Library Search

FAQ   Summaries of Law   Dictionary

• Recent Decisions Add to Employers' "To Do" Lists ( July 2006 )
  Charles J. Mataya of Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, PLC

  New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

• Recent Decisions Add to Employers' "To Do" Lists ( July 2006 )
  Charles J. Mataya of Boult, Cummings, Conners & Berry, PLC

  New decisions seem to keep popping up everywhere, adding to the complexity of managing employees. Two recent ones deserve some special attention: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, decided on June 22, 2006, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and U-Haul Co of California, decided on June 8, 2006, by the National Labor Relations Board. The former makes it easier for disgruntled employees to claim retaliation under Title VII; the latter may call into question the enforceability of many individual employee-employer arbitration agreements.

• Ins and Outs of Retaliation Cases ( November 2004 )
  Douglas B. M. Ehlke of Ehlke Law Offices

  In retaliation cases, it matters not whether the initial workers' compensation claim filed was bogus or frivolous; a retaliation claim can be brought even on denied, rejected or even frivolous workers' compensation claims as long as the discipline, discharge or termination decision was related to filing of the workers' compensation claim. The timing of the discharge was within three weeks of his client's filing of her workers' compensation claim, and the decision may have been earlier. Never mind that his client was absent from work more than 80 times in 18 months.

• Courts Lessen Employee's Burden for Proving Retaliation Claim ( September 2005 )
  Sean C. Urich of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

  For employers, retaliation claims may very well be the scariest area of employment discrimination law because the merit of the employee's initial discrimination complaint may not prevent an employee from reaching a jury and ultimately prevailing on a retaliation claim. To establish retaliation, an employee need only show, generally, that he or she engaged in a "protected activity" (e.g., complaining of discrimination to management or filing a charge with the EEOC) and thereafter suffered an adverse employment action (e.g., termination, demotion, denial of a promotion), because of the protected activity. Perhaps for that reason, the number of retaliation-based charges filed with the EEOC has nearly tripled over the last 15 years.

• EEOC Challenges "Partner" Status - Argues Partners are Really "Employees" ( March 2005 )
  Elizabeth M. Marsh of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against one of the country's biggest and most well-known law firms, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood ("Sidley Austin"). The EEOC alleges that the law firm, which maintains an age-based retirement policy, discriminated against its own partners by engaging in a campaign of illegal age discrimination. The lawsuit seeks reinstatement of the partners, injunctive relief, and monetary damages that could exceed over $30 million.

• Whistleblower Protection Without Blowing The Whistle? The California Supreme Court Says That Employees Can Silently Oppose Discrimination and Still Sue For Retaliation ( August 2005 )
  Philip L. Ross and Nancy E. Pritikin of Littler Mendelson, P.C.

  Employees in California need not explicitly say they are opposing discrimination in order to claim retaliation, and can show opposition simply by refusing to comply with an employer's directives.

• High Court Raises Bar for Employee Retaliation Claims ( June 2001 )
  Ryan  Griffitts of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP

  This articles details a United States Supreme Court opinion that may prove very valuable to employers in defending retaliation claims brought by current or former employees.

• Retaliation Lawsuits Can Bring Surprising Results ( December 2000 )
  David A. Anderson of Parsons Behle & Latimer

  If an employee complains about his employer's conduct, and the conduct isn't actually unlawful, may the employee still have a viable claim for discrimination? Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the answer is "yes." Under that Act, an employee is entitled to complain (internally to the company or externally to a governmental agency) about what she perceives to be unlawful discrimination by the employer against any company employee. Such complaining or "opposition" is considered protected activity.

• Employer Beware: The Fair Credit Reporting Act Applies to Employee Misconduct Investigations ( May 2000 )
  Momkus McCluskey, LLC

  In 1996, Congress passed the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act, Public Law 104-208, which broadened the Fair Cre.

• Retaliation: Employers Can Escape the Appearance of Wrongdoing ( May 2000 )
  Susan E. Oliphant of Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP

  Creating and fostering an open work environment can be challenging to employers.