The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Burlington Northern &amp; Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White</i> resolved a split in the Circuits when it held that a so-called ultimate employment decision is not necessary to establish a retaliation claim. Instead, the Court held that any act that might dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a claim of discrimination can create employer liability for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the decision, many commentators have expressed concern that the new standard will open the floodgates for a wave of new retaliation lawsuits, but what has Burlington Northern really changed, and what does the new framework mean for employers?

Features

In employment class actions in federal court, such as class actions under Title VII for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides the governing procedure, the most critical juncture in the case is often the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion requires the court to evaluate whether the plaintiffs have met the Rule 23 requirements and may proceed as a class; denial of the motion generally deals a devastating blow to plaintiffs' claims. In a new ruling that employers can use to support their bids to defeat plaintiffs' motions for class certification under Rule 23, the Second Circuit recently clarified ' and strengthened ' the standard under which district courts should determine plaintiffs' satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements.

Pre-employment testing has always been risky business, but a recent high-dollar jury verdict has sharpened the focus on such testing. In the latter months of 2006, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered and affirmed a $3.4 million verdict in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a case involving an employer's efforts to reduce workplace injuries through pre-employment testing.

&#133;

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

Features

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

The Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') labored a dozen years to revise its Franchise Rule ' only to give birth to a mouse.

Features

While franchise lawyers, both domestically and in foreign jurisdictions, tend to focus their primary attention on matters of importance that are specific to franchise relationships, most are keenly aware that franchising is essentially just a form of distribution. Therefore, laws and regulations of broader impact can often be of critical importance. While distribution systems may often escape the applicability of franchise laws, franchise relationships nevertheless often have to deal with those affecting distribution generally.