On Friday, the Second Circuit held that a company\'s failure to investigate an in-house race discrimination complaint is not an "adverse employment action" that![\"\"](\"http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/uploads/image/500pearl(1).jpg\")
can subject. (H/T Wait a Second).
Employers Get Big Win at Supreme Court and Why Employers Should Ignore It
Leave it to the Supreme Court to come out with a decision on discrimination while Im attending the ABA Presidential Summit on Diversity which Ill be live-tweeting and blogging from starting on Friday.ampnbsp
So, while Ive been tied up for most of the day, the news sites and employment law
blogs have been a buzz with summaries of Gross v. FBL Financial Services. ampnbspYou can view my prior coverage of the case here. ampnbsp
Each of the
blogs has done a good job wrapping up the case, including the Jottings from an Employers Lawyer, LawMemo, The Laconic Law
Blog.ampnbsp
Whats the case about technically? The Washington Employment Law Update sums it up:
In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice ...
By Cindy Caplan and Jing Li
On June 18, 2009, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing an age discrimination case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 the ampldquoADEAamprdquo must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the ampldquobut-foramprdquo cause of the employment decision.ampnbsp The Supreme Court further held that even if the employee presents some evidence that age was a factor, the burden of proof does not shift to the employer to show that it would have acted regardless of plaintiffamprsquos age.
Plaintiff Jack Gross began working for FBL Financial Group, Inc. ampldquoFBLamprdquo in 1971.ampnbsp In 2003, at age 54, Gross held the position of ampldquoclaims administration director.amprdquoampnbsp Gross was reassig...
Supreme Court Rejects quotMixed Motivequot Age Discrimination Claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that could have a significant impact on employers defending Age Discrimination in Employment Act ADEA claims. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. June 18, 2009, a 5-4 decision, the Court held that to prevail on an ADEA claim, the individual claiming discrimination must prove that age was the quotbut-forquot cause of the alleged adverse employment action Acirc i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for the individuals age.
A Company's Shifting Reasons For An Employment Decision Can Hurt The Company's Defense
A San Diego federal district court recently provided guidance on what constitutes an "adverse employment action" and how an employer's shifting reasons for its actions may affect a discrimination case. In Coyne v. County of San Diego, the plaintiff, an employee, sued her employer for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The plaintiff claimed that she was transferred to a lateral position in a different division because of her gender and because she actively supported the gender discrimination claims of other employees. The County filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties conceded that the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity. The issues were whether the transfer constituted a m...
More news & reviews:
Share:
