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
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
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimouslyy held that the ministerial exception bars a federal employment discrimination suit brought by a teacher challenging her church-employer’s decision to terminate her employment. While this holding is limited to religious affiliated employers, it firmly establishes the ministerial exception as a bar to certain employment discrimination claims against religious organizations.
The Supreme Court of Texas has agreed to hear the case of In re Frank Kent Motor Co. d/b/a Frank Kent Cadillac, No. 10-0687. In that case, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals denied the employer’s application for writ of mandamus and refused to overrule the trial court’s decision not to enforce/honor an agreement between the
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that employees, who never engaged in protected activity, can bring third-party retaliation claims against their employers when they suffer an adverse employment action due to their connection with a person who has engaged in protected activity.
The facts of Thompson v. North American Stainless are straightforward. In February 2003 North American Stainless was
In one of the most anticipated employment discrimination cases in years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the City of New Haven discriminated against non-minority firefighters when it chose to ignore the test results of a racially-neutral promotional exam because too few minorities scored high enough on the test to be considered for promotion. I previously wrote about this case and outlined
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that provisions in collective bargaining agreements that clearly and unmistakably require union members to submit statutory discrimination claims to the grievance and dispute resolution provisions of the agreement are binding and enforceable.
In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett , a dispute arose over a commercial office building’s reassignment of night watchmen employees