Retaliation and Wrongful Termination

Subscribe to Retaliation and Wrongful Termination via RSS

Yesterday’s decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless (S.Ct. 1/24/11) illustrates that retaliation may now be the most employee/plaintiff friendly area in employment law.  There, a unanimous Court held that an employee, who was fired for his fiancée’s protected activity, was also protected by Title VII.Continue Reading LAW ALERT: Jumping Off the Cliff – Supreme Court Expands Retaliation To Protect Employee for His Fiancee’s Protected Activity

The National Labor Relations Board recently created significant uncertainty about the permissible scope of an employer’s social media policy. The Board issued a complaint against an employer who fired an employee for posting negative comments about her supervisor on her Facebook page.
Continue Reading LAW ALERT: The NLRB’s Facebook Case: Employers Should Review Their Policies Dealing With Social Media

Modern-age advances in communications technology have brought both benefits and burdens to employers in recent times.  For example, email and the internet have greatly accelerated the pace by which employers may send and gather or receive vital information needed to stay competitive.  At the same time, those tools have, in some cases, distracted employees in ways that cut down on efficiency and productivity.
Continue Reading The Risk in Firing an Employee for Posting Negative Remarks on the Internet about a Boss

On May 5, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Opinion, to be published, in the case titled Porter v. Winter (9th Cir. 07-171250).  Attorney Charles L. Post prepared and submitted the briefs and attorney Lizbeth V. West appeared and argued before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Appellant, Ronald Porter.
Continue Reading Weintraub Lawyers Win Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit re: Title VII Sex Discrimination and Retaliation/Subject Matter Jurisdiction re Attorneys’ Fees

In the recent case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must prove that his/her age was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action they claim was discriminatory (e.g. demotion). Plaintiff was 54 years old when his employer reassigned him from his position as a claims administration director to a claims project coordinator. Many of his responsibilities in the director position were transferred to one of his subordinates who was in her early 40’s. Although Plaintiff’s compensation was not reduced, he believed that his transfer to the coordinator position was a demotion and filed an age discrimination claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Continue Reading AGE MUST BE THE “BUT FOR” CAUSE FOR ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION