Contribution, Indemnification or Contract
Faced with hefty legal bills, damage awards, or settlements as a result of discrimination or harassment claims, employers have attempted to recover costs from third parties whom they perceive as causing or sharing responsibility for the problem. To this end, employers have sued unions and even their own employees in an effort to spread the financial responsibility. The theories behind such suits, and their results, have been mixed.
Features
National Litigation Hotline
Recent rulings of interest to your practice.
Recent Developments from Around the States
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard of Proof for Mixed-Motive Discrimination Cases
At the conclusion of its most recent 2002-2003 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying plaintiffs' standard of proof in "mixed-motive" employment discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. In <i>Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa</i>, the Court held that a plaintiff is required to prove by direct evidence that an unlawful factor was a "motivating factor" in the challenged adverse employment action. Instead, a plaintiff can prove his or her discrimination claim in a mixed-motive case by circumstantial evidence. As a result of this decision, defendants will find it more difficult to obtain summary judgment dismissing mixed-motive discrimination cases prior to trial, the result of which will be that more such cases will be subjected to the uncertainties of jury trials.
Features
Hostile Environment As Form of Retaliation
Can the creation of a hostile environment suffice as an adverse employment action in a retaliation claim under Title VII and in similar state and city actions?
Features
Letter from the Editor
A "hello" from our new Editor-in-Chief, Elizabeth Anne "Betiayn" Tursi.
Cameo Clips
Copyright Jurisdiction/ Television Licenses The issue of whether a TV programming license was properly terminated is to be decided by a state, rather…
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Meet the Lawyer Working on Inclusion Rider LanguageAt the Oscars in March, Best Actress winner Frances McDormand made “inclusion rider” go viral. But Kalpana Kotagal, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll had already worked for months to write the language for such provisions. Kotagal was developing legal language for contract provisions that Hollywood's elite could use to require studios and other partners to employ diverse workers on set.Read More ›
- Law Firms and the Rise of HospitalityThe law firm office cannot remain unchanged, as if frozen in time set to some date prior to the onset of pandemic, when the terms and meaning have all changed. In fact, the office must now provide benefits or an experience the lawyers and staff cannot get at home.Read More ›
- From the PTO to the FDA: What to Consider When Branding Clinical TrialsThe legal implications of branding generally arise initially for companies during the process of selecting a company name and any initial product or service names. For drug development companies, however, careful consideration should also be paid to the implications of branding a clinical trial.Read More ›
- Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.Read More ›