Recent Blog Posts
When A Sexual Harassment Victim Makes A Complaint Employers Must Take Remedial Action
In Fuller v. City of Oakland, Cal., 47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1995), the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “[o]nce an employer knows or should know of [sexual] harassment, a remedial obligation kicks in” and “[t]hat obligation will not be discharged until action—prompt, effective action—has been taken.” The remedial action taken… Read More »
Court Finds Employer’s Identifying & Then Eliminating Allegedly Biased Employee As A Decision-Maker Gets Age Discrimination Case To A Jury
In the employment discrimination context, courts have broadly defined a decision-maker as an individual who was involved in or participated in the challenged employment decision. Thus, a decision-maker for an employment decision is not limited to the individual who “pulled the trigger” or ultimately made the decision. Courts have held that an impermissible bias… Read More »
Court Finds Evidence Of Race Discrimination Where Employer Fires Employees Of A Different Race For Fighting & Then Reinstates Only One Employee
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race. In enacting Title VII, as the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Meritor Savings Bank, FSM v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the U.S. Congress intended “to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment”… Read More »
Court Finds That Supervisor’s Use Of A Racial Slur On A Single Occasion Can Create A Racial Hostile Work Environment
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (§ 1981) protect employees from discrimination on the basis of race. Discrimination cases under Title VII and § 1981 are analyzed under the same standards. Racial harassment is a form of race discrimination prohibited by Title VII and… Read More »
Attempting To Flip The Script: When An Employer’s Investigation Targets Employee Complaining About Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects employees against retaliation for opposing any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. Under well-established law, an employee who makes an internal complaint of race discrimination is protected from retaliation by Title VII. Generally, employers respond to the victim’s race… Read More »
Are Employers Automatically Liable When A Supervisor Punishes An Employee For Rejecting Sexual Advances?
Traditionally, courts have recognized that sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) comes in two forms: quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment sexual harassment. As observed by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamberlain v. 101 Realty, Inc.,915 F.2d 777,… Read More »
Can Employment Decisions Based On Proximity To Retirement Constitute Age Discrimination?
In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 613 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that Congress’ passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) “was prompted by its concern that older workers were being deprived of employment on the basis of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes.” As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in… Read More »
Florida-Based Insurance Broker to Settle Claim Filed by EEOC
Brown & Brown, a Daytona Beach-based insurance brokerage firm, is now obligated to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The employment rights agency claims that the company blatantly discriminated against an employee who was pregnant, in violation of federal law. Question about maternity leave results in… Read More »
Smoking Gun Evidence: Direct Evidence Of A Retaliatory Motive
Generally, courts have defined direct evidence of retaliation as evidence which proves the existence of a retaliatory motive without inference or presumption. Stated another way, direct evidence of retaliation is a statement by an employee who was involved in the challenged employment decision which constitutes “smoking gun” evidence of a retaliatory motive. For example,… Read More »
Court Finds Employer Can Be Held Liable For Sexual Harassment When Harassment Continues After Victim’s Complaint
As explained by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004), employers are not “automatically liable” for sexual harassment by employees. Rather, in the context of harassment by non-supervisory employees, an employer’s liability requires a showing that the employer knew or should have known… Read More »