Many employers have implemented mandatory arbitration programs to resolve disputes with employees. When sued by an employee, an employer with a mandatory arbitration provision occasionally delays seeking an order compelling the lawsuit into arbitration. When a delay occurs, the party seeking to keep the case in court (usually the employee), may resist arbitration arguing that
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 Holds that Arbitrator, Not State Court, Must Determine Enforceability of Noncompetition Agreement
In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act arbitrators, not courts,must determine the enforceability of covenants not to compete when the parties are subject to agreements that call for the mandatory arbitration of disputes.
In Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard, two employees left their employment with Nitro-Lift and began
2011-2012 Term U.S. Supreme Court Wrap-Up of Employment Cases
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ended its 2011-12 Term. Here are summaries of the labor and employment cases decided this term.
Hosanna-Taylor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, (No. 10-553) (holding that teacher at religious school qualified as a "minister" within the meaning of the ministerial exception to Title VII and therefore
Employment Cases Scheduled for the 2011-12 Supreme Court Term
Pre-game preparations are underway for the first Monday in October when the U.S. Supreme Court will commence its 2011-12 Term. Here are the employment-related cases that are expected to be decided this Term.
Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC (10-553) To decide whether the ministerial exception, which prohibits most employment-related lawsuits against religious organizations by
Oral Complaints of Wage and Hour Violations Sufficient to Provide Protection from Retaliation
The Fair Labor Standards Act is the federal law that requires most employers to pay a minimum wage and overtime. The FLSA also includes an anti-retaliation provision that prohibits an employer from discharging any employee who has "filed a complaint" under the FLSA because of that complaint. The issue at the high court in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain
Supreme Court Blesses Cat’s Paw Theory of Discrimination
The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered the circumstances when an employer may be liable for employment discrimination based on the unlawful, discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, an ultimate employment decision. This theory is commonly referred to as the Cat’s Paw theory derived from fable about the monkey who convinces the cat
Supreme Court Recognizes Third-Party Retaliation Claims under Title VII
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
U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Disparate Impact Win for Employer
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded a win the City of Chicago obtained against an African-American class of firefighter applicants seeking positions with the City. In Lewis v. City of Chicago, a group of firefighter applicants filed a lawsuit against the City challenging the City’s 1996 decision that it would only consider those applicants who scored "well-qualified" on
A Non-Employment Case Important to Employment Lawyers
In a non-employment case of significant importance to employers and employment lawyers, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and is therefore not permitted. This case arose out of an MDL antitrust case alleging that certain competitors were engaged in