On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination and assures LGBTQ employees of equal treatment in all “terms and conditions” of employment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump… Read More
Posts Tagged With: U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers
It was only a few weeks ago. California employees and their lawyers were jubilant after the CA Supreme Court delivered its game-changing Dynamex decision that made it even harder for California employers to properly classify workers as independent contractors. As a result, employment protections were extended to millions of California workers who were also given the right… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Determine Legality of Class Action Waivers in Employee Arbitration Agreements
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements violate federal law. This is a huge development, with potentially far-reaching implications for many California employers. But, first, a little background (okay, actually it’s a lot of background, but it’s important) — Advantages of Arbitration Many employers require their… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Proving Religious Discrimination
On June 1, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch that, for an employee to successfully prove a religious discrimination case, that employee need only prove that his/her need for an accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employe’s adverse employment decision. There is no requirement that the employee prove… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Pregnant Employees
Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a pregnant woman on her claim that her employer discriminated against her on account of her pregnancy. The case, entitled Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., involved a pregnant UPS worker whose doctor recommended that she not life heavy objects while pregnant. When the employee requested… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Rules FICA Tax Applies to Severance Pay
On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. that severance payments made to involuntarily terminated employees are taxable “wages” subject to FICA taxes. This decision resolved a split among lower federal courts which left some employers uncertain whether to withhold and pay FICA taxes on severance… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Expands Whistleblower Liability
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOA”) included protections for whistleblowers at public companies. Section 806 of the SOA states that no publicly-traded company, or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such public company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee for whistleblowing or engaging in other protected activities…. Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Makes Retaliation Cases Harder to Prove
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. The issue in that case was whether a plaintiff alleging illegal retaliation under Title VII against her employer had to show but-for causation (i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for its… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Harassment Claims under Title VII
Back in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court announced two important decisions that clarified the scope of an employer’s liability for workplace sexual harassment under Title VII. These two cases are Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and they announced the rule that continues… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that the part of the law that requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine – the so-called “individual mandate” – is constitutional because it amounts to a tax, which Congress has… Read More
