It's no secret that over the last decade, employees have been able to obtain large damages awards from employers in Title VII claims. Accusations of glass ceilings and racial and sexual harassment, for instance, are regularly splashed across headlines. Juries often see a sympathetic plaintiff and an employer with deep pockets. The prospect of a runaway jury is a prime motivation for employers to seek mandatory arbitration of these claims. Arbitration can in some cases reduce the costs of litigation, provide greater confidentiality, and provide a decision that is more predictable and less charged with emotion. There has been much controversy over so-called mandatory arbitration agreements, but a number of Supreme Court decisions in the last two decades have substantially refined the law in this area since the seminal case of <i>Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.</i>

Features

As Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the primary federal discrimination law) celebrates its 40th anniversary, the method of proving a discrimination claim has greatly evolved. Virtually gone are the "smoking gun" statements using the "n-word," advertisements for applicants of a certain sex, or statements that individuals over a certain age aren't qualified to apply for a particular job. Although the world hasn't reached an era of perfection, blatant discriminatory expressions or policies are comparatively infrequent in modern discrimination litigation.

The comedian George Carlin once asked, "If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?" A similar question arises in the context of sexual harassment: If a supervisor demands sexual favors of his subordinate and she silently acquiesces to keep her job, does she have a claim of sexual harassment against her employer? Despite the Supreme Court's many pronouncements on sexual harassment, the answer to that precise question is still unresolved.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Features

National rulings you need to know.

Most of us have experienced at one time or another the long arm of the Department of Justice reaching into a civil action, whether it be an SEC proceeding, a class or derivative action or a contract dispute, to intervene and stay discovery in favor of a pending criminal investigation or proceeding. And, far more often than not, the federal government's request is granted. However, courts on both coasts in the past year have shown that they are willing to scrutinize carefully government assertions of prejudice and potential witness tampering and defendants' claims of hardship and prejudice. In several instances, they have denied intervention and/or discovery stays.

Features

For companies in highly regulated industries, lawsuits and government investigations are a cost of doing business. This cost goes well beyond the fees for lawyers, experts and consultants. In the early stages of a lawsuit or investigation, much of it comes from the diversion of personnel from their business responsibilities to complying with requests for information made by an adverse party or the government. Instead of running the business, employees spend their time meeting with lawyers and reviewing historical records.

On June 24th, the Supreme Court decided a case that has sent a virtual shock-wave through the criminal justice system and threatens to upset the long-established practice of sentencing defendants under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. In <i>Blakely v. Washington</i>, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), the Court invalidated a defendant's sentence imposed under the State of Washington's sentencing guidelines by holding that the Sixth Amendment prohibits a judge from increasing a defendant's sentence based on facts beyond those found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.