link Rise in Claims Likely After Supreme Court Loosens Standard in Retaliation Lawsuits.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 28, 2006 On June 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision expanding the protection to employees who allege they have suffered retaliation after making a complaint of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Report Link Supreme Court Broadens Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Provision.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 26, 2006 Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively broadened Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by differentiating it from Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Adopts Expansive Interpretation of Title VII Retaliation.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 26, 2006 On June 22, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will likely make it easier for individuals claiming retaliation under Title VII to take these claims to trial. See Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White. In this case, the Court held that a person complaining of retaliation under Title VII is not required to prove that the allegedly retaliatory conduct was related to his or her employment or workplace. Additionally, the Court held that a retaliation claim can proceed if the complaining person shows that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which means it might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The standard adopted by the Court in Burlington Northern is more lenient than that imposed by many federal appeals courts. Report Link Supreme Court Broadens Employee Protection Against Unlawful Retaliation.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 26, 2006 On June 22, 2006, the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, No. 05-259 (June 22, 2006), defined what constitutes an "adverse action" sufficient for an employee to successfully assert a Title VII retaliation claim. The Supreme Court had not previously addressed this issue. The Court held that a retaliatory "adverse action" need not be related to the employee's terms and conditions of employment. It further held that illegal retaliation occurs whenever the adverse conduct or harm would have the effect of discouraging a "reasonable employee" from making a discrimination complaint. Report Link United States Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Employees to Bring Retaliation Claims (pdf).Phelps Dunbar LLP - June 26, 2006 In what could be the most significant
employment law decision in years, a unanimous
Supreme Court has made it easier for employees to
bring retaliation claims against their employers.
Burlington Northern v. White. The decision may
prove to be a nightmare for employers when making
personnel decisions or disciplining employees who
have previously claimed workplace discrimination.
The ruling marks the first time the high court has
spelled out how significant retaliation must be to
serve as the basis for a federal lawsuit, and could open
a new floodgate of litigation. Report Link Supreme Court Clarifies "Adverse Employment Action" In Retaliation Cases (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - June 26, 2006 Supreme Court Clarifies "Adverse Employment Action" In Retaliation Cases.
Report Link United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments Regarding What Constitutes Retaliation in White v. Burlington N & Santa Fe Railroad Company.Phelps Dunbar LLP - May 16, 2006 On Monday, April 17, 2006, the United States heard oral
arguments in White v. Burlington N. and Santa Fe Railroad
Company, 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct.
797 (Dec. 5, 2005). Specifically, the Supreme Court granted
certiorari to determine what constitutes retaliation under Title
VII. The following issues are presented for review. Report Link Retaliatory Employer Hit with $300,000 Punitive Damages.Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP - January 01, 2003 Even when an employer is confident that an allegation of discrimination is meritless, the company must still consider whether its actions following such an allegation may constitute retaliation. Report Link Employer's Retaliatory Actions Prove Costly.Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP - April 01, 2002 Discusses Alban-Davies v. Credit Lyonnais Securities, in which the court dismissed plaintiff's underlying ADEA claim for failing to aduce evidence of pretext, but found that plaintiff had a viable retaliation claim. Report Link RETALIATION – The Suit of Choice.Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP. - April 01, 2001 Twenty six page outline of retaliation claims under Title VII and Texas law. Report Link Federal Appeals Court Affirms Large Retaliation Award in Sex Discrimination Case. Jackson Lewis LLP - March 01, 2000 Discusses Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. 2000 U. S. App. LEXIS 4003 (9th Cir. 2000), in which the appellate court upheld $4 million dollar award. Report Link Recent Trend in Retaliation Claims Leaves Employers Vulnerable to More Than Discrimination Suits. Jackson Lewis LLP - March 01, 2000 Discusses fact that retaliation claims have risen greatly over the years, describes recent cases involving retaliation and provides brief discussion on how to avoid such claims. Report Link Special Report On Retaliation Claims: An Overview for EPL Claims Managers and Underwriters. Jackson Lewis LLP - March 01, 2000 Lengthy discussion of retaliation claims, including discussion regarding: "Sue While You Work: Retaliation Claims Are on the Rise", "What are the Legal Grounds for Retaliation?", "What are the Elements of an Actionable Claim of Retaliation?", "The Wages of Sin: Remedies for Retaliation", and "Prevention of Retaliation Claims."
|
ArticlesFound: 29 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis 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