Library Search
-
Back to the Center? The Governator Puts His Stamp -- and the Brakes -- on California's Employment Legislation in 2004 ( February 2005 )
With the recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis, and the installation of Arnold Schwarzenegger as his successor late last year, employers expected a change in approach to Sacramento's ever-increasing legislation of the workplace in the Golden State. The employers' expectations have been met -- and how! -
Texas Supreme Court Limits Emotional Distress Claims ( February 2005 )
On August 27, 2004, the Texas Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Zeltwanger. This decision has resulted in a significant change in Texas law on intentional infliction of emotional distress claims — a change that is favorable to employers. The case had garnered substantial publicity as a result of the eight-figure judgment against the employer (Roche). -
Supreme Court Extends Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense To Certain Constructive Discharge Cases ( February 2005 )
On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in <em>Pennsylvania State Police v. Suder</em> and extended the affirmative defense originally outlined in <em>Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton</em> to constructive discharge cases. In Suder, the Court held that an employee's failure to seek recourse under an employer's non-discrimination/non-harassment policy may bar a claim that the employee was forced to resign because of intolerable working conditions. -
Sexual Harassment: An Ounce Of Corporate Prevention ( September 2004 )
Sexual harassment has receive widespread media attention over the past few years, first attaining national recognition with Anita Hill's testimony at the confirmation hearings of United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and culminating with a jury verdict of $7,000,000 in the case involving a secretary's claims against a partner in the California law firm of Baker & Mackenzie. -
Hostile Environment and Constructive Discharge: When the Employer is Strictly Liable ( July 2004 )
In a clarification of the application of the affirmative defense first made available in the Court's <em>Ellerth </em>and <em>Faragher </em>decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the affirmative defense is available to employers in some, but not all, cases of constructive discharge. The critical question is whether the "quit" was precipitated by any official act of a supervisor such that the employer should be strictly liable for the consequences or, alternatively, whether the employer played no role in the "quit" and, therefore, can defend itself by proving the affirmative defense. -
Protecting Your Organization From Expanding Workplace Harassment And Retaliation Liability ( May 2004 )
Several 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasized that every employer MUST develop company policies on sexual and other forms of harassment. As part of the policy it should be stated that such behavior will not be tolerated, and shall serve as a basis for termination. -
In a highly anticipated decision for employment lawyers and their clients, on November 24, 2003, the California Supreme Court ruled in <i>State Department of Health Services v. McGinnis</i> that California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) imposes strict liability on employers for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. However, the Court also gave some hope to employers having to defend such cases.
-
The Customer Is Always Right And, In California, TheCompany May Always Be Liable: AB 76 Makes EmployersResponsible For Unlawful Harassment By Non-employees ( November 2003 )
On the eve of the recent Gubernatorial Recall Election, after sexual harassment allegations surfaced regarding his opponent, outgoing California Governor Davis signed into law Assembly Bill 76, making employers potentially liable for the unlawful harassment of their employees on the basis of sex or any other protected status by a customer, client, contractor or any other non-employee-third party over whom the employer may have no control. -
Supreme Court Rules On Evidentiary Matters Involving Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Cases ( January 2003 )
Employers generally realize that trying a 'mixed-motive"discrimination lawsuit in front of a jury may be risky; it is expensive, the stakes may be high and the outcome uncertain. The U. S. Supreme Court's recent ruling may change this dynamic in mixed-motive cases as more cases may survive summary judgment and reach a jury based on circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive
Ads by FindLaw