|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Nurse's Blacklisting Claim Rejected (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - January 31, 2007 Court finds former supervisor's statements were not "adverse". 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 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.
|
ArticlesFound: 9 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Managing Business Exposures Successfully: Are You "All In" For The Continual Wave Of Workplace Risks?
Irving
2008-9-4 Jackson Lewis LLPTOP TEN WAYS TO VIOLATE WAGE-HOUR LAWSSacramento
September 9, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsLos Angeles
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsCosta Mesa
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSacramento
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPUnlocking The Mystery Of Employee Privacy RightsSan Francisco
2008-9-9 Jackson Lewis LLPEmployee vs. ContractorColumbia
September 9, 2008 Nexsen PruetEmployee Free Choice Act: Labor’s Attack on Your Employees’ Right to ChooseOnline
September 9, 2008 McGuire WoodsThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActStamford
2008-9-10 Jackson Lewis LLPHOW TO CONDUCT EFFECTIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONSSan Francisco
September 11, 2008 Shaw Valenza 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