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
2008 Term U.S. Supreme Court Wrap-up
The U.S. Supreme Court completed its 2008-09 term. On the docket were five cases of interest dealing with employment law. Here is a summary of the holdings in those cases.
- Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., (2009) An employee’s participation in an employer’s internal harassment investigation by responding to the employer’s questions may constitute protected oppositional activity under Title
U.S. Supreme Court Holds City Discriminated Against White Connecticut Firefighters
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
Significant Win for Employers at the High Court: Age Discrimination Plaintiffs Face Higher Burden of Proof
In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.
In the case, Plaintiff Gross was employed by FBL Financial Group since 1971. In 2001 he held the
Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor for U.S. Supreme Court
By now most of you have read or heard that President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter. Judge Sotomayor is currently an appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in New York. She also served on the federal district bench before joining the
U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Oral Argument in Reverse Discrimination Case
Adam Liptak of the New York Times had an interesting preview about an important employment law case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this month. In Ricci v. Destafano, scheduled for oral argument on April 22, 2009, the Court is being asked to determine whether the City of New Haven’s
Supreme Court Holds Collective Bargaining Agreement Can Require Arbitration of Age Discrimination Claims
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