Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Title VII plaintiff challenging a job transfer that was allegedly ordered because of her sex but did not result in a decrease in pay or benefits may still state a claim for relief if she can show the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies “Cost” Burden for Employer Showing of Undue Hardship under Title VII
In an important case, the U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified generally the costs or expenditures an employer would have to incur before it can show that a particular accommodation of religious beliefs constitutes undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that an employer denying a
Diversity Initiatives that Grant Advantages to Underrepresented Groups Can Give Rise to Discrimination Claims
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the future viability of affirmative action plans in the academic sphere and could make significant changes to the legality of race-based admissions policies in colleges and universities. Like academia, over the last twenty years, many companies have adopted diversity and affirmative action programs (even where not required by
Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Transgender Title VII Case
In Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company, the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Phillips 66 on a claim of employment discrimination based on transgender status. While affirming the judgment for the employer, the Court wrote to reject the district court’s summary conclusion that Title VII prohibited employment
Two Day Unpaid Suspension Not a Materially Adverse Action in Title VII Retaliation Case
Retaliation cases can be more difficult for employers to defend because “revenge” is a motive easily understood and identified with. From a purely legal standpoint, retaliation cases are also more problematic to defend because of the wider variety of employment actions that are actionable under a retaliation theory. In discrimination claims, only ultimate employment actions
Employee Wins Reversal of Religious Discrimination Defeat at the Fifth Circuit
Last week I wrote about a religious discrimination case where an employer snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This week, we have a Fifth Circuit opinion where the court took away an employer’s victory in another religious discrimination case and sent the case back to the trial court
Distinction Between Supervisor/Nonsupervisor Makes $70,000 Difference in Religious Discrimination Case
The status of an employee as a supervisor or nonsupervisor can have a significant impact on the outcome of a discrimination, harassment or retaliation case. For example, if an employee who commits a hostile work environment is a supervisor, the employer could be deprived of valuable legal defenses like the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense. A recent case from
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