Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Clearer Employer Liability Standards for Title VII Supervisor Harassment and Retaliation Claims
This summer, the Supreme Court issued a pair of important employer-friendly decisions. In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, 133 S. Ct. 2434, 2439 (Jun. 24, 2013), the Court resolved the question of who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a case in which an employee asserted a Title VII claim for workplace harassment. And in Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, No. 12-484, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2522-23 (June 24, 2013), the Court clarified the standard of “causation” required to prove retaliation under Title VII.
The question addressed in Vance is important to employers because employer liability for harassment under Title VII may depend on whether the harasser is a supervisor. Employers are strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors that results in tangible employment action. But an employer can avail itself of certain defenses if the harassment is by a non-supervisory co-worker. Thus, whether the harasser is a supervisor is an important preliminary question in any suit alleging harassment under Title VII. Fortunately for employers, the Supreme Court construed “supervisor” narrowly to include individuals empowered to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline other employees. While this clarified standard should assist employers in defending harassment claims, there are still steps employers should take to reduce their risk of liability.
This premium content is locked for Employment Law Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.