http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/17 Articles discussing race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:08:21 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7052 Article: 7052 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The U.S. Supreme Court has further expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation - an area of employment law that has exploded in recent years. Specifically, the Court held that a federal statute enacted shortly after the Civil War granting all citizens the right to enter into and enforce con-tracts (referred to as "Section 1981") can be used to bring a claim of employment-related retaliation. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7050 Article: 7050 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A federal appellate court recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an African-American manager who claimed that his discharge was racially motivated because he dated (and subsequently married) a white hourly employee. According to the court, the worker failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, and even if he could, there was no evidence that the company's explanation for his discharge was a pretext for unlawful bias. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7015 Article: 7015 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Unites States Supreme Court has recently ruled in separate decisions that two federal statutes prohibiting discrimination also prohibit retaliation, even though the statutes do not explicitly address retaliation. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6976 Article: 6976 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On May 27, 2008 the Supreme Court issued its opinion in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries. The Court held, for the first time, that plaintiffs may bring claims for race-based retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Retaliation claims already are available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1864, but that statute imposes significant limits on damages and requires plaintiffs to submit their claims for review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before they may file suit. The CBOCS ruling will have substantial consequences for employers, including exposure to unlimited damages, and a longer time period for employees to file retaliation suits. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6966 Article: 6966 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Healthcare entities continue to monitor federal court decisions related to the relationship between hospitals and credentialed physicians to determine whether hospital bylaws are being viewed by the courts as contracts with the doctors. Recently, however, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals side-stepped the “contract” issue while addressing a race discrimination claim brought by a doctor against a hospital. Instead, it analyzed the case under the typical burden shifting framework generally applicable in federal discrimination cases. Under that analysis, the physician failed to show that race was a motivating factor in the hospital’s decision to terminate his privileges there, and his case was dismissed. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6959 Article: 6959 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, (No. 06-1431), that employees may bring claims based on or arising from retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981, one of a number of federal laws addressing discrimination, provides that “[a]ll persons . . . have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Although the text of the statute does not specifically mention retaliation, the Court held that Section 1981 nevertheless encompasses retaliation claims. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6958 Article: 6958 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In an important case closely watched by civil rights and business groups, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 27, 2008, that the 19th-century civil rights statute commonly referred to as "Section 1981" provides a cause of action for retaliation. In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, a decisive majority of seven justices rejected arguments that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 should be interpreted narrowly. In an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court chose to construe Section 1981 as not only prohibiting racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, but as also prohibiting retaliation against persons who complain of such discrimination. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6954 Article: 6954 Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In its 2006 Burlington Northern decision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a relatively easy standard for stating a retaliation claim under Title VII. On May 27, 2008, it issued two decisions which, in effect, enable more employees to bring retaliation claims. Although the decisions come as no surprise, they highlight the increasing risk that employers face for retaliation claims. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6950 Article: 6950 Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In separate decisions issued the same day, the Supreme Court has given employees the okay to bring retaliation claims against their employers under anti-discrimination statutes, even though the laws make no mention of a retaliation cause of action. In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, the Court held by a 7-2 vote that a Reconstruction-era civil rights statute prohibiting race discrimination permits retaliation claims. No. 06-1431, 553 U.S. ____ (May 27, 2008). In the other case, Gómez-Pérez v. Potter, the Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that federal employees who complain about age discrimination are protected from retaliation by their employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). No. 06-1321, 553 U.S. ____ (May 27, 2008). http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6948 Article: 6948 Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Today, the U.S. Supreme Court further expanded the ability of employees to sue for retaliation – an area of employment law that has exploded in recent years. Specifically, the Court held that a federal statute enacted shortly after the Civil War granting all citizens the right to enter into and enforce contracts (commonly referred to as "Section 1981") can be used to bring a claim of employment-related retaliation.