As widely reported, and as discussed in our blog post “Supreme Court Rules DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional”, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman. The Court’s 5-4 vote in U.S. v. Windsor means that same-sex couples who are legally married now must be treated in the same manner under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
By: Chuck Post
In Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court clarified a long open question, “Who is a supervisor under Title VII?” The question is important because employers are directly responsible for employee harassment by a supervisor. In the case of worker harassment of a co-worker, however, employer liability is less direct.
By: Chuck Post
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court held that employees must show that “but for” the employer’s desire to retaliate, the employee would not have suffered an adverse action (demotion, termination, etc.) against him/her. Lower courts had been split over whether the “but for” standard was…
The California Supreme Court recently granted review of Richey v. Autonation, Inc., a Court of Appeal case that vacated an arbitration award in favor of the employer. The Court rejected the employer’s argument that it had an “honest belief” that an employee was misusing his CFRA/FMLA leave, and this honest belief justified the employee’s discharge. We previously discussed the Richey case here https://www.thelelawblog.com/2012/11/articles/labor-law/the-continuing-danger-of-terminating-employees-on-leave-an-honest-belief-that-leave-is-being-misused-is-not-always-enough-richey-v-autonation-inc/ on our blog.
On December 17, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Jankey v. Lee. The Court ruled that prevailing defendants in disability access cases brought under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California Civil Code section 55 are entitled to their attorney’s fees just like prevailing plaintiffs are. The issue was vehemently disputed between that segment of the plaintiff’s bar that specializes in “shake-down” disability access lawsuits, and the California business community.