Total Articles: 6
NO PROTECTED ACTIVITY? NO PROBLEM
Law regarding retaliation in the workplace has expanded rapidly in several respects during the last few years. The United States Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, discussed below, demonstrates how far the law may be stretched in this area.
Is Retaliation for Complaining About Sexual Orientation Discrimination a Violation of Title VII?
The headline in today's Daily Labor Report caught my attention, Court Revives Fired Gay Employee's Retaliation, Harassment Claims ($). I thought maybe it was another another step down the road for protection against sexual orientation discrimination, but still within the limits of Title VII.
But when I looked at the decision, Dawson v. Entek International (9th Cir. 1.10.11) [pdf] what I found was even more confusing.
Appellate Court Refuses to Apply Participation Clause to Internal Company Investigations.
Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against
an employee who reports discrimination. Title VII's
antiretaliation provision contains two clauses: the
"opposition clause," which prohibits an employer
from discriminating against an employee who has
opposed any employment practice prohibited by
Title VII; and the "participation clause," which
prohibits an employer from discriminating against
an employee who has made a charge, testifi ed,
assisted or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding or hearing under
Title VII.
Argument for the Opposition: The Supreme Court Clarifies Employees Opposition as Protected Activity.
What constitute an employees opposition to conduct such that it is protected under the law?
Sexual Harassment Update: U.S. Supreme Court Protects Investigation Participant From Retaliation.
Both federal an California law protect employees who oppose illegal harassment or discrimination, as well as employees who participate in an investigation. What exactly does it mean to "oppose" a practice? The U.S. Supreme Court examined this question in a decision published on January 26, 2009 titled Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville.
Worker's retaliatory discharge claim fails (pdf).
Court finds no evidence that gender motivated employer's decision.
