|
|
|
  Second Circuit Rules No Title VII Claims Where Employee Suffered No Adverse Employment Action.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2009 Finding that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York has affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer, the New York State Department of Labor, on the plaintiff’s claims for alleged race discrimination and harassment in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Cunnigham v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, No. 08-0992-cv (2d Cir. June 10, 2009) (summary order). However, the Court reversed summary judgment on the plaintiff’s retaliation claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Report Link Title VII Associational Discrimination Claim Requires Proof Harassment was "Severe or Pervasive".Jackson Lewis LLP - March 23, 2009 Significant Association with Members of a Protected Class Not Necessary. Report Link Miranda Warning to Employers: What You Say May Be Used Against You (pdf).Vedder Price - April 13, 2007 Employers must take care that their stated legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating an employee is consistent -- variance in a position statement might preclude summary judgment. Report Link Nurse's Blacklisting Claim Rejected (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - January 31, 2007 Court finds former supervisor's statements were not "adverse". Report Link Professor's Claim of Unequal Funding Does Not Implicate Title VII (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - January 31, 2007 Third Circuit also rejects retaliation claim. Report Link American Airlines Employee's Sex Discrimination Case Fails (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - June 20, 2006 Court refuses to second guess employer. Report Link How Do You Define “Adverse Employment Action”? (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - February 21, 2006 An issue of debate among the federal
appellate courts will apparently be
resolved in the near future as a result of
the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to
hear a case brought by a female railroad
worker who claims that she was
retaliated against for complaining
about unlawful harassment. The question
is what constitutes an “adverse
employment action” – which has resulted
in three very different answers
from the federal appellate courts in the
past. The Justices are expected to resolve
this issue in the next few months.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Company v. White, No. 05-259,
U.S. Supreme Court (cert. granted December
5, 2005). Report Link D.C. worker allowed to sue for harassment (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - December 19, 2005 The District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals recently reinstated a
lawsuit brought by an employee who
claimed that she had been subjected to
a hostile work environment. The court
held that the trial judge “erred in
granting summary judgment based on
the Faragher/Ellerth defense in a case
in which the defense had not been
raised in the pleadings.” The court refused
to reinstate the worker’s retaliation
claim, however, because she failed
to establish that she had suffered
an “adverse employment action” following
her complaints of harassment. Report Link Federal Employee's Title VII Claim Fails (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - December 19, 2005 The District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals recently dismissed a
lawsuit brought by an employee who
claimed that she was terminated in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act. According to the court, the employer’s
decision to fire the worker
based on her inability to obtain security
clearance was immune from judicial
review. Report Link Decrease in hours is not an "adverse action" (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - December 19, 2005 The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
over Missouri employers recently
held that an employer did not
engage in unlawful discrimination by
reducing an employee’s hours. According
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
a minor decrease in an employee’s
hours does not constitute an adverse
employment action. Report Link Texas Worker's Failure-To-Promote Claim Rejected By Court (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - August 10, 2005 The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
in Texas recently dismissed a
lawsuit brought by an African-American
worker who claimed that she was
denied a promotion based on her age,
race and gender. According to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the worker
failed to prove that she was more qualified
that a younger, male employee
who was selected for the position. Report Link Probation Officer May Bring Race Bias Claim Over Wage Issue (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - April 21, 2005 The federal appellate court with jurisdiction
in Alabama recently held
that an employer’s decision not to give
an employee a five percent raise may
constitute an “adverse employment
action” under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. Report Link Personal Disappointments about Working Condition Are Not Enough To State a Claim of Discrimination.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 20, 2004 On May 13, 2004, the Second Circuit (the Federal Appeals Court covering Long Island) held that an "adverse employment action" does not include subjective personal disappointments about working conditions, giving employer's some respite from employee complaints of unfair treatment. Report Link Ninth Circuit Finds No Adverse Employment Action, Hence No Prima Facie Case Of Discrimination, Based on Written Warning or Transfer.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - November 01, 2002 The court found none of these events constituted an adverse employment action. Report Link A Job Reassignment 100 Miles Away Is Not An Adverse Job Action.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - September 01, 2002 Under a ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, a sales representative who was reassigned to work exclusively in an area 80 to 100 miles from her home failed to show that she sustained "an adverse employment action" to support her claims of sex and age discrimination. Report Link United States Supreme Court Broadens Worker's Ability To Allege Bias.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - March 18, 2002 Discusses Swierkiewicz v. Soreman N.A., No. 00-1853, 534 U.S. __ (U.S. Feb. 26, 2002), in which the court held that complaints of employment discrimination cannot be dismissed solely for having failed to plead facts to satisfy each element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie case.
|
Employment Law Seminars
Advanced Executive Briefing
Jacksonville
March 17, 2010 ConstangyManaging Intermittent Leave and the Medical Certification Process Under FMLAWebinar
March 17, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsWho Says Social Networking Is Just for Kids?Chicago
March 17, 2010 LittlerHR Madness: The Road to a Winning WorkplaceJacksonville
March 18, 2010 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyOntario
March 18, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsUnder Pressure: What You Need to Know About Immigration Regs. to Keep Your Health Care OrganizationWebinar
March 18, 2010 Vedder Price2010 Employment Law UpdateSeattle
March 18, 2010 Littler2010 Public Sector Employment Law UpdateSurprise
March 18, 2010 LittlerUp in Smoke? What Does Colorado's Medical Marijuana Law Really Mean for Employers?Denver
March 18, 2010 LittlerEmployment Law 101 for HR ProfessionalsLas Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 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