LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
VanDeusen & Simons on Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP

The Supreme Court held that a terminated employee may have a claim for retaliation under Title VII, even though that employee never opposed or participated in protected activity, but alleged that his termination was the company's response to another employee's allegations of discrimination. Darrell...

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Retaliatory Discharge Lawsuits By Persons Sufficiently Close To An Employee Who Makes A Discrimination Charge; Will New York State Courts Do The Same?

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII") prohibits an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . . because he has made a charge" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Title VII allows "a...

Fourth Circuit Authorizes Retaliation by Prospective Employers Against FLSA Claimants

In a significant employment law case, the Fourth Circuit ruled last Friday that an employer may decline employment to a prospective employees due to her having made FLSA charges against a previous employer. The case, decided 2-1 over a strong dissent from Judge King, is Dellinger v. Science Applications...

Fact or Fiction: Opposing an employee's u/c request may be Title VII retaliation

That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post." Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act , an employer engages in unlawful retaliation...

Take This Job and Shove It: Discrimination Complaint Does Not Shield Employee from Firing

Over the weekend, I read this opinion from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. From the opening paragraph, it had my attention. After working at A.B. Data for four months, Michael Benes charged the firm with sex discrimination. The EEOC arranged for mediation in which, after an initial joint session...

VanDeusen on Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar: Supreme Court Holds "But-For" Standard Applies in Title VII Retaliation Cases

In perhaps the biggest employment case this term, the Supreme Court has held that a "but-for" standard – not the "mixed motive" analysis applies to retaliation claims under Title VII. In Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar , the court resolved the Circuit split that developed...

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...

Was the Ellen Pao Gender Bias Trial a Wakeup Call or Snooze for Businesses?

I intended to begin the week with a post about a company’s legal obligation to predict — yes, predict — an employee’s mental fitness for duty. Then, I started on a brief tangent on Ellen Pao , the former partner of a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, who just lost a highly...

Second Circuit Weighs in on "the Manager Rule" and Pleading Standards

Earlier this month, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Littlejohn v. City of New York addressing "the manager rule" under Title VII retaliation claims [subscribers can access an enhanced version of this opinion: lexis.com | Lexis Advance ]. Sometimes, in retaliation cases, the employee...

Retaliation Suits Under Title VII in the Fourth Circuit: Panoramic Views & the Rejection of the Manager Rule

by Benjamin W. Mounts Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To give effect to this prohibition, the statute imposes liability on employers who retaliate against employees who oppose unlawful employment practices. The U.S. Supreme Court...

Court Upholds Employee Firing After Complaining About Gay Slurs. Was That a Mistake?

Mr. Gaff worked as a custodian at a University. He claimed that, on several occasions, his subordinate called him a “fa***t.” So, Mr. Gaff complained to his supervisor. Then, Mr. Gaff was later fired. Retaliation? Now, back to this case , the one where the plaintiff claims he was unlawfully...