LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Supreme Court Issues Decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital Case

The Supreme Court ruled in Staub v. Proctor Hospital that an employer may be liable for the discriminatory animus of a supervisor who did not participate in an adverse employment decision if the supervisor's animus is a proximate cause of the adverse employment action. Facts of the Case Vincent...

Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act and adverse employment actions

In a 2-1 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in Wurtz v. Beecher Metro. Dist. that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that the failure to renew an employment contract could never be an adverse employment action. The court remanded for additional discovery as whether other employees...

Separation of Protected Activity and Discipline Can Protect Employers From Retaliation Claims

Can an employee succeed on a retaliation claim if the decision maker did not know about the alleged protected activity at the time the employer decided to terminate? The answer, according to McElroy v. Sands Casino (E.D. Pa. 1/9/14) , is no [ an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis...

De Minimus Adverse Employment Actions?

In Crane v. Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, No. 1:13-cv-1294 (3/13/15) (W.D. Mich.), the district court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a black female nursing supervisor alleging that she was discriminated against when the hospital chose to accommodate...

Get in the Zone … the No-Blacks Zone

Does Title VII permit an employer to staff its stores based on the racial composition of its customers? That’s the question at the heart of EEOC v. AutoZone , currently pending in federal court in Chicago. In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that the auto-parts retailer transferred African-American...

Third Circuit: Paid Suspension "Typically" Not an "Adverse Employment Action" Under Title VII

To state a claim for "disparate treatment" discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must allege that (s)he suffered an "adverse employment action." The statutory language encompasses hiring, firing, and “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”...

Paid Suspensions Are Not Adverse Employment Actions Under Title VII

by Marcia L. DePaula On August 12, 2015, the Third Circuit – the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over Pennsylvania – held that an employer’s decision to suspend an employee with pay was not an “adverse employment action” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...