Impact of Supreme Court pro-employer Title VII decisions blunted by state laws
By Julia E Judish, Ellen Connelly Cohen and Keith D Hudolin
The authors analyse two decisions by the US Supreme Court that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The US Supreme Court issued two important decisions near the end of its term that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each case, the court rejected broader Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpretations of the law in favour of setting a higher bar for plaintiffs bringing federal claims.
Employers should keep in mind, however, that the legal standards under many state and local laws may not be affected by the Supreme Court’s rulings…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Improvements proposed to regulations governing petitions to the California State Water Resources Control Board
Although the process is straightforward, the demands on the State Water Resources Control Board’s limited resources have turned the petition process into a black hole.
Deadlines coming for multinationals’ retirement plans and US taxpayers with foreign financial interests
In 2010, the US enacted a sweeping change in enforcement of its tax laws on foreign financial interests, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.