Retaliation After Burlington Northern
April 27, 2007
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Burlington Northern & 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?
How Much Is Enough?
April 27, 2007
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 Physical Strength Testing
April 27, 2007
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.
Verdicts
March 27, 2007
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Senior Executive and Officer Litigation
March 27, 2007
In the old days, decisions made by executives and directors in the board room often were cloaked with a veil of legitimacy. Now, however, these decisions are under constant surveillance and scrutiny from outsiders and are even vulnerable to leaks from insiders. As executives and directors are thrust into the media and legal forefront, not only do they face potential personal liability for their decisions, but the corporations themselves face liability for their actions.
Title VII Disparate Pay Claims
March 27, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case of great importance to employers, <i>Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.</i> It will decide when the statute of limitations begins to run under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) ('Title VII') for certain types of disparate pay claims.
Must Retailer's Web Site Be Accessible to the Disabled?
March 27, 2007
In September 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a retailer with physical store locations may be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'), the Unrue Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 51(b)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 54.1(a)(1)), if its Web site is not accessible to the blind. <i>Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i>, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the ADA does not impose an affirmative duty on companies to make Web sites accessible to the disabled, the Target decision may represent the tip of a looming iceberg.
Litigation
February 27, 2007
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Verdicts
February 27, 2007
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
