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
On 10 September 2014, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1522, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.