Google is shutting down Google Reader on July 1, 2013. If you subscribe to this blog (and others) by way of Google Reader’s RSS feed, you need to take steps to preserve your subscriptions prior to next week. At a minimum, you must export your subscriptions to your computer before July 1, 2013, so they will be
U.S. Supreme Court Adopts “But For” Causation Standard for Title VII Retaliation Cases
In a case appealed from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation case may prevail only when he shows that he would not have suffered an adverse employment action “but for” his engaging in protected activity.
In the first retaliation case in several years
U.S. Supreme Court Adopts Objective Test for Determining Title VII Supervisor Status
The U.S. Supreme Court adopted an objective test for determining an employee’s Title VII “supervisory status” in Vance v. Ball State University. The question in Vance was what level of authority must an individual have to qualify as a “supervisor” for purposes of Title VII vicarious liability. This is an important issue because the employee’s status
Fifth Circuit Holds that Volunteer Firefighter is not an “Employee” for Purposes of Title VII
In an issue of first impression in this Fifth Circuit, the Court held that a volunteer firefighter making a Title VII claim of sexual harassment is not an “employee” for purposes of the statute and therefore had no legal claim.
The case arose from a suit filed by a former firefighter for the Livingston Parish
Fifth Circuit Reverses Controversial Trial Court Decision and Holds Termination of Employee for Expressing Breast Milk Constitutes Sex Discrimination
Last week the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a widely criticized trial court ruling that had held that a discharge of an employee because she was lactating or expressing breast milk did not constitute unlawful sex discrimination. In EEOC v. Houston Funding, II, Ltd, the employer moved for summary judgment arguing that Title
Stadium Employee Fired for Bringing Snow Cone Tray into Restroom Stall
One great thing about practicing in employment law and human relations is that things are never dull. Remember the television show "Kids Say the Darndest Things"? Well, employees (and contractors in this case) do the craziest things. Advances in technology allow co-workers, customers and vendors to capture these lapses in judgment and post for public consumption.
Last
Fifth Circuit Holds That Attorney’s Fees Not Recoverable In Title VII Mixed-Motive Retaliation Case
In a recent case from the Fifth Circuit, the Court held that attorney’s fees are not recoverable for a prevailing plaintiff in a Title VII mixed-motive retaliation case. In Carter v. Luminant Power Serv. Co., the plaintiff employee brought a Title VII discrimination and retaliation claim alleging that he was disciplined for his complaints of
Texas House of Representatives Approve Social Media Password Legislation
Texas has a reputation for being business friendly. More often than not, the Texas Legislature refrains from passing legislation providing solutions for nonexistent problems. However, a recent bill, passed by the Texas House and submitted to the Texas Senate would prohibit Texas employers from requesting social media user names and passwords from applicants and employees, addresses a problem
Texas Whistleblower Act Does Not Cover Purely Internal Reports of Violations of Law Says Texas Supreme Court
Texas law only recognizes a whistleblowing cause of action for public employees that, in good faith, report violations of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. In two cases reported last month, the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that internal reports of violations of law, even if made in good faith, to officials having purely internal
Fifth Circuit Holds Employer’s Mandatory Travel Program Does Not Constitute Compensable Travel Time
Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, a judgment for an employer who was sued by its employees for travel time that the employer did not include as working time. Its a complicated set of facts and you can read Griffen v. S&B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. here if you’re interested. While most employers don’t have travel time issues