07/02/2013 - June 24, 2013: A Good Day for Employers Defending Against Title VII Claims - The U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Victories
In 2012, more than 99,000 charges of discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Of these charges, 31,208 of them alleged retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued two much-anticipated employment law rulings, both of which are beneficial to employers confronted with these charges.
01/24/2013 - Social Media Law Reporter Guest Article: Top Five Issues to Watch in 2013
Social media touches a variety of different areas of individuals’ lives. It allows people to easily stay in touch with family and friends across the world, follow their favorite celebrity’s random thoughts expressed in 140 characters or less, and receive coupons from stores by ‘‘liking’’ or reposting certain information. In fact, it is hard for anyone with access to a computer or other mobile device to avoid being involved in social media in some way.
06/27/2011 - Texas Employees Receive New Gun Rights
As of September 1, 2011, most Texas employers cannot prohibit employees from possessing guns in their locked, personal vehicles on employers’ premises.
04/18/2011 - Fifth Circuit Rules Harassment Claims Not Viable Under USERRA
On March 22, 2011, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) does not support a cause of action for hostile work environment. This is the first ruling from any Circuit Court regarding the issue.
04/14/2011 - The EEOC Issues Final Regulations Implementing the ADAAA
On September 25, 2008, former President George W. Bush signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “ADAAA” or the “Act”) into law, broadening the definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”).
03/24/2011 - Flights of Fancy: The Supreme Court Delineates What Complaints the FLSA Protects
According to an old Russian Proverb, “A spoken word is not a sparrow. Once it flies out, you can’t catch it.” Applying this to the employment context, if an employee verbally complains that his employer is violating the FLSA, is the employee protected from retaliation? Deciding a split among the circuit courts, the Supreme Court answered the question affirmatively, eliminating the need for a net: the FLSA protects employees who file oral complaints.
03/09/2011 - Employers’ Cat’s Paw Liability: Watch Out for the Monkey Business of Supervisors
In a case decided last week, Staub v. Proctor Hospital,
a unanimous United States Supreme Court finally addressed the application of the “cat’s paw” theory of liability to employment discrimination claims, holding that an employer can be liable for an employment action motivated by a non-decision maker’s discriminatory animus.
02/22/2011 - OSHA 2010 and 2011: A Review of OSHA’s Expanded Enforcement Initiatives in 2010 and the Outlook for 2011
The business community has been placed on notice. OSHA has been actively pursuing its regulatory agenda, while also arming its arsenal to enforce compliance.
02/15/2011 - Supreme Court Again Expands Retaliation Protection
Consistent with its retaliation decisions over the past five years, the United States Supreme Court has revisited and expanded the scope of protection from retaliation under Title VII. In an 8-0 decision issued January 24, 2011, the high court expanded the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision by concluding that in certain situations, the statute allows an employee who has not personally engaged in protected activity to lodge a retaliation claim under the statute.
07/29/2010 - Litigating Arbitration Agreements: Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions Provide Guidance to Employers Looking to Avoid Court
Despite entering into arbitration agreements with their employees, employers all too often find themselves in court adverse to the very employees who have signed an arbitration agreement. The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued three arbitration decisions that have important implications for employers seeking to avoid the inside of a courtroom.